Points to Ponder:

[T]he Sillon proposes to raise up and re-educate the working class. But in this respect the principles of Catholic doctrine have been defined, and the history of Christian civilization bears witness to their beneficent fruitfulness. Our Predecessor of happy memory re-affirmed them in masterly documents, and all Catholics dealing with social questions have the duty to study them and to keep them in mind. He taught, among other things, that “Christian Democracy must preserve the diversity of classes which is assuredly the attribute of a soundly constituted State, and it must seek to give human society the form and character which God, its Author, has imparted to it.” Our Predecessor denounced “A certain Democracy which goes so far in wickedness as to place sovereignty in the people and aims at the suppression of classes and their leveling down.” At the same time, Leo XIII laid down for Catholics a program of action, the only program capable of putting society back onto its centuries old Christian basis. But what have the leaders of the Sillon done? Not only have they adopted a program and teaching different from that of Leo XIII (which would be of itself a singularly audacious decision on the part of laymen thus taking up, concurrent with the Sovereign Pontiff, the role of director of social action in the Church); but they have openly rejected the program laid out by Leo XIII, and have adopted another which is diametrically opposed to it. Further, they reject the doctrine recalled by Leo XIII on the essential principles of society; they place authority in the people, or gradually suppress it and strive, as their ideal, to effect the leveling down of the classes. In opposition to Catholic doctrine, therefore, they are proceeding towards a condemned ideal.

We know well that they flatter themselves with the idea of raising human dignity and the discredited condition of the working class. We know that they wish to render just and perfect the labor laws and the relations between employers and employees, thus causing a more complete justice and a greater measure of charity to prevail upon earth, and causing also a profound and fruitful transformation in society by which mankind would make an undreamed-of progress. Certainly, We do not blame these efforts; they would be excellent in every respect if the Sillonist did not forget that a person’s progress consists in developing his natural abilities by fresh motivations; that it consists also in permitting these motivations to operate within the frame of, and in conformity with, the laws of human nature. But, on the contrary, by ignoring the laws governing human nature and by breaking the bounds within which they operate, the human person is lead, not toward progress, but towards death. This, nevertheless, is what they want to do with human society; they dream of changing its natural and traditional foundations; they dream of a Future City built on different principles, and they dare to proclaim these more fruitful and more beneficial than the principles upon which the present Christian City rests.

No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. omnia instaurare in Christo. [Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique §9-11 (c. August 25, 1910)]

An Anniversary and a Feast Day:

Though another anniversary of sorts is coming up,{1} today is the feast day of St. Pope Pius X among other anniversaries of note.{2} It seems appropriate to commemorate this with two tributes if you will to this pope. The first is a reference to a text of his magisterium which was promulgated on the twenty-fifth of August in 1910 -the Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique which was written to correct the excesses of a French Catholic movement called the Sillon. The text of that Apostolic Letter can be read in full HERE. A portion of the text that is particularly applicable to our age (in light of the push for gay so-called "marriage") will be quoted next in a Points to Ponder section.{3} In the meantime, in honour of His Holiness' enjoyment of fine cigars, I have decided to post the following reprisal of a December 2002 post to this weblog. Here is the relevant text:

Reading of [Fr. H's] defense of cigars as not being a vice, I was reminded of a story that a cigar smoking priest of the Diocese of Tulsa, who is now in training for the Vatican diplomatic corps, told me. When he was a seminarian in Rome, he learned that Pius X, who was the pope from 1903 to 1914, called a bishop onto the carpet to reprimand him for his scandalous misbehavior with wine, women and song, and to correct his wrongs patiently.

The pope offered the errant bishop a cigar from the papal humidor on his desk. The bishop declined the offer with the protestation, "I do not have that vice, Your Holiness," to which His Holiness replied, "If cigars were a vice, I would not offer you one, for you have quite enough vices already."

After his death, Pope Pius X was canonized a saint and is now known as St.Pius X. According to Catholic belief, a saint is a holy person who is now in heaven. Although Pope Pius X may not have become St. Pius X because he smoked cigars, smoking cigars apparently did not keep him from being a holy man who is now in heaven. Indeed, cigars may have helped him be holy.

Let us salute not only Fr. H but also St. Pius X, whom we may regard as the patron saint of us cigar aficionados. [Courtesy of the "Out of the Humidor" section of Cigar Aficianado (circa March/April 1997)]


Notes:

{1} I refer here to the two year anniversary of Rerum Novarum. Also, lest I forget to mention it, my parents were wed thirty eight years ago yesterday. Please remember them in your prayers -my father for the eternal repose of his soul and my mother who does not well handle such anniversary days anymore.

{2} As well as the anniversary of one of my writings -the stem cell piece which is three years old today. (With at least three other writings having their third anniversary within the next three weeks.)

{3} It should be obvious that any text should be read with attention paid to its proper context. In light of how the latter so often does not happen, it is noted here in brief as a kind of antecedent monitum of sorts for the benefit of the readers.

On the War, Moral and Constitutional Principles, "Supporting the Troops", Etc.
(A Dialogue With SecretAgentMan)

Our good friend and legal eagle SecretAgentMan recently weighed in on a Points to Ponder segment posted to this humble weblog last month. It is the intention of this writer to respond in a reasonable manner to SAM's post at this time. His words will be in red font with any additional sources from him quoted in dark purple. My sources will be in dark blue font.

Since I "oppose the war," I thought it might help if I tried to write an answer.[1]

The footnotes will be noted in sequence to avoid detracting from the flow of the response.

Just for the record, I have three reasons for opposing the war.

Each reason given by SAM will be responded to in sequence.

First, I oppose it because I do not think it a just war.

To deal with every possible contingent point of the "just war" thread would be to write a book. That is not the intention of this response which will touch briefly on each point raised. For a bit more context viz. SAM's position, the following is a quote from one of SAM's sources. Presumably we would get a reasonable encapsulation of his view from that interview source:

I guess I need to start out by distancing myself from the"Oh God, we're so corrupt and evil, how dare we defend our society so long as one child remains hungry" bunch who oppose the war...I don't think the war was "just" inasmuch as a just war has to be conducted according to lawful authority, and the only lawful authority the United States has, by treaty, is the UN Charter which authorizes the use of military force only with the consent of the Security Council or when a threat to national security is so immanent and direct that it is unrealistic to consult the Council.

Okay, this is a reasonable ground to start the argument from. I made my position on the war known eighteen months ago and I still adhere to that position. If SAM rereads that thread, he will see that the legitimate authority as he sees it (the UN) already sanctioned war with Iraq through previous resolutions that they were now unwilling to enforce. And of course the reason for this is only more obvious than it was then: a point that will be dealt with shortly.

I never heard anything -- including Colin Powell's presentation to the Security Council -- which convinced me Iraq posed that kind of dire threat to the United States.

For the record, my position on the war did not take into account Colin Powell's presentation to the Security Council at all for reasons that have proven to be wise on my part. And despite how it would appear to sound by noting this point, I had an intuition of sorts that it would weaken my case to include Powell's testimony at the UN because (i) the solid arguments for war I intended to present did not need them and (ii) unlike the evidences I focused on, the Powell testimony was more tenuous by its very nature.

It is never wise to base a fundamental position of any kind on tenuous information; instead the information that forms the foundation of a significant position taken should be solid.{1} Many who did not do this on the war subject were left with egg on their faces later on. However, that is not infrequent for those who are out to try and "scoop" a story -yet another reason why we at this humble weblog are not inclined towards pontificating on issues that we have not mused over for some period of time first. But I digress.

I heard proof that Iraq had an evil and murderous regime, which harbored nothing but malice toward its people, its neighbors and the United States, and that it might have had weapons of mass destruction. If that's enough for us to invade Iraq, then it's enough for me to shoot my neighbor if he's a mean, wife-beating son-of-bitch who hates me and owns a gun.

It is true that the above points are in and of themselves not enough reason to invade another nation. There has to be more and I submit that there was significantly more reason than what SAM notes above -though what he notes are additional evidences to support the fundamental reasons of course.

And the Security Council refused to authorize our attack.

As I noted in my position on the war, it is not true that the Security Council refused to authorize military action on Iraq. They were more than willing to issue the strongest statements when there was only rhetoric involved. However, when Bush went to enforce the UN's own Resolutions on Iraq, then France, Germany, and Russia balked. Those paying close attention know now why this was so. But I digress.

That about did it for me; I'm not in love with the United Nations. I think it's an insidious organization in many ways. But as long as we're publicly binding ourselves to the Charter then we ought to abide by the Charter.

Again, I refer you to my previously enunciated position on the war and also on additional information which seriously undermines your appeal to the UN on this matter. To quote from the latter link on this matter:

The United Nations opposed the war in Iraq despite Saddam violating UN resolution after UN resolution. Germany, France and Russia were heavily involved in oil-for-food?and all opposed the war in Iraq. Even though that wasn't the only factor involved, it's impossible to ignore the obvious conflict of interests.

I submit that the latter factor undermines your argument that a just war has to be conducted according to lawful authority, and the only lawful authority the United States has, by treaty, is the UN Charter which authorizes the use of military force only with the consent of the Security Council or when a threat to national security is so immanent and direct that it is unrealistic to consult the Council... Setting aside the second reason for a moment, I outlined in my position on the war more than adequate argumentation to sustain the first argument for war. Let us now consider the merits of the second point before moving onto the additional reasons SAM opposed the war.

The argument about "immanent threat" could be adequately sustained if it can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the evidence{2} that there was a connection between Iraq and Al Queda -the latter being the known organization behind the September 11, 2001 bombings of the World Trade Center. I would argue that the latter constituted the worst terrorist attack on US soil in our nation's history and that anyone who (i) headed up a sovereign nation with (ii) adequate resources who (iii) used said resources to aid those who orchestrated the attack would (iv) reasonably be considered an immanent threat to the United States. Let us now consider the evidences that presented themselves prior to the war to sustain the above points.

We already know that Saddam Hussein was Supreme Dictator for Life of Iraq, a sovereign nation. Furthermore, we also know that Iraq possessed a lot of oil and Saddam was a very wealthy dictator who built his fortune through terrorizing his own people and starving them out of their rightful share of the nation's resources. The first two points noted above are well established beyond debate. Therefore, to sustain the fourth point of the sequence (the "immanent threat to the US" argument viz. Iraq), we must present adequate evidences to buttress the third point. That will be done at this point; however with the caveat that the evidences presented below may have more or less weight in sustaining this position.

Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Exhibit J - Exhibit K - Exhibit L - Exhibit M - Exhibit N - Exhibit O - Exhibit P - Exhibit Q - Exhibit R - Exhibit S - Exhibit T - Exhibit U

Unfortunately, many of the threads I wanted to link to from The Washington Post, The Washington Times, The New York Times, and NewsMax are no longer available.{3} Nonetheless, the above evidences -some more so than others- all contribute to the theory that ties existed between Iraq and Al Queda -the latter being the group credited with the attacks on September 11, 2001. I trust that SAM will notice that only one of the links above (the last one) can be said to be blatantly partisan towards Bush. I however assert that we have to consider all potential sources -though of course those most partisan can be weighed less in the tally than those which are not so obvious. For that reason, while I would expect SAM to consider the merits of the last piece of evidence, if he chose to weigh it less than the others, that would certainly not be unexpected.

Now then, without the knowledge of hindsight that we now have which may mitigate some of those points,{4} there is evidences from a variety of sources above to point to ties between Al Queda and Iraq in several significant ways. The threads above may not in and of themselves be definitive proofs justifying a military action; however, some of them provide justifications for a military approach and possess varying degrees of probability. Furthermore, you realize I am sure that to achieve moral certainty does not require definitive proof; ergo what is noted above can supply for many people such moral certainty to justify the action of going to war with Iraq as well as with Al Queda.{5}

If both criteria as outlined by SAM have not been met by what is noted above, the first at least has viz. the UN authorizing the war in Iraq through its resolutions - a point I outline in detail in my public position supporting the Iraq war and why peaceful solutions were pointless by early 2003 if not earlier. If any more evidence is needed, then I suggest perusing this thread and this one. I would submit that taken in toto, the twenty-four threads above are sufficient evidences taken together for someone in good faith to see that the rationale for supporting a military effort in Iraq are hardly lacking -even by those who either are not conservative or who have a dislike for President Bush personally.

Second, I oppose it because my knowledge (however limited it may be) of Catholic theology on the subject of just warfare has not led me to the conclusion that all "just causes" require that war be fought, or fought immediately, or fought by direct recourse to violent arms.

This is a fair assessment. I would argue in response that the war on Saddam was at least seven years overdue -for reasons I noted in my position on the war back in early 2003. The rest of the puzzle -including probable Iraq connections with Al Queda- only strengthened that argument. As far as how to approach Saddam without the war option, there is more to fighting an enemy of the US{6} than simply going after them personally. There is also the subject of "aiding and abetting" and there remain strong (though not definitive) arguments that Iraq at sundry times and in divers manners did precisely that prior to September 11, 2001 -and even more so after 9/11.

Moreover, whether or not the present struggle in Iraq is consistent with Catholic teaching, I think the whole affair is a blunder of nightmarish proportions and should be opposed on that ground alone.

I strongly disagree with this assessment for the reasons noted at the above threads but also other posts to this weblog.{7} However, SAM has the right to his opinion. Hopefully what is supplied in this post can to some extent give him a reason to reconsider at least part of what he notes above. Remember, however mixed the bag is in Iraq now -and I will concede that the verdict thus far is a mixed one- no one knows in advance what the outcome of any action will ultimately entail. The question that we need to ask is if there was legitimate reason in this case prior to March 18, 2003 for war to be launched. SAM would recall I am sure that prior to March 18, 2003, I did not take the same degree of strictness on this subject that I did after that point;{8} however even then I was not without a degree of support for those whom I disagreed with on this subject.{9} Nonetheless, I ask SAM if the War between the States was not seen as a blunder of monumental proportions in the year and a half after the firing on Fort Sumter when the Union was getting its keister kicked in battles on a repeated basis and prospects of victory were looking bleak.

I believe a stronger argument can be made that Lincoln's war was a blunder than Bush's was has been if we compare the same time periods of conflict. Bush's war has spanned from March 17, 2003 unto the present day -or roughly eighteen months. Was the condition of the Union in mid October of 1862 better or worse than what we have seen thus far in this war with Iraq??? If you think the condition of the Union was better, then please explain to me why this was so without utilizing anachronistic argumentation. For the record, Lincoln himself did not think things were going well for some time. Indeed even as late as late 1864, he did not think his re-election was likely at all. (Hardly a stance to be taking if the success in the war up to that point was in his favour.) Anyway, ponder those points over please before you consider this war to be the "colossal blunder" that the media is trying to make it out to be. There is room for improvement certainly and some things could have been done a lot better than they have been. But that in and of itself does not constitute a "blunder" -particularly when you consider what (and who){10} we are up against.

So, can I support the troops?

That depends on how you go about promulgating objections to the war effort you may have. In wartime, certain activities that are perfectly legitimate in other time frames constitute sedition when conducted during wartime. In your case, I have seen no evidence of seditious conduct in your public utterances; if anything you appear to for the most part be exercising a form of "reverent silence" on the matter. I would therefore say "yes" to your question above since you appear to approach this from a kind of conscientious objector standpoint rather than from one which can be said to be an undermining of our efforts in Iraq. In my mind that is a distinction with a difference.

It seems to me that loyalty, like all good things, can be properly given unconditional scope only when it is directed to the highest good, namely to God alone. In reference to all other things or persons, loyalty must be qualified because its immediate object exists within a hierarchy of goods which God has created. To the extent a nation, an army, a lover, or any human cause participates in that hierarchy, it may justly demand loyalty and support. To the extent that something deviates from the hierarchy of good, whether in ends or means, it cannot demand or expect human loyalty.

I do not believe President Bush deserves any kind of "unconditional support" on the war effort or on any other issue. However, he does deserve if not public support of the troops and their efforts than at the very least those who find themselves objecting out of conscience should limit themselves to the kind of constructive criticism that seeks to avoid anything that can have the odour of sedition even proximate to it. If the latter cannot be avoided, then there is nothing wrong with silence on the subject coupled with prayer for a favourable outcome for our nation. I agree that loyalty must be qualified; however certain actions or statements which are okay in non-war circumstances are not okay in war circumstances. The lack of understanding this fundamental point is causing a lot of damage to this country's efforts in the war whether most of those who oppose the war{12} realize it or not.

It is a symptom of the times that what I have just written may well, and too easily, be mistaken as an apologia for treason.

I would hopefully not make that mistake.

E.M. Forester wrote, "If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country." Fortunately, that's a false choice.

I agree on both points.

One's dilemma isn't who to "betray," but how to live the universal truth of charity with respect to everyone -- to one's country and one's friends. The alternative, which is to determine which human cause requires unconditional adherence or unqualified rejection, is ultimately idolatrous because it gives human allegiances a place in the moral landscape which only God can truly occupy.

I am sensing that you see this in too dichotomistic a way SAM. One does not have to in supporting a particular position give it "unconditional adherence." Even the Catholic Church in requiring religious submission to her ordinary teaching authority does not mean that someone has to accept every jot and tittle of rationale behind a particular position espoused. One can well give proper adherence to a teaching while rejecting some of the arguments advanced to support the teaching.{13} If one can do this in the ecclesial sphere, then one cannot expect a lesser right in the secular sphere of things.

Let's take the worst possible opinion of the war -- its moral equivalence to Roe v. Wade. That's not an opinion I hold myself.

Good because it is an example of a poor sense of proportion in one's argumentation.

To begin with, the moral issues surrounding abortion are sufficiently clear to anyone with the use of right reason as to be undebatable. But the morality of the attack on Iraq is less clear, all the more so because the government insisted that it had secret information that justified the choice for war.

True. However, we are then left asking if the government is expected to reveal all of its cards to the citizenry before making a judgment on how to respond to certain situations. Such a view would be suicidal to just public order, the common good of the citizenry, and the security of the nation. Therefore, it could not be viably tolerated.

When President Bush claimed -- and I do not brook casuistry on this subject, because the Administration's position was quite clear in the days before the war -- that Iraq posed a dire, direct, and immediate threat to the physical security of the United States, the manuals of moral theology on my shelves say that one may presume that he is speaking both truthfully and accurately.

Correct.

But when a physician points at a human being inside her mother's womb, noting the eyes, lips, fingers, etc., of a human body, observing the human being try to avoid the instruments which are pulling it to bits and says "See that? It's not to be respected as though it were a human being," one doesn't have that benefit, because the situation is clear enough to anyone with eyes and a conscience.

Agreed. There is a need for a proper sense of proportion in argumentation.

But let me assume that such equivalence exists anyway, and ask Shawn a question, not to avoid his own, but to illustrate my point.

Assuming proportionality where it does not exist is not a good foundation for an argument; nonetheless, I will in this instance (and for the sake of argument) grant you your premise.

Is it patently illogical, sheer sophistry, to support our country while opposing one of her most basic constitutional rights, the right to have an abortion?

In all honesty, anyone who thinks there is a "constitutional right" to an abortion needs to be institutionalized for mental disorder as I see it.

It is no use answering that abortion is not a basic constitutional right, whether or not that answer is based in the natural law or the history of American jurisprudence.

I disagree. Pointing out something that is not constitutional with concern for proper context (including the views of those who wrote the Constitution -none of whom can be shown to have supported abortion) is not an insignificant detail by any means. Indeed failing to do this is to overlook the sitz im leben of the Constitution itself.

Natural law[2] is not and has never been recognized by the American legal order, which is (and has largely always been) firmly dedicated to the moral primacy of secular power exercised according to the "consent" of the enfranchised.

I am not sure I completely concur with this. The Framers of the Constitution were influenced by many sources some of which were Catholic ones. For example, the Framers were all English and were acquainted with many Catholic traditions in jurisprudence or law which were either antecedent or subsequent to the so-called "reformation".{14}

Inquiring into jurisprudential history would only lead us on a merry chase through the obscurities of constitutional theory and history, neither of which are at all clear that a constitutional decision on the subject of Roe v. Wade is an illegitimate exercise of the sovereign power.

I disagree. The US Constitution presupposes the Declaration of Independence and the right to life is the first right enunciated in that text by which all men are equal under God. Furthermore, not a single one of the Framers to my knowledge saw abortion as anything less than murder; ergo the idea that the enshrined this as a "right" in the Constitution is among the most heinous of prevarications. Indeed, so grotesque of an example of calling evil "good" are the so-called "pro choice" people that there will be a place in hell reserved for them if they do not repent of this before they die.

Moreover, it is an undeniable fact that every American grants abortion the status of a constitutional right de facto if not de jure -- even those of us who oppose abortion condemn responses which one would naturally and ordinarily make to an illegal attack on life of another.

This is true. However, a lot of it is probably because there would be greater damage to the public order of society if abortionists were treated as the murderers that they are. What is needed is a definition of the three fundamental rights of man one of which is life and when it begins. Those are definitions that need to be embodied into the legal code of the United States. Once that were to take place, the strictest measures against abortionists could be undertaken without concern for damage to public order.

It is pathetic that we have fallen to the degree to where such a definition is needed but my emphasis on -and inculcation of- these principles on occasion at this weblog where it seems warranted to do is in part to help set down a foundation to eventually see that take place.

We condemn such responses because, though abortion is evil, violent repudiation of the law also traduces moral imperatives which are equally, if not even more, significant than the simple right to life...We are strange ducks, us pro-lifers. We "pledge allegiance to the flag, and to the Republic for which it stands" even though the republic's laws make a mockery of her claim to exist "under God."

Why do you think I emphasize the subjects of the three fundamental rights of man and the role of law in a just society so much SAM??? It is precisely to chart a course against this odd tendency by supplying the kind of order to the thought process that is lacking by so many who consider themselves "conservative" or "prolife." I have sought to provide through ressourcement a template for us to ground our arguments on which is consistent. Because it is consistent, it is feasible with the proper promotion to persuade people to accept the fundamental premises involved. Once that is achieved, a lot of what falls under modern "conventional wisdom" is repudiated by logical extension.

Essentially, this is a backdoor approach that aims at foundational presuppositions that govern the weltanschauung of the so-called "rights" advocates. I do not believe frontal assaults will succeed in changing societal perceptions; ergo I have opted to try to do so under the radar in a way by setting forth consistent principles of thought and challenging my adversaries to confute them in a manner that does not canonize relativism or make truth subjective. Because at bottom, no one really believes that truth is subjective even if many act as though it is.{14} But I digress.

My support for our troops is, I suspect, somewhat similar to Shawn and I saying the Pledge of Allegiance in its (present, but temporary) theocentric form. We both promise loyalty, but we do not mean thereby to step outside the hierarchy of good which God has ordained for ourselves, our country, her laws, or those who enforce them.

Such a proposition is one that never would have entered the minds of America's Founders; ergo the Pledge itself came along over a century after that in its original form (which did not include "under God" by the way) and was not inconsistent with the principles of the Framers by any stretch.

In that respect, the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge is a saving clause, a thing which makes it possible for a Christian to recite the pledge at all. And we are glad of that.

Are you saying that prior to 1954, a Christian could not recite the Pledge at all??? This is an odd notion and (as history shows) inaccurate to say the least.

We do not look for chances to "betray" anyone or anything. We seek to witness God's charity and truth to everyone -- America's soldiers and lawyers, her armies and her courts.

Agreed.

I can't say I approve of our troops having conquered and occupied Iraq, but I don't think that means I must wish them to be harmed, or even to fail in the goals of our occupation which are, broadly speaking and without reference to their institution, in general accordance with the natural law.

As I have noted already, you approach this issue from what I can tell is a position similar to that of a conscientious objector. I did not have this kind of objector in mind when I jotted those notes a month ago. Those that were in mind at that time are those who publicly seek to undermine the war effort either through (i) words, (ii) actions, or (iii) affiliations with those who act in like manner who at the same time claim to be "patriotic", "supporters of the troops", etc.

I presumed that in light of my trackrecord of utterances on the war issue -some of which is inculcated in this post- that this distinction would be somewhat self-evident. Nonetheless, I have undertaken this response to (i) hopefully clarify those points more explicitly, (ii) inculcate certain root and matrix issues that pertain to the subject matter in the area of foundational presuppositions, and (iii) develop other coordinative points proximate to both sets of points as well.

Certainly Shawn needn't say that he hopes that disaster will strike our country because it permits -- indeed, encourages -- the slaughtering of innocent children as a form of moral and political triumph.

True.

I can wish for all our troops to come home safely, successfully, and unharmed, just as Shawn may wish for all our lawyers, legislators, and judges to shake off the chains of error and come home to the teachings of the Church.

The ecclesiology of return notwithstanding,{15} yes the above paragraph encapsulates what I would like to see happen in this country and throughout the world.

In neither case must we choose who to betray, who to reject and who to damn. That isn't required, because God is in His Heaven and all's contingent on His word.

True enough.

I say, and shall continue to say until sufficient proof is brought to the contrary, that the Iraq war was not just.

The question that must be answered though is if the criteria of what is and is not viewed as a "just war" does not need to be revised in light of modern contingencies that were not on the radar screen of St. Augustine and others who have promulgated and developed respectively this theory over the centuries.{16} I am not sure this criteria can ever be met in all of its particulars in reality (as opposed to in the abstract); therefore, my approach to war has long been more pragmatic than theoretical.

That is not to say that I discount just war theory in toto of course. (Indeed, I do believe in any war the wagers should strive to conform as much as they reasonably can to those principles.) However, I fully expect any war effort to in some way or another fail to meet all the theoretical criteria to qualify as a "just war." And as I am not persuaded by the notion that any war can meet the precise requirements of "just war theory", I do not see arguments that a particular war can or cannot as decisive in taking a position on the war.

Another way of saying it perhaps is that there should be evidence that the principles of just war are being reasonably sought to in my mind justify a particular military action. Otherwise in today's climate of highly developed technology and easy mobility of resources, we could rationalize ourselves into being blown to smithereens if an enemy attacks and we spend more time amidst the ivory tower abstractions and not in the foxholes of reality where the rubber meets the road.{17} But I digress.

I'm not sure how that means I can't "support" our troops, unless the "support" demanded is the kind of unconditional approval referred to above.

Hopefully, I have swept aside the "unconditional approval" position with this post and given my friend ample points to reconsider his position from another angle.

Even if I thought the troops were sinning -- something I don't need to believe in order to think the war was unjust -- I could still pray for them and hope for their safe and successful return.

Agreed.

I can pray for the health and well-being of abortion doctors, and that they may succeed in supporting their families. One needn't wish for a person to be totally and completely consumed by all the evils of this life in order to oppose one signal sin in his character.

This argument interestingly enough supports my position on the entire "just war" subject.

In fact one mustn't do that, since God does not desire the death of a sinner, but that he be converted and live. Sinners are miserable enough as it is -- nothing I'm aware of in God's plan requires me to wish that they were more miserable than they already are. "Thy will be done." God's will covers a good deal of human unclarity about the state of souls and the right way to weave the future from the present.

Agreed.

As I said, I don't believe there's a parallel between abortionists, pornographers, etc., and U.S. soldiers in Iraq. What I've said is that, even if there were such a parallel, one can still oppose the sin without hoping that every present aspect of every true good in the sinner's life be stripped away from him. I don't want Hugh Heffner to live in a cardboard box beneath an underpass, even if he does live in a sumptuous Babylonian hell-hole paid for with broken families, raped innocence, and ruined lives. I don't want Larry Flynt to be paralyzed, either. All I want is for them to have had their money, or met their misfortunes, while doing something honorable and good for mankind.

Agreed.

If I can -- and should -- wish for that in the case of abortionists and pornographers, surely I can -- and should, and do -- wish for equal or even greater good in the lives of U.S. soldiers who are, at present, struggling to preserve Iraq from the barbarity that seems to be preferred by the Iraqis themselves.

Ok.

Yes, I wish they hadn't gone.

Understood. I again hope it is clear that my position prior to the launch of the war was much more accommodating than it later became. That is in part because of the belief that prior to a judgment by a superior, the maximum of freedom in deliberation that is consistent with just public order and the common good should be promoted.

I don't think it was just to have sent them there.

Fair enough. There is enough ambiguity in the "just war" theory to facilitate someone coming to varying conclusions on this point.

But I support the troops.

I believe you SAM. Hopefully this note (i) explains the intention of that post that you referred to in light of previous statements I have made on this matter and (ii) makes it clear that people such as yourself were not the intended targets of those musings.

God bless them and keep them from harm, grant them victory in battle, and success in preserving Iraq from the clutches of Satan.

Amen.

SAM's Notes:

[1] There are, of course, persons to whom Shawn's point applies in full force. You can read about such people here. But I am writing to defend other people, not the John Kerrys, Jane Fondas, and Tom Haydens of the world.

[2] I do not speak here of "natural rights," which is the post-Enlightenment attempt to find the law in pure, unaided, rationality, in the sheer right operating of the human mind, acknowledging at the same time that "right operating" does not require or permit any recourse to divine revelation. One can -- and many American jurisprudes have -- made arguments against abortion on the basis of natural rights. One can -- and just as many American jurisprudes have -- made arguments for abortion on the basis of natural rights.

Notes:

{1} That is why it took me months to finally weigh in on that position publicly. Many of those who were too quick and who based their positions on tenuous evidences had to retract in a manner that caused them to lose face.

{2} I will let the counselor choose the level of proof that is acceptable to him.

{3} I was shooting for a lot more than what was actually posted above; however some threads that once were accessible by major media outlets now no longer are for whatever reason.

{4} It does no one any good to argue anachronistically; ergo I trust you will avoid this in any responses to this post.

{5} This also applies to some of those who either are not conservative or even (perhaps) who dislike President Bush personally.

{6} And one I might add who quite clearly wants to see us either converted or killed.

{7} There are at least sixteen threads in the archives of this weblog on the war in Iraq over the past two years.

{8} I plan to post a response to my friend Lane Core Jr. about the war from our private correspondence. I hope to do so tonight before bedtime but if not it will be one of my first blog entries tomorrow. Right now I have errands to run but after the Presidents speech, my friends our path is now clear war-wise. And since war is now inevitable (barring Hussein's going into exile in the next 48 hours) we are no longer in the realm of speculation. May the Lord protect our soldiers and also all innocent people in Iraq...[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa (March 17, 2003)]

{9} Taking the JunkYard BLOG to Task on Iraq and the Vatican (Rerum Novarum post circa March 23, 2003)

{10} Again, I refer to the links at footnote six and also this one on the seriousness of the conflict and the enemy we face.

{11} I was not without some sympathy for those who disagreed with me provided that they did so in a manner that would not be viewed as seditious. See the link in footnote nine where I defending the pope's position on the war despite disagreeing quite strongly with him (to my discomfort) on the matter.

{12} I do not expect non-Catholics (particularly those who view reason and an empiricist understanding of the world as the highest possible truth) to understand this principle. However, as they act the same way in presupposing reason and an empiricist understanding of the world in this manner a priori, at the very least they demonstrate with their foundational presuppositions precisely what I am referring to here whether they realize it or not.

{13} For example, there is Bellarmine's writings on Church-State relations: a couple threads of which are discussed HERE and HERE. It would be untrue to claim that the Framers were carbon copies of Bellarmine's thought as some imprudent zealots for the US Constitution have asserted. However, that there are clear Bellarminean principles evinced in founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the later US Constitution (the Articles of Confederation excluded for the moment) is frankly not even debatable to the student reasonably versed in history.

To note a few key examples, we have ancient Roman law, the Magna Carta circa 1215 and English common law originating around the twelfth century, etc. There is also the presuppositions of the Framers of the Constitution which cannot be overlooked either. All of these were saturated with natural law principles.

{14} And yes I could defend this proposition pretty easily lest anyone wonder.

{15} An Outline of Various Church Models Throughout History (Parts I-V)

{16} Kevin Miller and others...have discussed the issue of the just war. I am not sure based on what I know of the subject if *any* war can meet such stringent requirements. And in that light I am more of a pragmatist on the war subject then a theoretician...

I think it would be a situation where the waging of the war was illicit but we would be in a position where at the very least external compliance would be required if the Commander in Chief made the decision to use military force. (Suspension of inner assent would seem viable to me in this situation for those who had legitimate struggles on the issue from a just war standpoint. But there would be no room for public dissent - indeed I would view such people as borderline traitors objectively speaking from a personal level.)

Having said that though, it would seem to me that a good argument can be made that most of the requirements for a just war can be met in this situation. Because of that I could support a war provided that it was properly conducted and none of the LBJ Vietnam kind of crap was employed...

...I am moved more towards a position of supporting a war effort - whether such an effort meets the criterion for a "just war" in all of its particulars or not. Anyway, that is where I currently am at on this subject: my general distaste for war in reality (compared to intellectual abstraction on the matter) being edged somewhat by an intuitive sense that a strong show of strength is required here. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa October 22, 2002)]

{17} And I for one will do what I can to not allow my family to be harmed in defense of an abstract theory which is to some extent a movable feast. (As all judgments that touch on the prudential order ultimately are.)

This is just a note to inform the readers of Rerum Novarum that Mary H has decided to close St. Blog's Parish Hall and reopen it at a different url. The new Parish Hall can be accessed HERE.

On GK Chesterton, Red Wine, and Cigars:
(A Response to Some Email Inquiries)

Readers of this weblog who have been tuning in since the beginning are aware that your host is a fan of GK Chesterton. It was noted in this weblog early on a favourite quote of this writer's which is credited to GKC. Indeed, not long after the above post was added to the weblog,{1} I received an email from a member of the Chesterton Society both about the quote as well as the comment that I was a promoter of Chesterton -that "Apostle of Common Sense" for sainthood. I had to point out to them that a cause for sainthood can only be originated by the local ordinary in the dioceses in which the person died in;{2} ergo wherever Chesterton died, the ordinary of that dioceses is the only one who could initiate the process on his behalf.{3} Upon doing that, the subject of the authenticity of the quote itself was the next subject to arise.

With regards to the quote in question, I received it originally third hand from what I believe is a reliable source.{4} The Chesterton Society was wondering if I could authenticate it for them. As I could not, I told them this; however I will continue to leave it up as is because it is a quote that is so Chestertonian that I see no reason to doubt its authenticity in the absence of evidences for or against it.{4} Consider that Chesterton was a lover of fine cigars much as your weblog host is. And his enjoyment of red wine{5} also lends credence to the quote being properly attributed to him if not in word than at the very least in spirit. However, if it is reasonably shown that Chesterton never uttered these words{6} then I will adjust the attribution accordingly.

Notes:

{1} It was added to the margin above the links sometime in September of 2002.

{2} Except for the cause of a deceased pope which can only be originated by a successor pope.

{3} And of course if anything this weblog says about the matter helps in expediting that process, then of course that is fine by Us.

{4} Though obviously, if it is found in the works of another writer, the quote will be adjusted accordingly. Until then, I will have rare recourse to the traditional Jesuit principle of probablism on the matter.

{5} Some of my rare weblog utterances on red wine can be found HERE and HERE courtesy of the weblog archives.

{6} See footnote four.

Evidences Against the "Right Wing Media Conspiracy" Theory:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

It is strange that the California Supreme Court striking down the gay "marriage" situation in San Francisco (ruling that mayor Gavin AnyTwoSome Newsom overstepped his authority in allowing this abomination is virtually unreported in the media. I say this because in contrast to the front page stories of Newsom's allowing this sham to take place --where there was no shortage of media coverage-- this lack of media "balance" is contrary to the notions of a "conservative media bias" that so many who call themselves "liberals" or "progressives" assert.{1}

If there is a "right wing conspiracy" in the media, then they are asleep at the switch on this one. But then again, when the media spends minimal coverage on the serious assertions of the Swift Boat Veterans against Senator Kerry's credibility and continually hammers again and again at the stupid Abu Ghirab story, what do you expect I suppose.

Let us be frank: if it was not US soldiers doing this and if President Bush was not presiding over a war effort, putting panties on someone's head would be trumpeted as "liberating", "kinky", "constitutionally protected free speech", or some other ridiculous titles of presumed nobility by the same people who are supposedly "outraged" by these same actions taking place at Abu Ghirab. Anyone who doubts this can recall the media forcefeeding the masses the Maplethorpe "piss Christ" exhibit and the later "artistic expression" of the Virgin Mary portrait smeared with elephant dung while later on claiming that Mel Gibson's movie The Passion was not to be recommended because of its "gratuitous violence." Yup, that is a real media "right wing conspiracy" there folks.

Finally, if one more piece of incontrovertible evidence of blatant contradiction was needed to confute the theory of a media "right wing conspiracy", the mere fact that a movie such as Fahrenheit 9-11 is allowed to be so heavily promoted as a viable expression of a valid opinion despite countless examples of blatant errors, malicious fabrications of the evidence, and manipulating news accounts in his film to promote an agenda founded on obvious prevarications of the truth is the clincher.{2}

In summary, We for Our part find the media's continual promotion of Michael Moore while failing to give equal time to his critics to be a telling piece of evidence against the notion of a media "right wing conspiracy." And as a theory to be valid must avoid a violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction, the liberal theory of a media "right wing conspiracy" has at least three serious problems that undermine its credibility which are noted in this post.

Notes:

{1} The reader should ask if promoting gay so-called "marriage" is part of the "right wing conspiracy" or if opposing it is not more in line with "right wing" philosophy. (And from there consider the media's silence on the latter and unability to shut up about the former in the context of that musing.)

{2} If a so-called "right winger" made a film or wrote a book with a tenth of the errors that Moore's pseudo-"documentaries" contain, it would be dismissed as "partisan propaganda." Yup, a real media "right wing conspiracy" we have on our hands my friends.

Amazon Book Review Update:

For some reason, the review I sent to Amazon on the Reagan book did not get listed. I therefore resent a word for word copy of the original review back on the sixth of August and it finally posted. Intersted readers can go HERE to see the review posted. I only ask that the angelfire email address listed under "nickname" not be used to send responses -as that email address is no longer in existence.

On "Liberty", "Equality", and Christian Culture:
(A Dialogue With Charles de Nunzio)

This post is in response to some of the comments Charles posted to Jeff Culbreath's weblog in one of the comments boxes. While the text before you was originally intended as a brief response, as usually happens when responding to individuals of no small amount of intelligence, what starts out as "brief" ends up being anything but. Nonetheless, the reader can take solace in the idea that what is noted here is but a smattering of the points that could have been covered if not for this writer's conscious intention to be more economical in his utterances.

To aid in following the sequence below, Charles' words will be in shale font. This writer's words will be in regular font with all sources in darkblue font. Without further ado, let us get to it.

[O]ur ancestors bought into a lie that made "liberty" and "equality" into absolute, first-rank "virtues," not seeing the intrinsic contradiction with Christian social order induced by such deification.

All errors of one extreme beget errors of an opposing extreme. In the case of our ancestors, they reacted to the extreme of viewing people as "superior" or "inferior" by virtue of a class (or caste) system. In doing this, they took the basic truth of people being equal to one another in a manner that transcends such distinctions and overemphasized certain points to where they were removed from their proper context with certain additional truths. (The latter of which by necessity accompany and balance out those they chose to place an emphasis on.) The scale has shifted too far from one side to too far to the other now and needs to be balanced. However, that is difficult to do when you have people unnecessarily polarizing one another.

Liberty properly conceived is among the first rank of virtues.{1} However, it is usually not properly conceived by people who (as is not uncommon) ignore the parts of the equation that they do not like and overhype those which they do like. For example, with liberty properly conceived comes responsibility. However, most who are claiming a "right" to liberty envision a complete liberty without proper boundaries or the incumbent responsibilities involved. This is obviously a pseudo-liberty and was rightfully branded as an "insanity" by Pope Pope Pius IX of blessed memory and by his predecessor Gregory XVI.

All errors of course have certain truths that they embrace and in the case of the nineteenth century libertines, it was the understanding of liberty as an intrinsic right even though they did not properly conceive of all the incumbent parameters involved in this realization. The more fruitful response to these people is not to diminish liberty but to raise up a properly balanced conception of the principle and then endeavour to persuade people of good will to accept it. This writer happens to believe that the latter can be done but to succeed at it means to appeal to the better angels of our nature.{2} To do this is to require carrying the person outside of themselves and to view their wants and preceived needs as requiring subordination to society's public order as well as its common good.{3} In short, liberty cannot properly be seen as a nebulous subjective conception; therefore there has to be some objective standards by which to determine whether one is dealing with legitimate or illegitimate liberty.

Anyone who doubts the soundness of Jeff's reflections isn't living in the real world, or else just isn't grasping the underlying truths about what is driving current events.

That is a rather universalist assertion is it not Charles??? For the record, this present writer doubts the soundness of Jeff's reflections in some areas and he is (i) not living in some other world than the present one and (ii) he understands reasonably well the underlying presumptions that govern so much of what we see today.

Sun Tzu once noted that "to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." I see Jeff coming very close to that point in his reflections. If not for a reasonable grasp of history, then I undoubtedly would view things generally as Jeff does because when one looks at the surface, things look very desolate indeed.

Now I would be remiss in not noting that I have my days where I view it as a lost cause too.{4} But the problem with having that approach generally speaking is that it insures that the enemy will win physiologically speaking of course. However, we are not fighting a battle of purely empiricist proportions but instead one with supernatural and eschatological proportions.

For that reason, a Christian should always see things through the lens of victory already being achieved because it has been.{5} That does not make for smooth sailing all the time of course but in the most difficult of times, the hope of partaking in that final victory can sustain us.

If we attempt to meet people halfway in our elucidations and provide a degree of rationalism to contemporary events, perhaps we can illustrate this with sketching out in detail here some principles that are intrinsic to the natural order. I speak here of the principles of intensity and duration which properly understood can assist us. Many people strive to go at matters with white-hot intensity all the time. Physiologically this is not possible to do and the reasons for the kinds of burnout by people who take this approach are not infinite; instead you will find the reason in what I am about to say.

Intensity and duration in the natural sphere are inversely proportionate to one another. The problem with that to some extent is that it means one cannot go at things with maximum intensity for long periods of time. There has to be reprieves or a reduction in emphasis at times in a battle of duration if total exhaustion is not to be reached in short order.{6}

With a long-distance endeavour, one must hold back some of their capabilities if they want to finish the race and finish strong. As grace builds on nature, we do well to learn these lessons from nature and from what is built into the human organism by God: as we learn of what is invisible to some extent from what is visible (cf. Wisdom xiii,7-9; Romans i,20). Grace of course can extend someone beyond their normal natural capabilities{7} but it is God's prerogative to give His grace as He sees fit.{8} We must not anticipate it in our approach to issues as we are in no position to claim it as a right.

Our society has been de-Christianizing for a long time — look at the "Name That Philosopher" post below for Orestes Brownson's mid-19th Century observations about the decomposition of the family that had already begun in his day!

You can always find writers of past eras talking in this manner. Everyone who lives through a period of crisis thinks that theirs is the worst ever seen. That is the value of historical perspective above all else: it helps us have a truer sense of proportion in our assessments of the contemporary age.

I remind you of the theories of motion as discovered by Sir Isaac Newton. If an object in motion will remain in motion, then attempts to stop that object will not succeed without a greater or equal force being involved. In light of the manner whereby intensity and duration are inversely proportioned, an intense reaction cannot sustain itself for very long in opposing an object in motion -particularly if that object appeals to the lower levels of our nature from which there is continual struggle against anyway.

What must be attempted is to reverse the direction of the moving object but the approach taken has to be one focused on success over the long term. For that reason, the intensity behind such an approach has to be by logical necessity of lessor import if there is to be a conceivable reversal of trends that will be more than illusory.

For reasons too numerous to note here, society has been de-Christianizing for some time as you correctly note. However, the approach of the Counter-reformation to try and stop this phenomenon not only did not succeed but was in fact failing. The decision of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council was to try and essentially reverse the trend with an approach more offensive-oriented, more integral in its approach, and more long-term oriented. I have argued elsewhere that the authentic ressourcement methodology that permeated the weltanschauung of the Second Vatican Council was more faithful to the methods and principles of the Angelic Doctor himself than the neo-scholastic approaches advocated by the Roman school manualists. That is a subject that is beyond the scope of this response to deal with adequately; however I will note this in brief for the benefit of the readers.{9}

But with the Church's surrender (I can't really think any other word appropriate) to the modern world at Vatican II, the agents of evil have become emboldened and increasingly confident of refashioning civilization to their Satanic mold.

I can think of a word far more appropriate and it is this: the Church's assimilation of what is good in the modern world. This was done to properly appropriate it for the purposes of preaching the Gospel to the world in a manner more readily perceptible to the contemporary mind.{10} This is little different in substance than what the Church has always done in eras when she actively engaged the world in the arena of ideas. I have summarized the purpose of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council many times -usually under the rubric of ressourcement. Here is one example from a recent essay writing that you may find of interest:

[I]n light of many unsavoury elements that had been prevalent in various sectors of Church for a long time --such as an acute anti-intellectualism, a profound suspicion of science and scholarship, a loss of the sense of the local church and local customs, and also an unhealthy and untraditional legalistic outlook-- the credibility of the faith to anyone whose head was not buried in the sand was clearly at stake. For these and other reasons, it was long overdue for the Church to once again interact with the world - to engage critically and credibly the philosophical trends that had for a couple of centuries been undermining society. This kind of critical engagement was something that --with few notable exceptions--had been neglected in the Church for some time. (Particularly since the so-called "enlightenment" period onward.)

To use the words of St. Augustine, it was necessary "either to change what was done amiss, or to appoint the doing of what had been neglected." This was the purpose of the Second Vatican Council: it was convoked to "trim the boat" to use the words of Cardinal Newman. (When he spoke of a future Council correcting the perceived imbalance of the First Vatican Council on some points of doctrine.) And as such a correction was akin to some extent to taking the cap off of a radiator in ninety degree weather after a lengthy car trip, the lessons of history for those who have eyes to see are not surprising. [I. Shawn McElhinney: The 'Tradition is Opposed to Novelty' Canard Introduction Section (c. 2004)]

I would argue (and have) that far from a "surrender... to the modern world" at Vatican II, what we have is the Church again taking up a practice that during the Counter-reformation was more the exception than the rule: engaging the world and seeking to assimilate and purify non-Christian strains of thought for the sake of speaking the Gospel in an idiom more comprehensible to the people of this epoch. And with the latter, there is the situation of dealing with people who in general are more practical than theoretical, more personalist than abstractual. I explained this situation in a different place using the following words:

One of the predominant tasks of [the Second Vatican Council] was to move the Church out of the garrison posture taken in the Counter-reformation period --a posture which intensified in its isolation after the French Revolution-- and situate her once again firmly into the role of engaging the modern world. This engagement was to be in as much a proactive role as a reactive one.

The landscape had in some ways changed drastically from the days when the Church withdrew from engaging the world. The most significant differences in that interim were (i) the increasing degree of literate people with secondary education (ii) the ever-increasing mobility as a result of technological advances as well as (iii) the ability for the average person to acquire information to an extent previously unheard of. In a sentence, the era of the illiterate, immobile many with few resources being at the obvious disadvantage of the literate, mobile, and heavily resourced few was over. And therefore, a paradigm shift had taken place that needed to be addressed. [I. Shawn McElhinney: A Commentary on the Intracacies of Dialogue (c. 2003)]

Hopefully, it is clear why I do not see the term "surrender" as being an apt analogical word for the Second Vatican Council.{11}

With due respect, ... I doubt your proposed solution is all that practical. When in my 20s, I thought as you do. I have discovered, however, that logic and intellectual argument appeal only to the small minority of people.

That has always been the case Charles.

Besides that, there is one other problem, which is a correlative point of my blog post for today. Go read that, and then understand this as well: not only does the contemporary Church crisis rob us of what would be the best rallying-point for an organized resistance, the current authorities' persistent refusal to reaffirm the integrity of Catholic tradition robs the argument for the same of that authoritative aura that, not only by rights it should have, but more to the point here, is more assuring to the greater number of people of its rectitude, people who will not be moved by the force of cold reasoning alone.

I wonder sometimes when reading statements like this if Charles and I are referring to the same "authorities." Not being able to speak for him on this, I will simply note here that the problem (as I see it) is the bulk of the episcopate's unwillingness to implement the corpus of the teachings of the present pope much as they did with his predecessor. It is to be hoped that the recent episcopal scandals will shame them into doing the right thing but thus far even that appears to be a mixed bag{12} - perhaps because the worst of the scandals are probably not fully exposed yet.{13} For that reason, perhaps they will have to hit rock bottom before they will get the backbones needed to deal with the problems that confront them and their flocks.

For whose word are most people inclined to take as to what constitutes that which is a "distinct Catholic worldview"? Any of us mere individuals with our journals, blogs, and such — or, rather, whatever the Pope happens to be saying at the time?

The problem with the notion of a "distinct Catholic worldview" is that depending on who is applying the concept it can often be made to encompass a lot of external elements that are not intrinsic to the Catholic profession. The one thing that is quite "distinct" about "the Catholic view" (to the extent that one exists) is that there are a lot more points unsettled than actually settled. This was not a popular admission to make during the Counter-reformation when the myth of the "unchanging Church" and artificially inforced notions of "uniformity" held sway. But those of us who are reasonably well read and are aware of the variegated nature of the Church throughout most of her history are not about to buy into that notion for a moment.

As far as whom to accept on these matters -us bloggers or the Pope, well that answer should be self-evident to Catholics: it is the Pope. I remind readers of this list of the teaching of Pope Benedict XV on this subject:

[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. [Encyclical Letter Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum §22 (c. 1914)]

If Catholics want to see the genesis of all problems in the Church today, it is the constant violation of the above teaching by numerous Catholics -be they self-styled "traditionalists", self-styled "progressivists" or even a number of those who identify themselves as "conservatives." If Catholics cannot find the fortitude to obey their superiors, then why on earth do they think that non-Catholics will find the claims of the Church to be credible???

That is why I've come to realize that no matter how compelling I find the case for a "traditionalist" understanding of our religion to be, those arguments will convince the few and not the many. And as long as there continues to be no authoritative affirmation for our sense of what a "distinct Catholic worldview" is, there's little hope of persuading the masses of anything other than the conceptual language today's Vatican is speaking, a language that some of us realize is part of the problem, not the solution.

Charles refers here to the more personalist tone of more recent magisterial pronouncements presumably. The only thing that I see that is potentially "problematical" about this style is its expository format which can lead to rather lengthy texts. This is both a blessing as well as a burden because most people do not (and never have) read magisterial texts and with the state of modern catechesis, the Magisterium has to essentially catechise as well as teach if that makes any sense -and the form must be accomodated to the predominent mindset of the target audience which is much broader today than in years past.{14}

Fortunately, we have the Catechism of the Catholic Church now which covers a lot of these matters in a more summary format than is common in encyclical letters and constitutions of the popes or resolutions of the councils.{15} And the obvious moves in recent years --particularly the past fifteen-- by the Vatican to slowly tighten the screws is working in many areas. (Though there is still a lot left to accomplish here.)

I am left thinking of how many people in America will not be sufficiently aware of the terrorist threats posed since 9/11 until another attack takes place. This seems to have an ecclesial parallel in that the local ordinaries are probably going to need to see either another scandal --or a magnification of the 2002 scandals-- before they are moved to show backbones both individually as well as collectively as a rule rather than as the exception to the rule. But I digress.

Notes:

{1} It has to be because one cannot make an authentic act of faith without having the freedom to do so. And as salvation ultimately depends on faith, liberty must if not be a first rank virtue then at the very least proximate to a first rank virtue because of the role it plays in the theological virtue of faith.

{2} Part of which involves seeking to cultivate the religious impulse.

{3} If there is a preceived conflict between the individual and society that is.

{4} I call them my "forty acres and a generator" days.

{5} Those of us who are bound by the chains of time cannot see the eschatological reality of Christ's final victory over the Evil One.

{6} The same is the case for any endeavour we can refer to but for the sake of discussion, let us focus on running.

Though I used to be a pretty good sprinter, I do not run anymore because of what running does to the knees of those who engage too often in the activity. (And in part because of a serious knee injury suffered seven years ago which makes running an impractical and destructive activity for me to engage in now even more than it previously was.) However, we can gather an appreciation of the three phases of stress on the human organism by looking at the activity of running as an example.

Dr. Hans Selye MD identified three phases of what he termed the General Adaptatation Syndrome (GAS) of the human organism. The first is the stage whereby the organism is shocked in its reception of stress. With running, one "limbers up" first to allow the body to prepare for the initial stresses of the activity. This constitutes part of the first stage which Seyle referred to as "the alarm phase." Once the alarm phase passes, there is the second stage of adaptation which is a period whereby the body can run at an efficient pace. (Selye referred to this stage as the "stage of resistance".) However, after this stage runs its course, there is the third phase which Selye termed "the state of exhaustion." On ecclesial matters, this parallel would adequately be summarized in the periods of renewal and reformation historically.

I would argue that the Church passed from the "exhaustion" stage of the sequence brought on by the so-called "reformation" to a fresh stress impetus with the Second Vatican Council. The latter stress --due to the scope of the myriad of stresses imposed on the ecclesial organism as a whole-- has taken a few decades to adjust to. If my theory on this is correct, we are in the beginnings of the "stage of resistance" and have been for about ten to fifteen years. This would give much more reason for optimism than for pessimism -particularly since we already are assured of the outcome of this battle in favour of the forces of good. (Even if we do not see it in this lifetime.)

{7} I say "normal natural capabilities" because as a rule, we make very little usage of our intrinsic capabilities in day to day living. Or to quote the early twentieth century psychologist William James on the matter:

Every one knows on any given day that there are energies slumbering in him which the incitements of that day do not call forth, but which he might display if these were greater. Most of us feel as if we lived habitually with a sort of cloud weighing on us, below our highest notch of clearness in discernment, sureness in reasoning, or firmness in deciding. Compared with what we ought to be, we are only half awake. Our fires are damped, our drafts are checked. We are making use of only a small part of our possible mental and physical resources.[circa 1906)]

If one considers the arguments set forth above on the polarity between intensity and duration, it is easier to understand how we get through day to day activities.

{8} Obviously grace being supernatural and from an infinite source could transcend nature and take it beyond where it was otherwise conditioned to go.

{9} This argument was made in a few of my writings including the essay on the Syllabus of Errors. And though not as polished perhaps as the arguments of the aforementioned writing on this subject, it is also advanced in the following bit from my earlier treatise when addressing the common approach of certain self-styled "traditionalist" groups to inconsistently and hypocritically dump on the ressourcement theologians behind the methodology utilized by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council while giving a free pass to luminaries of the past whose methods echoed those of the aforementioned theologians:

If the 'traditionalists' and their allies were around in the time of the Angelic Doctor, they would have been one of the groups that called St. Thomas a heretic and sought to have his teachings suppressed. Based on what they think of modern philosophies and sciences today, ask yourself if we should doubt this in any way about the 'traditionalist' tunnel vision tendencies. (With regards to how they would have reacted to St. Thomas' teachings in his time period.) After all, St. Thomas did not utilize the "traditional" theological methods of his time. Which brings up another interesting point of consideration.

If self-styled 'traditionalists' are going to dump on people like Fr. Henri de Lubac SJ, Fr. Yves Congar OP, and other similarly influenced as they were (including Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) then they ought to be consistent. They ought to likewise dump on Ven. John H. Newman, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Vincent of Lerens, and St. Augustine for the same reasons. (Every single one of them to some extent had innovative insights on certain theological subjects.) But of course the so-called 'traditionalists' will not do that which underscores how utterly hypocritical they really are. Sure modern philosophy and science has its secular aspects to it but Aristotle and other Greek philosophers (not to mention Aristotelian philosophers like Averros and Avicenna and the Jewish philosopher Maimonides) preceded Aquinas and influenced St. Thomas' work in not a few aspects. Therefore, according to the so-called 'traditionalist', the Angelic Doctor if he used his formulary today would be labeled a "Modernist." Ven. John H. Newman was accused of being a Modernist after the Holy Office decree Lamentabili Sane was promulgated. The fact that his thesis and personal integrity were defended by Pope St. Pius X should shut these kinds of 'traditionalists' up. As for the rest, are 'traditionalists' going to impugn canonized saints with the charge of betraying the Church for their heavy involvement in secular philosophies and the development of methods that were "untraditional" for their respective time periods??? Of course not, these will get another free pass while Fr. de Lubac and Fr. Congar continue to be treated by them in manners akin to how many in the Church treated Ven. Newman during his lifetime. (And how not a few treated the theology of the Angelic Doctor whose orthodoxy had to be zealously defended at Lyons II by his master the aged St. Albert the Great.) [I. Shawn McElhinney: A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' Part X (c. 2000, rev. 2003)]

I trust that Charles will not see the above text as an indictment of personal nature but instead as a more generalized indictment of certain methods and presuppositions common to not a few of those who call themselves "traditionalists."

{10} This is the basis for the pastoral slant of the Council: an approach which sought to rectify an evident gap between abstract notions and their application when the rubber of abstraction meets the road of reality.

{11} A source to buttress this point from an influential prelate both prior to the Council (and also at and subsequent to the Council) if I may:

The Vatican Council was held at that period of history where it was necessary to strike a balance between two extremes both in the world and in the Church: individualism and socialism. By individualism, I mean the emphasis on the right of the individual to develop his own spirituality or economically to increase his own capital without much concern for the social good. By socialism, I mean the stress on social welfate with little concern for either the individual's religion or his morals...What the Council did was to establish equilibrium or balance between these extremes--between evangelization and human progress, between soul-winning and society-saving, between divine salvation and human liberation. It made both inseparable...It was a master stroke under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that bishops gathered from all over the world could see the new direction the Church must take--which actually was nothing else than the old direction that Christian salvation has an earthly and historical dimension, namely, the relation of the love of God and the love of neighbour. [Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen: Treasure in Clay pgs. 289-290 (c. 1980)]

{12} Since the scandals of 2002, there have been increasing traces of episcopal backbone; however they thus far have been the exception rather than the rule.

{13} I will not for the sake of brevity explain why the genesis of this scandal (not to mention a number of the priests accused of pedophilia) preceded the Second Vatican Council.

{14} When documents from the magisterium were explicitly addressed only to the clergy.

{15} Charles could (I suppose) opine that a more condensed version of the text of the CCC would be beneficial: a sentiment to which I do not disagree. And that text will be put forth at some point -much as the Roman Catechism was followed by a series of smaller catechisms drawn from its texts.

Points to Ponder:

[L]ibertarianism remains in the largest part a thought experiment for college sophomores of all ages. [Richard J. Neuhaus (circa 1997)]

In Defense of Michelle Malkin's Theory:

This is a continuation of sorts from an earlier post which touched on Michelle's recent visit to Seattle to launch the tour in support of her new book on the subject of internment.

Readers of this humble weblog are aware that I have particular definitions for terms such as theory and thesis. As I will throughout this post be referring to Michelle Malkin's position on the internment as a "theory", it is incumbent upon me to define these terms so that readers know where I am coming from in utilizing them. The definitions I will use are ones which I sketched out earlier this year in essay form and have long guided my approach to different issues. Or as I noted shortly afterwards in parsing those definitions for posting to my Miscellaneous weblog:

[W]hen one is dealing with a theory, they are dealing with both abstract notions as well as coordinating dynamic principles of action. One of the author's intellectual mentors once defined a theory as "a set of non contradictory abstract ideas (or as philosophers like to call them 'principles') which purports to be either a correct description of reality or a guideline for successful action."...

Having established a working meaning of the term theory, it is worth noting also that the word thesis according to the Merriam Webster Thesaurus is related to the word theory. (Both of them having a foundation in the term assumption.) A good way of looking at this in the current context is to view a thesis as "an abstract principle or proposition to be advanced and maintained by argument" and a theory as incorporating a thesis -or a series of theses -with a guideline for successful action. The reason for this is because a theory by its nature must involve either (i) a correct description of reality or (ii) a guideline for successful action. For this reason, any viable theory involves several principles if you will which work together.

Or another way of looking at it would be to consider that a theory is being conceived of a series of non contradictory coordinative theses or points of presupposition. When viewed in this light, a theory clearly is only as strong as the theses which support it. [I. Shawn McElhinney: The 'Tradition is Opposed to Novelty' Canard Introduction Section (c. 2004)]

In the manner whereby the preceding terms are defined, Michelle Malkin's position is properly referred to as a theory because in her book, she seeks to put forth what she claims is a correct description of reality viz the internment. As her view is not exactly congruent with the so-called "conventional wisdom" on that subject, she will be on the receiving end of many criticisms -some potentially of merit. The purpose of this post is to respond to some of the latter criticisms. The words of the critic (a Mr. Eric Muller) will be in dark green fon. Any quotes from Michelle's work as quoted by Eric Muller will be in blue font.

Michelle is undoubtedly aware that the two most prominently voiced criticisms of the government's program are these:

Being "the two most prominently voiced criticisms of the government's program", they are what we will focus on in this brief post.

1. The government evicted all American citizens of Japanese ancestry from their West Coast homes and placed them into camps, but took no action affecting American citizens of German or Italian ancestry. (In other words, if your name was, say Joe Kaminaka or Lou Matsumoto, you were evicted and confined; if your name was, say, Joe DiMaggio or Lou Gehrig, well, uh, you know.)

Michelle pointed out in her Seattle talk that (i) the Japanese attacked us, the Germans and Italians did not. Furthermore, (ii) the west coast of the United States was particularly susceptible to Japanese attack in a manner Germany and Italy could not remotely achieve. She has also noted that (iii) it is untrue to say that people of German or Italian ancestry were not also at times interned. And of course (iv) the impracticality of interning all Americans of German or Italian ancestry (which would represent about 45% or more of all Americans) made it necessary to be more selective in the internment of people of those nationalities than with the much smaller population Japanese-Americans. Other points could be noted but that is sufficient to answer the first point in macro form.

However, as Eric Muller attempts to answer these kinds of responses, it is only fair to interact with his criticisms. One of his responses to arguments like the above points include the following:

What's more, it was not true after early June of 1942--before a single Japanese American was transferred for indefinite detention in a "relocation center"--that Japan had the capability of launching a major attack on the United States. The decisive American victory at Midway ensured that. And folks, notwithstanding Michelle's assertion (page xxxiii) that this view of Midway's impact is hindsight, that's just wrong: Newsweek (June 22, 1942), The New Republic (June 15, 1942), The Nation (June 27, 1942), Time (June 22, 1942), and the Los Angeles Times (June 8, 1942) all opined that the Midway victory essentially foreclosed any large-scale sea-based attack on the continental United States.

Eric Muller appears to not understand the value of war propaganda and how important it was to the US Government that people believe that Midway was the "turning point" whether or not it was actually seen as true at the time. Obviously in retrospect, the Battle of Midway can be said to have been what Eric is claiming in this case. However, he has to be careful not to argue anachronistically and to consider what I noted above. For there are viable reasons for doubting the objectiveness of the reporting from the media outlets Eric Muller refers to.

After all, we are talking about a country (the United States) that waited almost a month to announce the Doolittle raids on Tokyo in order to put a good "spin" on that news.{1} That is correct my friends, rather than report immediately on what had happened, there was a delay in reporting in order to spin the news for propagandistic purposes.{2} Despite this treatment of the news scarcely a month earlier than Midway (circa May 10, 1942), Eric Muller seems to think we are supposed to believe that more immediate media stories such as the June 8, 1942 story from the LA Times on the Battle of Midway{3} were somehow objective assessments of the situation rather than cleverly utilized propaganda that the judgment of history happened to confirm later on.{4}

In light of the previously enunciated contemporary example of the Doolittle raid (and the press treatment of it), this notion of Eric Muller's viz. the US media's contemporary assessment of the Battle of Midway is not just a little questionable. Again, while hindsight vindicates his position; at the same time a student of history who is aware of the value of propaganda during wartime{5} is not quick to take such opining at face value. (But has just cause to see it as suspect at best.){6}

As far as the claim that Michelle's comments about Germany or Italy not having "[a] large scale espionage network akin to the one described by Japan's diplomats in the MAGIC messages", Mr. Muller boldly asserts that this claim is so easily refuted that it's not worth the effort to spell it out. Within the sentence, he has seven links to four different sources. Let us examine them now in brief.

Among the aforementioned sources, one refers to a Tyler Kent and there is no evidence in the link of "[a] large scale espionage network[.] Another link he cites to support his contentions goes to a link on German espionage but it does not prove Eric Muller's case either since Michelle was claiming that Germany and Italy did not have "[a] large scale espionage network akin to the one described by Japan's diplomats in the MAGIC messages" This statement is not the same as Michelle claiming that there was no espionage sponsored by Germany or Italy. In short, the second link fails as a refutation of one of the theses of Michelle's theory.

To resume an examination of his sources, there are another bunch of links which go to the same site at different parts. To summarize them briefly, one is to the Duquesne Spy Ring and the arrest of 33 members in 1942 who were Nazi spies. Another is to an article that starts off saying [t]he first sign of the German High Command's intention to engage in sabotage activities in the United States was disclosed by the apprehension of eight trained German saboteurs by Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation within two weeks after they had landed in the country from German submarines. At the danger of sounding redundant, again it appears that Eric Muller thinks that providing evidence of German espionage -either actual or intended- equates to the same thing as (to use Michelle's words) "[a] large scale espionage network akin to the one described by Japan's diplomats in the MAGIC messages."

Further examination points us to yet another link in the sequence which goes to the story of one single German espionage agent and then at the very end it ties in another agent. Presumably we are supposed to see these two agents a sevidence of (to use Michelle's words) "[a] large scale espionage network[s] akin to the one described by Japan's diplomats in the MAGIC messages." If that is the case, then it would be like asserting a parity between the jaywalker and the murderer because both parties wer guilty of breaking the law!!!{7} But there is more.

For in another example from Eric Muller, we are presented with a link that notes the arrest of nine Nazi spies on espionage. We are apparently supposed to conclude that nine people equates to (again, using Michelle's words) "[a] large scale espionage network akin to the one described by Japan's diplomats in the MAGIC messages."{8} The last link is another one on the Duquesne Spy Ring so we need not say anything else about it. Having noted all of these, let us recap their witness now in brief.

If this writer is interpreting Mr. Eric Muller correctly, we are supposed to conclude because of the existence of some Nazi spies and espionage rings sponsored by Germany that the existence of these espionage agents means that at least one of the theses to Michelle's theory is so easily refuted that it's not worth the effort to spell it out. Again let us reiterate: the existence of some Germany-sponsored spies and small espionage networks does not ipso facto constitute (to use Michelle's words) "[a] large scale espionage network akin to the one described by Japan's diplomats in the MAGIC messages." This should be obvious to anyone with a proper sense of proportion in their argumentation.

To summarize the first example, Michelle's words can be read in a number of ways. Hopefully the above example points out why those who are quick to try and disprove the work of another should read with greater care the sources they utilize to support their contentions. So much for the "easily refutable" part of Ms. Malkin's text. Let us move onto the second "major objection" to Michelle's theory as enunciated by one Eric Muller.

2. The actions taken against Japanese Americans were absurdly disproportionate to the scope of any security risks of which the government was even arguably aware.

Michelle apparently deals with this charge by discussing the MAGIC cabels in her book -claiming that they are largely ignored by apologists against the internment policy. But even if she is wrong in her assessment there,{9} she clearly recognizes the first fundamental of the three fundamental rights of man and that is the right to life.

In the matrix of life, faculties, and production (to use Bastiat's classic delineation), though all three intrinsically stand together, the faculty of life is the fountainhead of the others and therefore must be the final trump in the hierarchy of rights real or preceived. In the "life", "liberty", and "pursuit of happiness" denoted rights contained within the Declaration of Independence, it should stand to reason that while "liberty" trumps "pursuit of happiness" that "life" must likewise trump "liberty." I focus often on the necessary concern for the public order and the common good of society as necessary points of reference in these kinds of discussions because without this recognition, no society can possibly survive longterm. Furthermore, in a time of war, there are additional restrictions that the government can take with regards to the freedoms of individuals -as the needs of the many must in the purest of logic outweigh the needs of the few.{10}

So to summarize this brief examination of the two most prominently voiced criticisms of the government's program, hopefully it is clear that at least a couple of the theses that support Michelle's theory are not as easily refutable as critics such as Mr. Eric Muller assert that they are.

[Update: Apparently Michelle has responded to many of the criticisms of Eric Muller and company. Readers can therefore see this post as a kind of complement to her responses on these subjects. - ISM 8/09/04 5:21pm]

Notes:

{1} Objectively speaking, the Doolittle raids -heroic though they were- accomplished nothing materially speaking towards defeating Japan.

{2} In this case to give optimism to the public who were anything but optimistic after the attack on Pearl Harbour.

{3} From which the stories of the other periodicals (June 15, 1942: The New Republic; June 22, 1942: Time and Newsweek; June 27, 1942: The Nation) were probably to a large extent based.

{4} This is at least as viable a theory on the contemporary view of the Battle of Midway as the one that Mr. Muller propagates.

{5} And the US's significant employment of propaganda in numerous facets of its media coverage.

{6} One of the points that Michelle's book apparently makes is that the existence of the MAGIC cables lends credence to the position that the internment was a justified measure taken at the time, assertions of racism and the like notwithstanding. (Also, this point would mitigate any attempts to turn this writer's references to US propaganda during the war around in service of those who opposed the internment measures.)

{7} Need I point out that this is the germ of the same arguments used by the left viz. the comparison of Bush and Hussein??? (Or Abu Ghirab and the murderous policies of Al Queda???)

{8} This is an unusual notion of "large" to put it mildly.

{9} Not having read the book yet, I cannot be certain on this point -though Michelle's propensity throughout her career for doing her homework provided me an ample rationale for giving her the benefit of the doubt here. (Until I do read the book of course and see how this point is treated therein.)

{10} Mr. Spock was correct.