In defense of Trump’s foreign policy
Saturday, July 28, 2018
Tuesday, July 24, 2018
I discovered last night that an old friend had passed away a few years back and I was unaware of it. Rest in Peace F. John Loughnan and thank you for your help with project editing and other matters in years gone by.
You will be remembered often in prayer.
You will be remembered often in prayer.
Sunday, July 22, 2018
Points to Ponder:
(This is a continuation of the series started HERE. Without further ado...)
Go back and read the opening sentences of your letter. Read them again. Then read the rest of your letter. Then read it again. Try to find a single instance where you referred to your dad as a human being, a person, or a man. There isn’t one. You’ve reduced your father — the person who created you — to a set of beliefs and political views and how it relates to you. And you don’t consider your dad a person of his own standing — he’s just “your dad.” You’ve also reduced yourself to a set of opposing views, and reduced your relationship with him to a fight between the two. The humanity has been reduced to nothingness and all that’s left in its place is an argument that can never really be won. And even if one side did win, it probably wouldn’t satisfy the deeper desire to be in a state of inflamed passionate conflict.
The world isn’t being destroyed by democrats or republicans, red or blue, liberal or conservative, religious or atheist — the world is being destroyed by one side believing the other side is destroying the world. The world is being hurt and damaged by one group of people believing they’re truly better people than the others who think differently. The world officially ends when we let our beliefs conquer love. We must not let this happen... [Andrew W.K. (circa August 6, 2014)]
To be continued...
(This is a continuation of the series started HERE. Without further ado...)
Go back and read the opening sentences of your letter. Read them again. Then read the rest of your letter. Then read it again. Try to find a single instance where you referred to your dad as a human being, a person, or a man. There isn’t one. You’ve reduced your father — the person who created you — to a set of beliefs and political views and how it relates to you. And you don’t consider your dad a person of his own standing — he’s just “your dad.” You’ve also reduced yourself to a set of opposing views, and reduced your relationship with him to a fight between the two. The humanity has been reduced to nothingness and all that’s left in its place is an argument that can never really be won. And even if one side did win, it probably wouldn’t satisfy the deeper desire to be in a state of inflamed passionate conflict.
The world isn’t being destroyed by democrats or republicans, red or blue, liberal or conservative, religious or atheist — the world is being destroyed by one side believing the other side is destroying the world. The world is being hurt and damaged by one group of people believing they’re truly better people than the others who think differently. The world officially ends when we let our beliefs conquer love. We must not let this happen... [Andrew W.K. (circa August 6, 2014)]
To be continued...
I await the usual "its not real socialism/communism" claims from the usual gang of idiots on this kind of stuff...
Ortega’s Reign of Terror
Ortega’s Reign of Terror
Briefly...
Just as Finkle is Einhorn (and Einhorn is Finkle), Podesta is Manafort. Ergo, the idea of giving immunity to Tony Podesta of all people fundamentally undermines the idea that the Muller investigation is anything resembling an honest and impartial investigation as opposed to a partisan fishing expedition and witch hunt.
Just as Finkle is Einhorn (and Einhorn is Finkle), Podesta is Manafort. Ergo, the idea of giving immunity to Tony Podesta of all people fundamentally undermines the idea that the Muller investigation is anything resembling an honest and impartial investigation as opposed to a partisan fishing expedition and witch hunt.
Wednesday, July 18, 2018
"One From the Vault" Dept.
The following is a flashback to the archives of this website from 2004...
Most who call themselves "traditionalists" make the mistake of not handling problematical issues with a proper Catholic way. Hence, they gripe about Assisi and incidents like that forgetting that it is contrary to the dogma of the papal supremacy to refuse assent to the Apostolic See not only in matters of faith and morals but also in matters which concern the Church's general good as well as her rights and discipline.
Catholic dogma is clear that the pope has full authority in the areas of "feeding" (teaching), ruling (directives or disciplines), but also in "guiding" the Church. These distinctions were spelled out by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura: an encyclical that "trads" like to prooftext but obviously have not read very carefully...
That same pope condemned those who would appeal to the press or media outlets against a judgment or directive of the Holy See...
Returning to the subject of Quanta Cura and the threefold division it makes (feeding, ruling, and guiding), the trads usually toe the line with the first one and sometimes with the second one. But even people...appear to me to be falling short of the third one which deals with the Pope's ability to set the agenda for how the Church is to handle issues in a given epoch of time...
In closing, I agree with you that the concern that animates their positions is important. However, a lot of it is simply a lack of spiritual maturity on their side -something I made note of in many of my writings... [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa May 7, 2004)]
The following is a flashback to the archives of this website from 2004...
Most who call themselves "traditionalists" make the mistake of not handling problematical issues with a proper Catholic way. Hence, they gripe about Assisi and incidents like that forgetting that it is contrary to the dogma of the papal supremacy to refuse assent to the Apostolic See not only in matters of faith and morals but also in matters which concern the Church's general good as well as her rights and discipline.
Catholic dogma is clear that the pope has full authority in the areas of "feeding" (teaching), ruling (directives or disciplines), but also in "guiding" the Church. These distinctions were spelled out by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura: an encyclical that "trads" like to prooftext but obviously have not read very carefully...
That same pope condemned those who would appeal to the press or media outlets against a judgment or directive of the Holy See...
Returning to the subject of Quanta Cura and the threefold division it makes (feeding, ruling, and guiding), the trads usually toe the line with the first one and sometimes with the second one. But even people...appear to me to be falling short of the third one which deals with the Pope's ability to set the agenda for how the Church is to handle issues in a given epoch of time...
In closing, I agree with you that the concern that animates their positions is important. However, a lot of it is simply a lack of spiritual maturity on their side -something I made note of in many of my writings... [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa May 7, 2004)]
Friday, July 13, 2018
Briefly...
I pointed out to some folks on Twitter that if the standard is no president can appoint a SCOTUS nominee when under federal investigation that Stephen Breyer (appointed after Attorney General Janet Reno opened an investigation into Whitewater in 1994) needs to resign.
Somehow I doubt these "principled" folks are going to demand that now which tells us all we need to know about them!
I pointed out to some folks on Twitter that if the standard is no president can appoint a SCOTUS nominee when under federal investigation that Stephen Breyer (appointed after Attorney General Janet Reno opened an investigation into Whitewater in 1994) needs to resign.
Somehow I doubt these "principled" folks are going to demand that now which tells us all we need to know about them!
Briefly on an Upcoming Points to Ponder Series:
I came across a Q and A from The Village Voice that I contemplated posting in its entirety as a Points to Ponder installment but then realized if I did that, so much of what it would contain would be lost due to the volume of the text. For that reason, I will over the next month or so at various intervals post a small part of the piece for reflection by both you the reader as well as for your humble servant at Rerum Novarum for we can all use some material for pondering from time to time to both stimulate the mind's activation as well as exhort us to be better people. I will start the process in this posting by quoting in full the letter that served as the impetus for the response to follow in the series. Without further ado...
Hi Andrew,
I’m writing because I just can’t deal with my father anymore. He’s a 65-year-old super right-wing conservative who has basically turned into a total asshole intent on ruining our relationship and our planet with his politics. I’m more or less a liberal democrat with very progressive values and I know that people like my dad are going to destroy us all. I don’t have any good times with him anymore. All we do is argue. When I try to spend time with him without talking politics or discussing any current events, there’s still an underlying tension that makes it really uncomfortable. Don’t get me wrong, I love him no matter what, but how do I explain to him that his politics are turning him into a monster, destroying the environment, and pushing away the people who care about him?
Thanks for your help,
Son of A Right-Winger
I came across a Q and A from The Village Voice that I contemplated posting in its entirety as a Points to Ponder installment but then realized if I did that, so much of what it would contain would be lost due to the volume of the text. For that reason, I will over the next month or so at various intervals post a small part of the piece for reflection by both you the reader as well as for your humble servant at Rerum Novarum for we can all use some material for pondering from time to time to both stimulate the mind's activation as well as exhort us to be better people. I will start the process in this posting by quoting in full the letter that served as the impetus for the response to follow in the series. Without further ado...
Hi Andrew,
I’m writing because I just can’t deal with my father anymore. He’s a 65-year-old super right-wing conservative who has basically turned into a total asshole intent on ruining our relationship and our planet with his politics. I’m more or less a liberal democrat with very progressive values and I know that people like my dad are going to destroy us all. I don’t have any good times with him anymore. All we do is argue. When I try to spend time with him without talking politics or discussing any current events, there’s still an underlying tension that makes it really uncomfortable. Don’t get me wrong, I love him no matter what, but how do I explain to him that his politics are turning him into a monster, destroying the environment, and pushing away the people who care about him?
Thanks for your help,
Son of A Right-Winger
Stay tuned for more as the answer to the above letter is unfolded piece by piece in the upcoming Points to Ponder series.
Thursday, July 12, 2018
If you are a socialist at 20, you are still a clueless ahistorical dumbass.
Michelle Ray
@GaltsGirl
Replying to @instapundit
"If you're not a socialist at 20... "
3:32 PM · Jul 3, 2018
Michelle Ray
@GaltsGirl
Replying to @instapundit
"If you're not a socialist at 20... "
3:32 PM · Jul 3, 2018
How Do You Spell “Hypocrite?:” O-C-A-S-I-O-C-O-R-T-E-Z
Baasically, there is no socialist out there who is not a hypocrite but some (like Cortez) are worse than others.
Wednesday, July 11, 2018
"One From the Vault" Dept.
The following is a flashback to the archives of this website{1} from 2007...
The fact that your host does not plan to discuss this issue again until it is relevant aside for a moment[...], [Name Omitted] makes the same presumptions that theologically radical so-called "traditionalist Catholics" do on their pet issues. Much as they take an elastic application of Pope Pius X's encyclical Pascendi and try to apply its condemnations wholesale to the Second Vatican Council and the subsequent popes, [Name Omitted] does the same here with [their] own pet subjects.
Anyone even remotely familiar with general norms of theological interpretation[...] knows that condemnations are by their very nature very precise and are intended only in the sense intended, not every sense that a casual reader of a text applies to them. This is why none of the condemnations in Pascendi apply to Vatican II or to the popes since Pope Pius XII. A casual and careless reading of Pascendi or Pius XII's Humani Generis presents no small degree of problems. Those texts as indeed any text have to be read carefully and in accordance with general norms of theological interpretation if the reader is to avoid the kinds of misinterpretations which are sadly not uncommon...
Furthermore, your host has never said that anything short of a dogmatic definition is up for grabs -indeed in years past he wrote more on the authority of the ordinary magisterium and the proper sense of magisterial infallibility than any Catholic in cyberspace. But he is not now nor will he ever ascribe more to a statement of the pope or a council authority-wise than it actually contains. That is not 'minimalist' however much [Name Omitted] may want to misrepresent it but instead is a proper recognition of where the Church has spoken and where she has not...
[D]efinitions are essential for rational discourse. They are the tools of thought and those who refuse to provide them should never be taken seriously when they deign to pontificate on issues where there is a greater complexity than the conventional wisdom Readers Digest Condensed Books accounts often convey. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 27, 2007)]
The following is a flashback to the archives of this website{1} from 2007...
The fact that your host does not plan to discuss this issue again until it is relevant aside for a moment[...], [Name Omitted] makes the same presumptions that theologically radical so-called "traditionalist Catholics" do on their pet issues. Much as they take an elastic application of Pope Pius X's encyclical Pascendi and try to apply its condemnations wholesale to the Second Vatican Council and the subsequent popes, [Name Omitted] does the same here with [their] own pet subjects.
Anyone even remotely familiar with general norms of theological interpretation[...] knows that condemnations are by their very nature very precise and are intended only in the sense intended, not every sense that a casual reader of a text applies to them. This is why none of the condemnations in Pascendi apply to Vatican II or to the popes since Pope Pius XII. A casual and careless reading of Pascendi or Pius XII's Humani Generis presents no small degree of problems. Those texts as indeed any text have to be read carefully and in accordance with general norms of theological interpretation if the reader is to avoid the kinds of misinterpretations which are sadly not uncommon...
Furthermore, your host has never said that anything short of a dogmatic definition is up for grabs -indeed in years past he wrote more on the authority of the ordinary magisterium and the proper sense of magisterial infallibility than any Catholic in cyberspace. But he is not now nor will he ever ascribe more to a statement of the pope or a council authority-wise than it actually contains. That is not 'minimalist' however much [Name Omitted] may want to misrepresent it but instead is a proper recognition of where the Church has spoken and where she has not...
[D]efinitions are essential for rational discourse. They are the tools of thought and those who refuse to provide them should never be taken seriously when they deign to pontificate on issues where there is a greater complexity than the conventional wisdom Readers Digest Condensed Books accounts often convey. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 27, 2007)]
Sunday, July 01, 2018
Thursday, June 21, 2018
Charles Krauthammer, conservative commentator and Pulitzer Prize winner, dead at 68
Charles Krauthammer was a huge influence on me in a number of ways. I pray he enjoys eternal rest now!
Charles Krauthammer was a huge influence on me in a number of ways. I pray he enjoys eternal rest now!
Tuesday, June 19, 2018
Points to Ponder:
(On Legitimate Differences of Opinion)
The Catholic Church, of course, leaves many questions open to the discussion of theologians. She does this to the extent that matters are not absolutely certain. Far from jeopardizing the Church's unity, controversies, as a noted English author, John Henry Cardinal Newman, has remarked, can actually pave the way for its attainment. For discussion can lead to fuller and deeper understanding of religious truths; when one idea strikes against another, there may be a spark. [Pope John XXIII: Ad Petri Cathedram §71 (circa 1959)]
(On Legitimate Differences of Opinion)
The Catholic Church, of course, leaves many questions open to the discussion of theologians. She does this to the extent that matters are not absolutely certain. Far from jeopardizing the Church's unity, controversies, as a noted English author, John Henry Cardinal Newman, has remarked, can actually pave the way for its attainment. For discussion can lead to fuller and deeper understanding of religious truths; when one idea strikes against another, there may be a spark. [Pope John XXIII: Ad Petri Cathedram §71 (circa 1959)]
Monday, June 18, 2018
Briefly on Lay Ecclesial Hypocrisy
My second column for Where Peter Is was posted earlier today and consists of material previously posted to Rerum Novarum. I am also taking this moment to create a new subtag for Where Peter Is which will be retroactively added to my debut column posting to this humble website from Saturday.
All things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)