Authority or Infallibility - Which Approach Is Most Effective???:
That is the theme of this response to an email inquiry.
I don't want to misstep in this area that you are more expert in. So please review the following explaination of what constitutes infallible Church teaching. I'm presenting this as an answer to XXXXX, a XX-year-old Sikh, who doubts Church infallibility. Thus my attempt to keep this as simple as I can. But I fear I may have made it too simple. So please tell me what you think. Thanks for you quick review of this.
The simplest formula possible is that the Church is infallible in all that pertains to the central mysteries of the faith both explicitly and implicitly. This is the simplest and the correct understanding. Dr. Adolph Tanquerey in his Three Volume Manual of Dogmatic Theology series stated it in the following manner:
The direct object of infallibility of the Church includes all the religious truths and each individual truth which are formally contained in the sources of revelation; the indirect object embraces all those things which are required in order that the deposit of faith may be preserved entire. [Vol. I pg. 144]
Most people acknowledge the first part and ignore the second part. The latter may not be "de fide" but it was still widely held to be theologically certain prior to 1964. By explicitly taking a magisterial stand in favour of the infallibility of the secondary truths, the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council settled this issue definitively.
There are in essence two theological qualifications for truths taught definitively by the Magisterium of the Church: those which are known to be revealed and those which are known to be certain but where there is doubt as to whether or not they are revealed. You undoubtedly know that truths that are divinely revealed require adherence by divine and Catholic faith - as they are dogmas credenda. But the latter category of secondary truths is often ignored by dissenters from both the liberal and also "traditionalist" camps. Tanquerey in speaking of the latter noted that "When infallible power is exercised in respect to truths connected with revelation, truths of this kind are the object of ecclesiastical faith only". [pg. 145] Dr. Ludwig Ott in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma referred to these truths as follows:
"Catholic truths or Church doctrines, on which the infallible Teaching Authority of the Church has finally decided, are to be accepted with a faith that is based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiastica). These truths are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper". [pg. 9]
In essence you have truths that are revealed and truths that are not known to be. I phrase it this way because sometimes upon greater reflection a truth that was not known to be divinely revealed previously is proclaimed de fide.
For a teaching of the Church to be an official teaching of the Church, that is, for it to be infallibly true
Teachings that are official teachings can be either infallible or not. Infallibility pertains only as a theological qualification. It is not the criterion for the truth or irreformability of a teaching.
This also does not cover practices which are associated with dogmas:
Among the customs and practices which have been closely joined to dogma we mention especially the public rites used in the solemn celebration of the sacrifice, or in the administration of the sacraments; also the formulas of prayers and various feasts or offices instituted by the Church; or sacred practices which have been associated with doctrine.
For a practice of the Church to become a criterion of faith there are two requirements:
a. the the practice be necessarily connected with the dogmatic truth; for in imposing a practice or custom, the Church by that very fact orders that dogmas connected with this practice must be adhered to;
b. that a custom of this kind be universal or approved at least tacitly by infallible authority; for only the universal Church enjoys infallibility. Therefore a custom or practice of one particular Church produces only a probable argument for revealed truth. [pg. 177]
Section B above explains the rationale behind why canonization of saints is infallible whereas beatifications are not. Beatifications involve only a particular Church, group, or dioceses and therefore produce only a probable argument for truth. By contrast canonization imposes on the faith if you will the mandate for veneration of a saint by the universal church, a day can be put in the feast calendar, and all other rights and privileges are made applicable. It in short involves the universal church and thus infallibility is assured.
Likewise in secondary truths include promulgation of a Missal or regulations for sacramental administration, promulgating a Calendar of Saints for the universal church, canonization of saints, or other areas that are directly joined to dogmas or their facilitation and thereby fall under the protection of the Holy Spirit. Dogmatic facts also apply such as "Paul VI was a valid Supreme Pontiff" and "Vatican II was a valid ecumenical council". These are facts that are required to be protected from error because they touch directly on matters of dogma. A longer list could be made but if you want a simple formula it is this:
"The Church is infallible in all things that are by logical extension universal and pertain to preserving and expounding upon the Deposit of Faith either explicitly or implicitly".
Or if you think this person is a bit more sophisticated you can try this formulary courtesy of Tanquerey:
"The direct object of infallibility of the Church includes all the religious truths and each individual truth which are formally contained in the sources of revelation; the indirect object embraces all those things which are required in order that the deposit of faith may be preserved entire. The first part of this thesis is de fide; the second part is certain".
I prefer simply saying "infallibility extends to far more than most people are aware and religious submission of mind and will are required of all magisterial teaching whether or not it is infallible". That is after all what Traditional Catholic teaching is and it encapsulates the truth that Our Lord noted that the faith was hidden from the "wise and prudent" and given to the "little ones". The reason: the "wise and prudent" look for various ways to evade the responsibilities that the Faith demands of them whereas the "little ones" obeying with religious submission those who possess the authority to teach in the Lord's name and with His authority do His will on earth as it is in heaven.
it must:
1) define a matter of faith or morals
2) be universally proposed to all of the faithful everywhere
To "define" a teaching is properly understood as taking a position on an issue where the manifested mind of the Teaching Authority is known. If the Teaching Authority pronounces judgment on a matter that makes it clear that a given doctrinal proposition is either (a) heretical (b) proximate to heresy (c) certain (d) erroneous - that suffices for a teaching to be "defined" as that term is properly understood.
Furthermore, there are three criteria that are used for ascertaining the manifest mind of the Teaching Authority. They are (1) Types of documents used (2) The repetition of a given teaching depending on the circumstances involved (3) The words used in the formulation. ANY *ONE* OF THESE CAN MANIFEST THE INTENTION TO TEACH DEFINITIVELY. It is not a case of verifying one point or another or seeing them as instances where a certain "checklist" is needed. Any one of the above criteria suffices.
Thus if a teaching is issued in a magisterial statement of great weight such as a papal/conciliar Dogmatic Constitution, a papal Apostolic Letter, or a papal Encyclical (or a conciliar Declaration or Decree) that in and of itself means that the teaching may be definitively rendered. This is particularly the case if there is reiteration of a teaching or certain verbal formularies are used.
For there are official teaching of the popes and of ecumenical councils which are magisterial. But there is also teaching of a lower authority which still commands assent but is not definitive. An example of this would be a teaching for that was handed on in a papal dicastery such as the Holy Office - even if it is given explicit approbation of the Holy Father - has no claim to being infallible in and of itself. (However such a teaching could through reiteration hand on a teaching infallibly in an act that is not itself formally infallible.)
Thus a teaching such as Humanae vitae on forbidding artificial contraception would by both inclusion in an encyclical letter and reiteration of teaching previously taught in the ordinary magisterium would be properly understood as infallibly rendered.
Thus a teaching such as Ordinatio sacerdotalis on the reservation of priestly ordination to men alone would by inclusion in an apostolic letter and reiteration of a teaching previously taught in the ordinary magisterium (not to mention the additional verbal formulation) be properly understood as infallibly rendered.
These are not the only examples I could mention here but they suffice to make my point.
The court transcripts of Galileo’s trial (and of St. Joan of Arc’s, for that matter) fail to qualify as official on both counts.
Neither would qualify. Galileo's comes the closest but as his was handled by the Holy Office and that is a dicastery of the Holy See, what it teaches commands assent but has no claim to being infallible. Thus the Holy Office decree of 1616 would be a disciplinary decree that was magisterial (and thus binding) but Galileo's court papers would not be. (Infallibility cannot apply to individuals: it is a universal charism not a personal one.)
You need to make it much clearer that the issue is AUTHORITY and not INFALLIBILITY. The authority of the teacher teaching in the Name of and with the Authority of God Incarnate is what binds, not the subjective opinion of individuals on whether or not a given teaching is infallible or not.
Official Church teachings are derived from a trinity of sources, two extraordinary:
* popes speaking ex cathedra (i.e., in his official capacity as pope, not as just a bishop)
Yes.
* ecumenical councils
Ecumenical councils can also teach infallibly by virtue of the ordinary magisterium.
and one ordinary source:
* the pope, in union with all his bishops everywhere, teaching anything as being certainly and unquestionably true (tamquam definitive tenenda).
The above also applies to an ecumenical council teaching a truth to be held. If the bishops scattered throughout the world can teach in the ordinary magisterium then they also can at an ecumenical council. In fact, there is no greater way to verify a concurrence of the united episcopate than at an ecumenical council. Such councils are not bound only to extraordinary formularies to teach definitively. If they *were* then you can ignore most of the Decrees of Trent and Vatican I not to mention all of Vatican II. And as neither of these options is acceptable (indeed the very notion is proximate to heresy), the approach taken needs to be more correctly tempered.
It is correct to state that with regards to formal teaching of doctrine, whenever you have a situation where (1) the bishops in communion with one another and with the pope (2) teach authoritatively and in consensus on a matter of faith or morals to be held then (3) that teaching is rendered infallibly. Church infallibility is much more organic and much less legalistic than is commonly presumed.
Since the inception of the Church 2000 years ago, approximately 2,300 teachings of the Church have been codified as qualifying for infallible status.
I have no idea how many there are. One thing is certain: there are a lot more of them than most people would presume.
The sourcebook that lists them is called Henry Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum.
Well I presume you are operating from the last edition of the Enchridion Symbolorum in English which would be (I believe) the 1957 edition. There are entries in later editions of Denzinger which would add to this total you list.
Those are the rules of engagement. The field of battle are the pages of Denzinger’s source book.
Hmmmmmm...placing your case in the infallibility of the editor of Denzinger??? (In 1957 that was Karl Rahner in case you were unaware.)
The terms of my surrender are any contradictions you can find.
You have just met your Alamo then if those is your "terms". For Denzinger contains both definitions and declarations which are infallible but also contains document which are not infallible - such as decrees from the Holy Office which are authoritative but are not infallible in and of themselves. (Though they may contribute to handing on a given teaching infallibly of course.)
As long as you stake your claims on Denzinger and not on the Living Magisterum which teaches with the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, all of your attempts to retain consistency will fail. I only hope for your sake that your adversary does not read this blog or he will have you right where he wants you.
The *only* way you can cogently and consistently argue your case for the Catholic Church and avoid the fallible-infallible regression is to focus on authority and not infallibility. Infallibility depends on authority but authority does not depend on infallibility. Start your arguments with the fact that Our Lord founded a Church to teach in His name and with His authority and go from there. Otherwise you will be snared in the inevitable infinite regress and that is quicksand that is best avoided.
[It must not] be thought that what is expounded in [papal] letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who hears you, hears me"; [Luke 10:16] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in [papal] letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion..."(Pope Pius XII: encyclical letter Humani generis §20 circa 1950).
Monday, October 07, 2002
"Bastiat's Corner" Dept.
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. And in light of this installment (which is taken for granted in this installment) it would be highly recommended to read it and the others first before reading this one.
This installment will be shorter and the next one will be longer to keep the thoughts of the text as intact as possible. Without further ado, here is Mr. Bastiat:
A Just and Enduring Government
If a nation were founded on this basis,[referring to the basis covered in the last installment - ISM] it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited, nonoppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable -- whatever its political form might be.
Under such an administration, everyone would understand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence. No one would have any argument with government, provided that his person was respected, his labor was free, and the fruits of his labor were protected against all unjust attack. When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost. The state would be felt only by the invaluable blessings of safety provided by this concept of government.
It can be further stated that, thanks to the non- intervention of the state in private affairs, our wants and their satisfactions would develop themselves in a logical manner. We would not see poor families seeking literary instruction before they have bread. We would not see cities populated at the expense of rural districts, nor rural districts at the expense of cities. We would not see the great displacements of capital, labor, and population that are caused by legislative decisions.
The sources of our existence are made uncertain and precarious by these state-created displacements. And, furthermore, these acts burden the government with increased responsibilities.
Next time on Bastiat's Corner: The complete perversion of the Law, property and plunder, and more...
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. And in light of this installment (which is taken for granted in this installment) it would be highly recommended to read it and the others first before reading this one.
This installment will be shorter and the next one will be longer to keep the thoughts of the text as intact as possible. Without further ado, here is Mr. Bastiat:
A Just and Enduring Government
If a nation were founded on this basis,[referring to the basis covered in the last installment - ISM] it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited, nonoppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable -- whatever its political form might be.
Under such an administration, everyone would understand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence. No one would have any argument with government, provided that his person was respected, his labor was free, and the fruits of his labor were protected against all unjust attack. When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost. The state would be felt only by the invaluable blessings of safety provided by this concept of government.
It can be further stated that, thanks to the non- intervention of the state in private affairs, our wants and their satisfactions would develop themselves in a logical manner. We would not see poor families seeking literary instruction before they have bread. We would not see cities populated at the expense of rural districts, nor rural districts at the expense of cities. We would not see the great displacements of capital, labor, and population that are caused by legislative decisions.
The sources of our existence are made uncertain and precarious by these state-created displacements. And, furthermore, these acts burden the government with increased responsibilities.
Next time on Bastiat's Corner: The complete perversion of the Law, property and plunder, and more...
Sunday, October 06, 2002
Recapitulation of Previously Stated Intention to Reflect Upon the Issue of Covenantal Salvation:
(For the benefit of certain canonists)
The threads can be followed HERE and HERE. In light of this I profess amazement that certain apparently very obstinate canonists are not towing the line here.
You see my friends, in reading the latest over at "Canon Lawyers Obliterating GeoMetros" I see that resident canonist Petrus Verus has stated that on an issue where I have taken a position that he is inclined against my position. I suppose I could give him fourteen days to "recant" before issuing an "excommunication". Consider this your monitum Peter... ;-)
(For the benefit of certain canonists)
The threads can be followed HERE and HERE. In light of this I profess amazement that certain apparently very obstinate canonists are not towing the line here.
You see my friends, in reading the latest over at "Canon Lawyers Obliterating GeoMetros" I see that resident canonist Petrus Verus has stated that on an issue where I have taken a position that he is inclined against my position. I suppose I could give him fourteen days to "recant" before issuing an "excommunication". Consider this your monitum Peter... ;-)
"And Now...Deep Thoughts" Dept.
What will critics of Opus Dei say now that Bl. Jose Maria Escriva been solemnly canonized a saint??? Will they finally submit their opinions to the judgment of the Church or not??? Or will they instead continue to wave incense at the idol of their own private opinions??? Your humble servant had his doubts about this man mainly because of a lack of knowledge. But Rome has spoken and the issue is settled...well...settled for those who have real faith in the Church that is...
What will critics of Opus Dei say now that Bl. Jose Maria Escriva been solemnly canonized a saint??? Will they finally submit their opinions to the judgment of the Church or not??? Or will they instead continue to wave incense at the idol of their own private opinions??? Your humble servant had his doubts about this man mainly because of a lack of knowledge. But Rome has spoken and the issue is settled...well...settled for those who have real faith in the Church that is...
Reflections on Critics and Some Hypothetical Scenarios:
I am not sure what annoys me more:
or
Now this is not aimed at faithful Catholics who discuss issues of course. It applies instead to the unfaithful ones - the ones who feign faithfulness in order to gain the trust of others that they seek to betray. And in that sense it matters not which of these categories a particular neophyte falls into, there is still no shortage of arrogant "know-it-all" presumption. These can apply in numerous discernable ways which I will choose three which can serve as a template if you will on this subject: the apologist, the philosopher, and the neophyte apologist. Let us consider them briefly and in order. Since they are all wolves in sheeps clothing, lyrics from the Roger Waters penned song "Dogs" will be interspersed (as in many such cases they are very apropo).
After a while
You can work on points for style
Like the club tie
And the firm handshake
A certain look in the eye, and an easy smile
You have to be trusted
By the people that you lie to
So that when they turn their backs on you
You'll get the chance to put the knife in...
Let us suppose that we have for one hypothetical case study an apologist once respected widely by his peers whose proper understanding of the Catholic faith (suspect for sometime) has revealed itself to being "weighed in the scales and found lacking" (Dan v,27). If this hypothetical "apologist" were to have not a shred of demonstrated humility in their trackrecord going back many years (and such a lacuna does not bode well for an actual coming to grips with the commission of errors) such a situation would be even more tragic. The reason: it would almost be a certainty that many who were concerned about him would have sounded an alarm at various points along the way to no avail.
But because this person - despite perhaps having admirable talents in some areas - was never properly formed spiritually, their entire experience as an apologist was in discussing abstract concepts. As a result, no degree of knowledge of the reality of how those concepts applied when the rubber meets the road was put in place; no reality of coming to grips with the fact that it is one thing to say that the Catholic Church has an authority that commands assent in areas pertaining to ecclesiastical matters. It is another to actually have to apply this teaching when it is really a cross to bear: when said authority takes a position clearly against theirs on not a few issues.
So from defending the abstract notion of obedience to magisterial authority - not to mention beating non-Catholic opponents over the head with this obligation in debate over the years - the hypocrisy of abandoning this notion when it TRULY becomes a struggle would be a sad sight indeed. However this situation can be equally problematical though in a slightly different way.
And when you lose control
You'll reap the harvest you have sown
And as the fear grows
The bad blood slows and turns to stone
And it's too late to lose the weight you used to need to throw around
So have a good drown
As you go down, all alone
Dragged down by the stone...
Let us suppose as we delve into hypotheticals that we have a cradle Catholic who went through agnosticism and atheism and reverted to Catholicism without properly understanding what being a Catholic actually means. (This kind of person would definitely be in category two above.) The kind of person who saw many thing that disturbed him over a span of, say twenty years, that he sought to have addressed but in many cases was to no avail. (Maybe he even did some things which seemed inappropriate and therefore has a sense of shame he is trying to cover up.) And as they came into the faith through the intellect, they figure that they solve their problems that way relying on natural solutions alone instead of seeing that in areas of faith there is also the realm of the supernatural to take into account as well.
Because this person was never properly formed spiritually, they have no substance to fall back on. As a result they are easy prey for dogs in sheeps clothing who pose as "traditionalists" with all the exterior trappings to appear convincing. As this person has no understanding of what Tradition actually is, they are easy pickings for those who can supply even a half-baked argument for their false notions because there are intangibles involved which placate this person and fill an inner void that went for so long unfulfilled. Nature abhorring a vacuum the course taken here is sadly predictable.
And equally predictable is that this person so zealous to preserve their newfound "Shangrala" does not bother to ask themselves if they are drinking from a real fountain or instead if it is a mirage. For they approach all of their arguments not from the supernatural aided by the natural but the natural sans the supernatural. This is the root and matrix of their fatal error because the idea that Catholicism is some kind of philosophical discovery is a position that is a tacit form of defacto heresy. (It is also condemned by the First Vatican Council.)
Philosophy according to the Angelic Doctor is "the handmaiden of theology". Ergo, if one does not understand theology, they have no business dabbling in philosophy if they want to avoid making shipwreck of their faith. But when an individual has either weak or no faith and they have not the theological reinforcements to sustain their positions taken, all they are left with is their own ego and an exaggerated notion of their own mental acuity. They will posit all kinds of arguments that appear sound to them but this is an illusion my friends.
For to have a rational discussion and to be a true "Traditionalist" one must use terminology as it has been traditionally used. One cannot invent their own meanings for words and expect to have a conversation and retain any credibility in the process. Oh sure, those who are fooled by such individuals may think that they are a fountain of information. But to those who know better they will be seen for the fountain of misinformation that they are.
To use terminology correctly would be to undermine their own arguments - as would subjecting philosophy to theology and to a living authority over them. They have no interest in this because they have no interest in Truth - no matter what they say to the contrary. (For if they *DID* then they would do the bare minimum required for having an intelligent conversation which means canning the Nominalist treatment of traditional terms.)
In reality, as their mind is darkened by the sin of pride, as their hunger for wanting to be "as gods knowing good from evil" (a holdover from their days as an atheist perhaps???) becomes the lust to which the Lord leaves them to. But irrationality is not uncommon to people in this predicament while the entire time they not only think they are being rational, but they criticize others for not "thinking" much as they do not think - yet at the same time they believe that they do. Their arguments when held up to Truth vanish: like holding a mirror up to a vampire and seeing no reflection if you will. Philosophy untethered from theology - when philosophy is in short not beholden to theology - guarantees shipwreck of the faith.
Then moving in silently, down wind and out-of-sight
You gotta strike when the moment is right without thinking...
You see, there are others who cannot even claim a certain time onboard the ship before falling over the side; indeed there are those who fell off the gangplank getting on board the ship in a manner of speaking. These are the neophytes who are still dripping wet from the water of their baptism or the oil of their confirmation chrism and yet they feel they can pontificate on theological issues which are not lacking in complexity. (And where their knowledge is so pathetically anemic that it would give any moderately informed individual a hearty belly laugh.) Do not even bother refuting these kinds of people my friends as they are either (a) too ignorant of theology to understand what you are saying or (b) they too have found their little Shangrala and are not about to listen to you tell them that their "oasis" is in reality an illusion. No what they need more than anything is prayer for as long as their egos are their idols, no amount of reasoning with them will be fruitful.
I gotta admit...that I am a little bit confused
Sometimes it seems to me
As if I am just being used
Gotta stay awake gotta try and shake off
This creeping malaise
If I don't stand my own ground
How can I find my way out of this maze?
Indeed my friends it was not in reality so sad and pitiful as to require prayers being said for these, it would be quite tempting to laugh at them. But this temptation - along with the temptation to kick them when they are down must be avoided. These kinds of people - whatever their intentions are - are not to be taken lightly. They are dangerous because they are loose cannons and are untethered by any form of restraint whatsoever except what they arbitrarily choose to apply to themselves. And yet they pose as defensors fidei when the very notion of what authentic faith is they do not REMOTELY comprehend.
Indeed they act as they do because of a misunderstanding of what constitutes authentic zeal. (Part of the reason we went over zeal in a two part series here at Rerum Novarum.) In that series if you recall, Fr. Quadrupani noted that "Zeal for the salvation of souls is a sublime virtue, and yet how many errors and sins are committed daily in its name! Evil is never done more effectually and with greater security, says St. Francis de Sales, than when one does it believing he is working for the glory of God. It also does not help when these people speak as if they alone represent "the True Faith" when they have no conception of what true faith actually is. See this link for more details where the profound inadequacies of these kinds of people are dealt with in reasonable detail.
These kinds of hypothetical examples are legion but the following ones were outlined to serve as warnings for us all. For there are a million ways to fall but only one to stand (cf. G K Chesterton). And in a few ways they are not merely hypothetical examples. Part of the reason for the series on spiritual instruction is because of these kinds of pseudo-Catholics. They are everywhere and a good hermeneutical key if you will is judging them by the quality of their zeal - the series your blog host has covered is very helpful there. To quote that series in brief: [T]rue zeal is the offspring of charity; it should then, resemble its mother and show itself like to her in all things. "Charity", says St. Paul, "is patient, is kind, is not ambitious, and seeks not her own." (1 Cor. XIII, 4-5.)
Caveat Emptor/Lector!!!
Who was born in a house full of pain
Who was trained not to spit in the fan
Who was told what to do by the man
Who was broken by trained personnel
Who was fitted with collar and chain
Who was given a pat on the back
Who was breaking away from the pack
Who was only a stranger at home
Who was ground down in the end...
Who was dragged down by the stone...
I am not sure what annoys me more:
Those who do not know what the hell they are talking about on more complex subjects (such as theological terminology and the separating of doxis from praxis) pontificating on an issue as if their opinions are somehow worthy of consideration
or
Those who do not know what the hell they are talking about when it comes to the foundations of the faith yet they feel that they can pontificate on complex issues (such as theological terminology and the separating of doxis from praxis) as if their opinions are somehow worthy of consideration.
Now this is not aimed at faithful Catholics who discuss issues of course. It applies instead to the unfaithful ones - the ones who feign faithfulness in order to gain the trust of others that they seek to betray. And in that sense it matters not which of these categories a particular neophyte falls into, there is still no shortage of arrogant "know-it-all" presumption. These can apply in numerous discernable ways which I will choose three which can serve as a template if you will on this subject: the apologist, the philosopher, and the neophyte apologist. Let us consider them briefly and in order. Since they are all wolves in sheeps clothing, lyrics from the Roger Waters penned song "Dogs" will be interspersed (as in many such cases they are very apropo).
After a while
You can work on points for style
Like the club tie
And the firm handshake
A certain look in the eye, and an easy smile
You have to be trusted
By the people that you lie to
So that when they turn their backs on you
You'll get the chance to put the knife in...
Let us suppose that we have for one hypothetical case study an apologist once respected widely by his peers whose proper understanding of the Catholic faith (suspect for sometime) has revealed itself to being "weighed in the scales and found lacking" (Dan v,27). If this hypothetical "apologist" were to have not a shred of demonstrated humility in their trackrecord going back many years (and such a lacuna does not bode well for an actual coming to grips with the commission of errors) such a situation would be even more tragic. The reason: it would almost be a certainty that many who were concerned about him would have sounded an alarm at various points along the way to no avail.
But because this person - despite perhaps having admirable talents in some areas - was never properly formed spiritually, their entire experience as an apologist was in discussing abstract concepts. As a result, no degree of knowledge of the reality of how those concepts applied when the rubber meets the road was put in place; no reality of coming to grips with the fact that it is one thing to say that the Catholic Church has an authority that commands assent in areas pertaining to ecclesiastical matters. It is another to actually have to apply this teaching when it is really a cross to bear: when said authority takes a position clearly against theirs on not a few issues.
So from defending the abstract notion of obedience to magisterial authority - not to mention beating non-Catholic opponents over the head with this obligation in debate over the years - the hypocrisy of abandoning this notion when it TRULY becomes a struggle would be a sad sight indeed. However this situation can be equally problematical though in a slightly different way.
And when you lose control
You'll reap the harvest you have sown
And as the fear grows
The bad blood slows and turns to stone
And it's too late to lose the weight you used to need to throw around
So have a good drown
As you go down, all alone
Dragged down by the stone...
Let us suppose as we delve into hypotheticals that we have a cradle Catholic who went through agnosticism and atheism and reverted to Catholicism without properly understanding what being a Catholic actually means. (This kind of person would definitely be in category two above.) The kind of person who saw many thing that disturbed him over a span of, say twenty years, that he sought to have addressed but in many cases was to no avail. (Maybe he even did some things which seemed inappropriate and therefore has a sense of shame he is trying to cover up.) And as they came into the faith through the intellect, they figure that they solve their problems that way relying on natural solutions alone instead of seeing that in areas of faith there is also the realm of the supernatural to take into account as well.
Because this person was never properly formed spiritually, they have no substance to fall back on. As a result they are easy prey for dogs in sheeps clothing who pose as "traditionalists" with all the exterior trappings to appear convincing. As this person has no understanding of what Tradition actually is, they are easy pickings for those who can supply even a half-baked argument for their false notions because there are intangibles involved which placate this person and fill an inner void that went for so long unfulfilled. Nature abhorring a vacuum the course taken here is sadly predictable.
And equally predictable is that this person so zealous to preserve their newfound "Shangrala" does not bother to ask themselves if they are drinking from a real fountain or instead if it is a mirage. For they approach all of their arguments not from the supernatural aided by the natural but the natural sans the supernatural. This is the root and matrix of their fatal error because the idea that Catholicism is some kind of philosophical discovery is a position that is a tacit form of defacto heresy. (It is also condemned by the First Vatican Council.)
Philosophy according to the Angelic Doctor is "the handmaiden of theology". Ergo, if one does not understand theology, they have no business dabbling in philosophy if they want to avoid making shipwreck of their faith. But when an individual has either weak or no faith and they have not the theological reinforcements to sustain their positions taken, all they are left with is their own ego and an exaggerated notion of their own mental acuity. They will posit all kinds of arguments that appear sound to them but this is an illusion my friends.
For to have a rational discussion and to be a true "Traditionalist" one must use terminology as it has been traditionally used. One cannot invent their own meanings for words and expect to have a conversation and retain any credibility in the process. Oh sure, those who are fooled by such individuals may think that they are a fountain of information. But to those who know better they will be seen for the fountain of misinformation that they are.
To use terminology correctly would be to undermine their own arguments - as would subjecting philosophy to theology and to a living authority over them. They have no interest in this because they have no interest in Truth - no matter what they say to the contrary. (For if they *DID* then they would do the bare minimum required for having an intelligent conversation which means canning the Nominalist treatment of traditional terms.)
In reality, as their mind is darkened by the sin of pride, as their hunger for wanting to be "as gods knowing good from evil" (a holdover from their days as an atheist perhaps???) becomes the lust to which the Lord leaves them to. But irrationality is not uncommon to people in this predicament while the entire time they not only think they are being rational, but they criticize others for not "thinking" much as they do not think - yet at the same time they believe that they do. Their arguments when held up to Truth vanish: like holding a mirror up to a vampire and seeing no reflection if you will. Philosophy untethered from theology - when philosophy is in short not beholden to theology - guarantees shipwreck of the faith.
Then moving in silently, down wind and out-of-sight
You gotta strike when the moment is right without thinking...
You see, there are others who cannot even claim a certain time onboard the ship before falling over the side; indeed there are those who fell off the gangplank getting on board the ship in a manner of speaking. These are the neophytes who are still dripping wet from the water of their baptism or the oil of their confirmation chrism and yet they feel they can pontificate on theological issues which are not lacking in complexity. (And where their knowledge is so pathetically anemic that it would give any moderately informed individual a hearty belly laugh.) Do not even bother refuting these kinds of people my friends as they are either (a) too ignorant of theology to understand what you are saying or (b) they too have found their little Shangrala and are not about to listen to you tell them that their "oasis" is in reality an illusion. No what they need more than anything is prayer for as long as their egos are their idols, no amount of reasoning with them will be fruitful.
I gotta admit...that I am a little bit confused
Sometimes it seems to me
As if I am just being used
Gotta stay awake gotta try and shake off
This creeping malaise
If I don't stand my own ground
How can I find my way out of this maze?
Indeed my friends it was not in reality so sad and pitiful as to require prayers being said for these, it would be quite tempting to laugh at them. But this temptation - along with the temptation to kick them when they are down must be avoided. These kinds of people - whatever their intentions are - are not to be taken lightly. They are dangerous because they are loose cannons and are untethered by any form of restraint whatsoever except what they arbitrarily choose to apply to themselves. And yet they pose as defensors fidei when the very notion of what authentic faith is they do not REMOTELY comprehend.
Indeed they act as they do because of a misunderstanding of what constitutes authentic zeal. (Part of the reason we went over zeal in a two part series here at Rerum Novarum.) In that series if you recall, Fr. Quadrupani noted that "Zeal for the salvation of souls is a sublime virtue, and yet how many errors and sins are committed daily in its name! Evil is never done more effectually and with greater security, says St. Francis de Sales, than when one does it believing he is working for the glory of God. It also does not help when these people speak as if they alone represent "the True Faith" when they have no conception of what true faith actually is. See this link for more details where the profound inadequacies of these kinds of people are dealt with in reasonable detail.
These kinds of hypothetical examples are legion but the following ones were outlined to serve as warnings for us all. For there are a million ways to fall but only one to stand (cf. G K Chesterton). And in a few ways they are not merely hypothetical examples. Part of the reason for the series on spiritual instruction is because of these kinds of pseudo-Catholics. They are everywhere and a good hermeneutical key if you will is judging them by the quality of their zeal - the series your blog host has covered is very helpful there. To quote that series in brief: [T]rue zeal is the offspring of charity; it should then, resemble its mother and show itself like to her in all things. "Charity", says St. Paul, "is patient, is kind, is not ambitious, and seeks not her own." (1 Cor. XIII, 4-5.)
Caveat Emptor/Lector!!!
Who was born in a house full of pain
Who was trained not to spit in the fan
Who was told what to do by the man
Who was broken by trained personnel
Who was fitted with collar and chain
Who was given a pat on the back
Who was breaking away from the pack
Who was only a stranger at home
Who was ground down in the end...
Who was dragged down by the stone...
Before your humble servant goes outside with his double carona and water bottle, he wishes to leave you with the following report on the shootings that took place earlier in the week. The link is courtesy of The Drudge Report.
Oh and before turning in, if you check earlier in the week, I predicted the precise placement of journalist/diva Michelle Malkin's column. Click HERE and then check the link.
Mr. Malkin is one very fortunate guy :)
Oh, we are the boys of the chorus
We hope you like our show
We know you're rootin' for us
But now we have to goooooo.
Oh and before turning in, if you check earlier in the week, I predicted the precise placement of journalist/diva Michelle Malkin's column. Click HERE and then check the link.
Mr. Malkin is one very fortunate guy :)
Oh, we are the boys of the chorus
We hope you like our show
We know you're rootin' for us
But now we have to goooooo.
Saturday, October 05, 2002
"Covenantal Salvation" Dept.
(Some Prologue Principles In Brief Part II)
Part I is viewable HERE. In this section more from the Instruction that is applicable to this situation would be the following parts:
The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions. Here the theologian will need, first of all, to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the interventions which becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed.(Lumen gentium §25)
When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church's Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission. In fact, the theologian, who cannot pursue his discipline well without a certain competence in history, is aware of the filtering which occurs with the passage of time. This is not to be understood in the sense of a relativization of the tenets of the faith. The theologian knows that some judgments of the Magisterium could be justified at the time in which they were made, because while the pronouncements contained true assertions and others which were not sure, both types were inextricably connected. Only time has permitted discernment and, after deeper study, the attainment of true doctrinal progress.
25. Even when collaboration takes place under the best conditions, the possibility cannot be excluded that tensions may arise between the theologian and the Magisterium. The meaning attributed to such tensions and the spirit with which they are faced are not matters of indifference. If tensions do not spring from hostile and contrary feelings, they can become a dynamic factor, a stimulus to both the Magisterium and theologians to fulfill their respective roles while practicing dialogue.
26. In the dialogue, a two-fold rule should prevail. When there is a question of the communion of faith, the principle of the "unity of truth" (unitas veritatis) applies. When it is a question of differences which do not jeopardize this communion, the "unity of charity" (unitas caritatis) should be safeguarded.
27. Even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions. Respect for the truth as well as for the People of God requires this discretion (cf. Rom 14:1-15; 1 Cor 8; 10: 23-33 ) . For the same reasons, the theologian will refrain from giving untimely public expression to them.
There is unfortunately some "Catholic apologists" or groups which claim to be "dedicated to the teachings of Jesus Christ" and "faithful to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church" who are in reality wolves in sheeps clothing. Unlike them, your humble servant follows the guidelines set down by the ecclesiastical hierarchy and does not transgress them. First and foremost is the defacto presumption that any teaching of the ordinary magisterium requires religious submission of mind and will (cf. Lumen gentium 25).
With that in mind, an examination of the subject of the covenants will take place and hopefully clear up some of the many confusions that have come to my attention in recent months. But as I noted to friends and associates, this series will be one done as I am in the mood to do it; hence days or even a week could go be at times between sections. But as I will link to each preceding section as I go, the threads can be followed in that fashion so fear not :)
(Some Prologue Principles In Brief Part II)
Part I is viewable HERE. In this section more from the Instruction that is applicable to this situation would be the following parts:
The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions. Here the theologian will need, first of all, to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the interventions which becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed.(Lumen gentium §25)
When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church's Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission. In fact, the theologian, who cannot pursue his discipline well without a certain competence in history, is aware of the filtering which occurs with the passage of time. This is not to be understood in the sense of a relativization of the tenets of the faith. The theologian knows that some judgments of the Magisterium could be justified at the time in which they were made, because while the pronouncements contained true assertions and others which were not sure, both types were inextricably connected. Only time has permitted discernment and, after deeper study, the attainment of true doctrinal progress.
25. Even when collaboration takes place under the best conditions, the possibility cannot be excluded that tensions may arise between the theologian and the Magisterium. The meaning attributed to such tensions and the spirit with which they are faced are not matters of indifference. If tensions do not spring from hostile and contrary feelings, they can become a dynamic factor, a stimulus to both the Magisterium and theologians to fulfill their respective roles while practicing dialogue.
26. In the dialogue, a two-fold rule should prevail. When there is a question of the communion of faith, the principle of the "unity of truth" (unitas veritatis) applies. When it is a question of differences which do not jeopardize this communion, the "unity of charity" (unitas caritatis) should be safeguarded.
27. Even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions. Respect for the truth as well as for the People of God requires this discretion (cf. Rom 14:1-15; 1 Cor 8; 10: 23-33 ) . For the same reasons, the theologian will refrain from giving untimely public expression to them.
There is unfortunately some "Catholic apologists" or groups which claim to be "dedicated to the teachings of Jesus Christ" and "faithful to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church" who are in reality wolves in sheeps clothing. Unlike them, your humble servant follows the guidelines set down by the ecclesiastical hierarchy and does not transgress them. First and foremost is the defacto presumption that any teaching of the ordinary magisterium requires religious submission of mind and will (cf. Lumen gentium 25).
With that in mind, an examination of the subject of the covenants will take place and hopefully clear up some of the many confusions that have come to my attention in recent months. But as I noted to friends and associates, this series will be one done as I am in the mood to do it; hence days or even a week could go be at times between sections. But as I will link to each preceding section as I go, the threads can be followed in that fashion so fear not :)
"Covenantal Salvation" Dept.
(Some Prologue Principles In Brief Part I)
As I am going to delve into an area where there is no small amount of confusion in the coming weeks, it would be of assistance to know from where I am coming from. First, it is important to separate me from those liars who pose as faithful Catholics (some hypothetical examples of which I will note at some point in the future). Unlike them I am an amateur theologian who is faithful to the Church. Click on the following link to read My Profession of Faith on this matter.
As for what principles I follow in my theological speculations, they are well summed up in the authoritative Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under the authority of the Supreme Pontiff. A few of the points that are relevant will be covered here starting with a passage from the preface:
Theology has importance for the Church in every age so that it can respond to the plan of God "who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim 2:4). In times of great spiritual and cultural change, theology is all the more important. Yet it also is exposed to risks since it must strive to "abide" in the truth (cf. Jn 8:31), while at the same time taking into account the new problems which confront the human spirit. In our century, in particular, during the periods of preparation for and implementation of the Second Vatican Council, theology contributed much to a deeper "understanding of the realities and the words handed on". But it also experienced and continues to experience moments of crisis and tension.
The entire subject of the relationship of the covenants is one where there is some of this tension as noted above.
To be continued...
(Some Prologue Principles In Brief Part I)
As I am going to delve into an area where there is no small amount of confusion in the coming weeks, it would be of assistance to know from where I am coming from. First, it is important to separate me from those liars who pose as faithful Catholics (some hypothetical examples of which I will note at some point in the future). Unlike them I am an amateur theologian who is faithful to the Church. Click on the following link to read My Profession of Faith on this matter.
As for what principles I follow in my theological speculations, they are well summed up in the authoritative Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under the authority of the Supreme Pontiff. A few of the points that are relevant will be covered here starting with a passage from the preface:
Theology has importance for the Church in every age so that it can respond to the plan of God "who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim 2:4). In times of great spiritual and cultural change, theology is all the more important. Yet it also is exposed to risks since it must strive to "abide" in the truth (cf. Jn 8:31), while at the same time taking into account the new problems which confront the human spirit. In our century, in particular, during the periods of preparation for and implementation of the Second Vatican Council, theology contributed much to a deeper "understanding of the realities and the words handed on". But it also experienced and continues to experience moments of crisis and tension.
The entire subject of the relationship of the covenants is one where there is some of this tension as noted above.
To be continued...
Excerpts from Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman's Sermon "Faith and Private Judgment":
[F]aith is a state of mind, it is a particular mode of thinking and acting, which is exercised, always indeed towards God, but in very various ways...As a man might be without eyes or without hands, so [most] are without faith; it is a distinct want or fault in their soul; and what I say is, that since they have not this faculty of religious belief, no wonder they do not embrace that, which cannot really be embraced without it. They do not believe any teaching at all in any true sense; and therefore they do not believe the Church in particular.
Now, in the first place, what is faith? it is assenting to a doctrine as true, which we do not see, which we cannot prove, because God says it is true, who cannot lie. And further than this, since God says it is true, not with His own voice, but by the voice of His messengers, it is assenting to what man says, not simply viewed as a man, but to what he is commissioned to declare, as a messenger, prophet, or ambassador from God...
Now, in matter of fact, do not men in this day change about in their religious opinions without any limit? Is not this, then, a proof that they have not that faith which the Apostles demanded of their converts? If they had faith, they would not change. Once believe that God has spoken, and you are sure He cannot unsay what He has already said; He cannot deceive; He cannot change; you have received it once for all; you will believe it ever.
Such is the only rational, consistent account of faith; but so far are [true unbelievers] from professing it, that they laugh at the very notion of it. They laugh at the notion itself of men pinning their faith (as they express themselves) upon Pope or Council; they think it simply superstitious and narrow-minded, to profess to believe just what the Church believes, and to assent to whatever she will say in time to come on matters of doctrine. That is, they laugh at the bare notion of doing what Christians undeniably did in the time of the Apostles. Observe, they do not merely ask whether the Catholic Church has a claim to teach, has authority, has the gifts;—this is a reasonable question;—no, they think that the very state of mind which such a claim involves in those who admit it, namely, the disposition to accept without reserve or question, that this is slavish. They call it priestcraft to insist on this surrender of the reason, and superstition to make it. That is, they quarrel with the very state of mind which all Christians had in the age of the Apostles; nor is there any doubt (who will deny it?) that those who thus boast of not being led blindfold, of judging for themselves, of believing just as much and just as little as they please, of hating dictation, and so forth, would have found it an extreme difficulty to hang on the lips of the Apostles, had they lived at their date, or rather would have simply resisted the sacrifice of their own liberty of thought, would have thought life eternal too dearly purchased at such a price, and would have died in their unbelief.
And they would have defended themselves on the plea that it was absurd and childish to ask them to believe without proof, to bid them give up their education, and their intelligence, and their science, and in spite of all those difficulties which reason and sense find in the Christian doctrine, in spite of its mysteriousness, its obscurity, its strangeness, its unacceptableness, its severity, to require them to surrender themselves to the teaching of a few unlettered Galilæans, or a learned indeed but fanatical Pharisee. This is what they would have said then; and if so, is it wonderful they do not become [or remain] Catholics now? The simple account of their remaining as they are, is, that they lack one thing,—they have not faith; it is a state of mind, it is a virtue, which they do not recognise to be praiseworthy, which they do not aim at possessing...
Has faith changed its meaning, or is it less necessary now? Is it not still what it was in the Apostles' day, the very characteristic of Christianity, the special instrument of renovation, the first disposition for justification, one out of the three theological virtues? God might have renewed us by other means, by sight, by reason, by love, but He has chosen to "purify our hearts by faith"; it has been His will to select an instrument which the world despises, but which is of immense power. He preferred it, in His infinite wisdom, to every other; and if men have it not, they have not the very element and rudiment, out of which are formed, on which are built, the Saints and Servants of God. And they have it not; they are living, they are dying, without the hopes, without the aids of the Gospel, because, in spite of so much that is good in them, in spite of their sense of duty, their tenderness of conscience on many points, their benevolence, their uprightness, their generosity, they are under the dominion (I must say it) of a proud fiend; they have this stout spirit within them, they determine to be their own masters in matters of thought, about which they know so little; they consider their own reason better than any one's else; they will not admit that any one comes from God who contradicts their own view of truth. What! is none their equal in wisdom anywhere? is there none other whose word is to be taken on religion? is there none to wrest from them their ultimate appeal to themselves? Have they in no possible way the occasion or opportunity of faith? Is it a virtue, which, in consequence of their transcendent sagacity, their prerogative of omniscience, they must give up hope of exercising? If the pretensions of the Catholic Church do not satisfy them, let them go somewhere else, if they can. If they are so fastidious that they cannot trust her as the oracle of God, let them find another more certainly from Him than the House of His own institution, which has ever been called by His name, has ever maintained the same claims, has ever taught one substance of doctrine, and has triumphed over those who preached any other. Since Apostolic faith was in the beginning reliance on man's word, as being God's word, since what faith was then such it is now, since faith is necessary for salvation, let them attempt to exercise it towards another, if they will not accept the Bride of the Lamb. Let them, if they can, put faith in some of those religions which have lasted a whole two or three centuries in a corner of the earth. Let them stake their eternal prospects on kings and nobles and parliaments and soldiery, let them take some mere fiction of the law, or abortion of the schools, or idol of a populace, or upstart of a crisis, or oracle of lecture-rooms, as the prophet of God. Alas! they are hardly bestead if they must possess a virtue, which they have no means of exercising,—if they must make an act of faith, they know not on whom, and know not why!...
You look up, and you see, as it were, a great mountain to be scaled; you say, "How can I possibly find a path over these giant obstacles, which I find in the way of my becoming Catholic? I do not comprehend this doctrine, and I am pained at that; a third seems impossible; I never can be familiar with one practice, I am afraid of another; it is one maze and discomfort to me, and I am led to sink down in despair." Say not so, my dear brethren, look up in hope, trust in Him who calls you forward. "Who art thou, O great mountain, before Zorobabel? but a plain." He will lead you forward step by step, as He has led forward many a one before you. He will make the crooked straight and the rough plain. He will turn the streams, and dry up the rivers, which lie in your path. "He shall strengthen your feet like harts' feet, and set you up on high places. He shall widen your steps under you, and your tread shall not be weakened." "There is no God like the God of the righteous; He that mounts the heaven is thy Helper; by His mighty working the clouds disperse. His dwelling is above, and underneath are the everlasting arms; He shall cast out the enemy from before thee, and shall say, Crumble away." "The young shall faint, and youths shall fall; but they that hope in the Lord shall be new-fledged in strength, they shall take feathers like eagles, they shall run and not labour, they shall walk and not faint." [Faith and Private Judgment excerpts (c. 1849)]
[F]aith is a state of mind, it is a particular mode of thinking and acting, which is exercised, always indeed towards God, but in very various ways...As a man might be without eyes or without hands, so [most] are without faith; it is a distinct want or fault in their soul; and what I say is, that since they have not this faculty of religious belief, no wonder they do not embrace that, which cannot really be embraced without it. They do not believe any teaching at all in any true sense; and therefore they do not believe the Church in particular.
Now, in the first place, what is faith? it is assenting to a doctrine as true, which we do not see, which we cannot prove, because God says it is true, who cannot lie. And further than this, since God says it is true, not with His own voice, but by the voice of His messengers, it is assenting to what man says, not simply viewed as a man, but to what he is commissioned to declare, as a messenger, prophet, or ambassador from God...
Now, in matter of fact, do not men in this day change about in their religious opinions without any limit? Is not this, then, a proof that they have not that faith which the Apostles demanded of their converts? If they had faith, they would not change. Once believe that God has spoken, and you are sure He cannot unsay what He has already said; He cannot deceive; He cannot change; you have received it once for all; you will believe it ever.
Such is the only rational, consistent account of faith; but so far are [true unbelievers] from professing it, that they laugh at the very notion of it. They laugh at the notion itself of men pinning their faith (as they express themselves) upon Pope or Council; they think it simply superstitious and narrow-minded, to profess to believe just what the Church believes, and to assent to whatever she will say in time to come on matters of doctrine. That is, they laugh at the bare notion of doing what Christians undeniably did in the time of the Apostles. Observe, they do not merely ask whether the Catholic Church has a claim to teach, has authority, has the gifts;—this is a reasonable question;—no, they think that the very state of mind which such a claim involves in those who admit it, namely, the disposition to accept without reserve or question, that this is slavish. They call it priestcraft to insist on this surrender of the reason, and superstition to make it. That is, they quarrel with the very state of mind which all Christians had in the age of the Apostles; nor is there any doubt (who will deny it?) that those who thus boast of not being led blindfold, of judging for themselves, of believing just as much and just as little as they please, of hating dictation, and so forth, would have found it an extreme difficulty to hang on the lips of the Apostles, had they lived at their date, or rather would have simply resisted the sacrifice of their own liberty of thought, would have thought life eternal too dearly purchased at such a price, and would have died in their unbelief.
And they would have defended themselves on the plea that it was absurd and childish to ask them to believe without proof, to bid them give up their education, and their intelligence, and their science, and in spite of all those difficulties which reason and sense find in the Christian doctrine, in spite of its mysteriousness, its obscurity, its strangeness, its unacceptableness, its severity, to require them to surrender themselves to the teaching of a few unlettered Galilæans, or a learned indeed but fanatical Pharisee. This is what they would have said then; and if so, is it wonderful they do not become [or remain] Catholics now? The simple account of their remaining as they are, is, that they lack one thing,—they have not faith; it is a state of mind, it is a virtue, which they do not recognise to be praiseworthy, which they do not aim at possessing...
Has faith changed its meaning, or is it less necessary now? Is it not still what it was in the Apostles' day, the very characteristic of Christianity, the special instrument of renovation, the first disposition for justification, one out of the three theological virtues? God might have renewed us by other means, by sight, by reason, by love, but He has chosen to "purify our hearts by faith"; it has been His will to select an instrument which the world despises, but which is of immense power. He preferred it, in His infinite wisdom, to every other; and if men have it not, they have not the very element and rudiment, out of which are formed, on which are built, the Saints and Servants of God. And they have it not; they are living, they are dying, without the hopes, without the aids of the Gospel, because, in spite of so much that is good in them, in spite of their sense of duty, their tenderness of conscience on many points, their benevolence, their uprightness, their generosity, they are under the dominion (I must say it) of a proud fiend; they have this stout spirit within them, they determine to be their own masters in matters of thought, about which they know so little; they consider their own reason better than any one's else; they will not admit that any one comes from God who contradicts their own view of truth. What! is none their equal in wisdom anywhere? is there none other whose word is to be taken on religion? is there none to wrest from them their ultimate appeal to themselves? Have they in no possible way the occasion or opportunity of faith? Is it a virtue, which, in consequence of their transcendent sagacity, their prerogative of omniscience, they must give up hope of exercising? If the pretensions of the Catholic Church do not satisfy them, let them go somewhere else, if they can. If they are so fastidious that they cannot trust her as the oracle of God, let them find another more certainly from Him than the House of His own institution, which has ever been called by His name, has ever maintained the same claims, has ever taught one substance of doctrine, and has triumphed over those who preached any other. Since Apostolic faith was in the beginning reliance on man's word, as being God's word, since what faith was then such it is now, since faith is necessary for salvation, let them attempt to exercise it towards another, if they will not accept the Bride of the Lamb. Let them, if they can, put faith in some of those religions which have lasted a whole two or three centuries in a corner of the earth. Let them stake their eternal prospects on kings and nobles and parliaments and soldiery, let them take some mere fiction of the law, or abortion of the schools, or idol of a populace, or upstart of a crisis, or oracle of lecture-rooms, as the prophet of God. Alas! they are hardly bestead if they must possess a virtue, which they have no means of exercising,—if they must make an act of faith, they know not on whom, and know not why!...
You look up, and you see, as it were, a great mountain to be scaled; you say, "How can I possibly find a path over these giant obstacles, which I find in the way of my becoming Catholic? I do not comprehend this doctrine, and I am pained at that; a third seems impossible; I never can be familiar with one practice, I am afraid of another; it is one maze and discomfort to me, and I am led to sink down in despair." Say not so, my dear brethren, look up in hope, trust in Him who calls you forward. "Who art thou, O great mountain, before Zorobabel? but a plain." He will lead you forward step by step, as He has led forward many a one before you. He will make the crooked straight and the rough plain. He will turn the streams, and dry up the rivers, which lie in your path. "He shall strengthen your feet like harts' feet, and set you up on high places. He shall widen your steps under you, and your tread shall not be weakened." "There is no God like the God of the righteous; He that mounts the heaven is thy Helper; by His mighty working the clouds disperse. His dwelling is above, and underneath are the everlasting arms; He shall cast out the enemy from before thee, and shall say, Crumble away." "The young shall faint, and youths shall fall; but they that hope in the Lord shall be new-fledged in strength, they shall take feathers like eagles, they shall run and not labour, they shall walk and not faint." [Faith and Private Judgment excerpts (c. 1849)]
Friday, October 04, 2002
Spiritual Instruction on Zeal (Part II):
This is a continuation and completion of a meditation on zeal. The first part can be read HERE and is recommended before proceeding to this part. Also recommended is waiting a day after reading part one before reading part two - or at least until tomorrow which is basically ten hours away if you are PST as those of us on the left coast are. Mull those reflections over carefully and do not wolf them down - lest their value be wasted.
9. "If your zeal is bitter", says St. James, "it is not wisdom descending from on high, but earthly, sensual, diabolical". (James III, 14-15.) These words of an Apostle should furnish matter of reflection for those persons who, whilst making profession of piety, are so prone to irritability, so harsh and rude in their manner and language, that they might be taken for angels in church and for demons elsewhere.
10. The value and utility of zeal are in proportion to its tolerance and amiability. True zeal is the offspring of charity; it should then, resemble its mother and show itself like to her in all things. "Charity", says St. Paul, "is patient, is kind, is not ambitious, and seeks not her own." (1 Cor. XIII, 4-5.)
You should not only be devout and love devotion, but you ought to make your piety useful, agreeable, and charming to everybody. The sick will like your spirituality if they are lovingly consoled by it; your family, if they find that it makes you more thoughtful of their welfare, gentler in everyday affairs, more amiable in reproving, and so on; your husband, if he sees that in proportion as your devotion increases you become more cordial and tender in your affection for him; your relations and your friends, if they find you more forebearing and ready to comply with their wishes, should these not be contrary to God's will. Briefly, you must try as far as possible to make your devotion attractive to others; that is true zeal". - St. Francis de Sales.
11. Never allow your zeal to make you overeager to correct others, says the same Saint; and when you do it remember that the most important thing to consider is the choice of the moment. A caution deferred can be given another time: one given inopportunely is not only fruitless, but moreover paralyzes beforehand all the good that might have have subsequently been done.
12. Be zealous therefore, ardently zealous for the salvation of your neighbour, and to further make use of whatever means God has placed in your power; but do not exceed these limits nor disquiet yourself about the good you are unable to do, for God can accomplish it through others. In conclusion, zeal according to the teaching of the Fathers of the Church, should always have truth for its foundation, indulgence for its companion, mildness for its guide, prudence for its counsellor and director.
"I must look upon whatever presents itself each day to be done, in order that Divine Providence, as the work God wishes me to do, and apply myself in a manner worthy of Him, that is, with exactness and tranquillity. I shall neglect nothing, be anxious about nothing; as it is dangerous to do God's work negligently or to appropriate it to one's self through self-love and false zeal. When our actions are prompted by our inclinations,we do them badly and are pretentious, restless, and anxious to succeed. The glory of God is the pretext that hides the illusion. Self-love disguised as zeal grieves and frets if it cannot succeed. Oh my God! give me the grace to be faithful in action, indifferent to success. My part is to will what Thou willest and to keep myself recollected in Thee amidst all my occupations: Thine is to give to my feeble efforts such fruit as shall please Thee - none if Thou so wishest." - Fenelon. [Fr. R. P. Quadrupini: excerpts from his spiritual instruction "Light and Peace - Instructions for Devout Souls" pgs. 158-161 (c. 1795)]
This is a continuation and completion of a meditation on zeal. The first part can be read HERE and is recommended before proceeding to this part. Also recommended is waiting a day after reading part one before reading part two - or at least until tomorrow which is basically ten hours away if you are PST as those of us on the left coast are. Mull those reflections over carefully and do not wolf them down - lest their value be wasted.
9. "If your zeal is bitter", says St. James, "it is not wisdom descending from on high, but earthly, sensual, diabolical". (James III, 14-15.) These words of an Apostle should furnish matter of reflection for those persons who, whilst making profession of piety, are so prone to irritability, so harsh and rude in their manner and language, that they might be taken for angels in church and for demons elsewhere.
10. The value and utility of zeal are in proportion to its tolerance and amiability. True zeal is the offspring of charity; it should then, resemble its mother and show itself like to her in all things. "Charity", says St. Paul, "is patient, is kind, is not ambitious, and seeks not her own." (1 Cor. XIII, 4-5.)
You should not only be devout and love devotion, but you ought to make your piety useful, agreeable, and charming to everybody. The sick will like your spirituality if they are lovingly consoled by it; your family, if they find that it makes you more thoughtful of their welfare, gentler in everyday affairs, more amiable in reproving, and so on; your husband, if he sees that in proportion as your devotion increases you become more cordial and tender in your affection for him; your relations and your friends, if they find you more forebearing and ready to comply with their wishes, should these not be contrary to God's will. Briefly, you must try as far as possible to make your devotion attractive to others; that is true zeal". - St. Francis de Sales.
11. Never allow your zeal to make you overeager to correct others, says the same Saint; and when you do it remember that the most important thing to consider is the choice of the moment. A caution deferred can be given another time: one given inopportunely is not only fruitless, but moreover paralyzes beforehand all the good that might have have subsequently been done.
12. Be zealous therefore, ardently zealous for the salvation of your neighbour, and to further make use of whatever means God has placed in your power; but do not exceed these limits nor disquiet yourself about the good you are unable to do, for God can accomplish it through others. In conclusion, zeal according to the teaching of the Fathers of the Church, should always have truth for its foundation, indulgence for its companion, mildness for its guide, prudence for its counsellor and director.
"I must look upon whatever presents itself each day to be done, in order that Divine Providence, as the work God wishes me to do, and apply myself in a manner worthy of Him, that is, with exactness and tranquillity. I shall neglect nothing, be anxious about nothing; as it is dangerous to do God's work negligently or to appropriate it to one's self through self-love and false zeal. When our actions are prompted by our inclinations,we do them badly and are pretentious, restless, and anxious to succeed. The glory of God is the pretext that hides the illusion. Self-love disguised as zeal grieves and frets if it cannot succeed. Oh my God! give me the grace to be faithful in action, indifferent to success. My part is to will what Thou willest and to keep myself recollected in Thee amidst all my occupations: Thine is to give to my feeble efforts such fruit as shall please Thee - none if Thou so wishest." - Fenelon. [Fr. R. P. Quadrupini: excerpts from his spiritual instruction "Light and Peace - Instructions for Devout Souls" pgs. 158-161 (c. 1795)]
Kevin Miller gives a very good summary of the Church's teaching HERE. I am in virtually complete agreement with his take on the subject except the following:
Thus the traditional teaching that capital punishment is not murder and can be acceptable has not been altered - although, it is doubtful that this traditional teaching has been infallibly taught, so it probably could be altered by a pope.
If capital punishment were murder then the Church in giving explicit and tacit approval over the centuries would have been endorsing murder. And it is difficult to see HaShem contradicting Himself at Sinai telling Moshe that one of the commandments was "thou shalt not kill" and then having numerous penalties in the Law which had a prescription for the perpetrator being killed for offending those prescriptions. One would almost have to go the route of the Reformed "suspension of the ethical", Marcion's "dimuirge" theology, or some other notion that is either heretical or blatantly contradictory to sustain this notion.
Murder is unlawful killing. There is also the element of Christian teaching that makes it unlawful for people to deliberately harm themselves. This is where the teaching of self-defense comes into play: the person is obligated to defend themselves even to the extent of taking the life of an aggressor against them. However, at the same time the latter is only morally permissible when it is unavoidable if you will. For example, if you and I were fighting and all that was needed to defend myself adequately was to knock you out or disable you by breaking a knee (or apply a crossface chickenwing sleeper to neutralize your attack), I would be out of line to go any further then that. The same principle applies with the death penalty.
I find it interesting that many of the same people who are opposed to the pope's current reflections on the matter do not seem opposed to the execution of public heretics or rebellious schismatics by the state. Why I ask them is spiritual murder acceptable whereas physical murder is not??? What is worse, the killing of the body or the killing of the soul???
The pope was basing his position within the context of a society that is shorn of its Christian principles. I have said it before and I say it again: the Church is in practically the same situation as she was pre-Constantine when Christians were viewed as traitors to the state. The sword today is wielded most times by governments who do not govern according to Christian principles. Do we want them deciding on a whim who is and is not a "danger to the state"??? What principles can we possibly use to argue our case in todays climate except the logical application of the principle of self-defense being the only morally permissible form of taking a life and extending it to the criminal justice system???
If we look at history we will see that the Church was not a supporter of the death penalty pre-Constantine. (Because to do so was to slit their own throats.) Prior to Our Lord's time the Sanhedrin were very hesitant to execute anyone and had numerous out clauses if you will. The Mishnah itself notes that "A Sanhedrin that carries out the death penalty once in seven years is a murderous tribunal. Rabbi Eliezar ben Azariah says: "Once in seventy years." Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say: "Had we been members of the Sanhedrin, no one would ever have received the death penalty." Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: "They would indeed have multiplied those who shed blood in Israel."[Mishnah Makkot 1:10] More on this subject can be found HERE.
The Catechism of Trent speaks amonst the "lawful" exceptions to the principle rule Thou shalt not kill as the execution of criminals in the following words (key emphasis is mine): Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment– is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord. [Roman Catechism: Instruction on the Fifth Commandment]
So if the Church recognizes the licity of judicious use of the death penalty (which by its very implication means rare) and states that the end of this is preservation of life, then if the end can be achieved in other ways that do not involve the taking of life, that is the route we must tend to. In short, Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Evangelium vitae, points to the fact that we have many ways to protect society from offenders. Because of this, he states forcefully that the traditional Catholic principle that bloodless means whenever possible are to be utilized is to be retained. Whatever arguments we want to make about the application of this teaching, they must proceed from the principle of what is necessary to achieve the end that the death penalty historically has been used for: preservation of life.
"All things are lawful but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful, but not all things edify" sayeth the Apostle (i Cor. x,22-23). The same is the case with the death penalty in the vast majority of cases where it may apply from a theoretical standpoint. And while the pope has not set any strict schedule in stone on how this principle is to be carried out, there is a moral duty to inform oneself and to act accordingly. Kevin goes over this quite well in his link above, the part I addressed above being my only real objections to what he has said on the matter.
Thus the traditional teaching that capital punishment is not murder and can be acceptable has not been altered - although, it is doubtful that this traditional teaching has been infallibly taught, so it probably could be altered by a pope.
If capital punishment were murder then the Church in giving explicit and tacit approval over the centuries would have been endorsing murder. And it is difficult to see HaShem contradicting Himself at Sinai telling Moshe that one of the commandments was "thou shalt not kill" and then having numerous penalties in the Law which had a prescription for the perpetrator being killed for offending those prescriptions. One would almost have to go the route of the Reformed "suspension of the ethical", Marcion's "dimuirge" theology, or some other notion that is either heretical or blatantly contradictory to sustain this notion.
Murder is unlawful killing. There is also the element of Christian teaching that makes it unlawful for people to deliberately harm themselves. This is where the teaching of self-defense comes into play: the person is obligated to defend themselves even to the extent of taking the life of an aggressor against them. However, at the same time the latter is only morally permissible when it is unavoidable if you will. For example, if you and I were fighting and all that was needed to defend myself adequately was to knock you out or disable you by breaking a knee (or apply a crossface chickenwing sleeper to neutralize your attack), I would be out of line to go any further then that. The same principle applies with the death penalty.
I find it interesting that many of the same people who are opposed to the pope's current reflections on the matter do not seem opposed to the execution of public heretics or rebellious schismatics by the state. Why I ask them is spiritual murder acceptable whereas physical murder is not??? What is worse, the killing of the body or the killing of the soul???
The pope was basing his position within the context of a society that is shorn of its Christian principles. I have said it before and I say it again: the Church is in practically the same situation as she was pre-Constantine when Christians were viewed as traitors to the state. The sword today is wielded most times by governments who do not govern according to Christian principles. Do we want them deciding on a whim who is and is not a "danger to the state"??? What principles can we possibly use to argue our case in todays climate except the logical application of the principle of self-defense being the only morally permissible form of taking a life and extending it to the criminal justice system???
If we look at history we will see that the Church was not a supporter of the death penalty pre-Constantine. (Because to do so was to slit their own throats.) Prior to Our Lord's time the Sanhedrin were very hesitant to execute anyone and had numerous out clauses if you will. The Mishnah itself notes that "A Sanhedrin that carries out the death penalty once in seven years is a murderous tribunal. Rabbi Eliezar ben Azariah says: "Once in seventy years." Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say: "Had we been members of the Sanhedrin, no one would ever have received the death penalty." Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: "They would indeed have multiplied those who shed blood in Israel."[Mishnah Makkot 1:10] More on this subject can be found HERE.
The Catechism of Trent speaks amonst the "lawful" exceptions to the principle rule Thou shalt not kill as the execution of criminals in the following words (key emphasis is mine): Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment– is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord. [Roman Catechism: Instruction on the Fifth Commandment]
So if the Church recognizes the licity of judicious use of the death penalty (which by its very implication means rare) and states that the end of this is preservation of life, then if the end can be achieved in other ways that do not involve the taking of life, that is the route we must tend to. In short, Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Evangelium vitae, points to the fact that we have many ways to protect society from offenders. Because of this, he states forcefully that the traditional Catholic principle that bloodless means whenever possible are to be utilized is to be retained. Whatever arguments we want to make about the application of this teaching, they must proceed from the principle of what is necessary to achieve the end that the death penalty historically has been used for: preservation of life.
"All things are lawful but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful, but not all things edify" sayeth the Apostle (i Cor. x,22-23). The same is the case with the death penalty in the vast majority of cases where it may apply from a theoretical standpoint. And while the pope has not set any strict schedule in stone on how this principle is to be carried out, there is a moral duty to inform oneself and to act accordingly. Kevin goes over this quite well in his link above, the part I addressed above being my only real objections to what he has said on the matter.
Thursday, October 03, 2002
"I have to say, the New Jersey Senate situation is enough to make a drunken cynic out of the likes of Mother Teresa".
So says Bryan Preston of The JunkYard Blog. Hard to argue with that assessment my friends, in the words of James Hetfield "sad but true".
So says Bryan Preston of The JunkYard Blog. Hard to argue with that assessment my friends, in the words of James Hetfield "sad but true".
"Bastiat's Corner" Dept.
You can follow this series and read the introductory comments by your humble host and Walt Williams through this link. (Highly recommended for proper understanding of what we are seeking to do here at Rerum Novarum.) I have no idea how many sections of this I may run. Nonetheless here is the inaugural installment of the series. (This work was first published back in 1850 btw.)
The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!
If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.
Life Is a Gift from God
We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life -- physical, intellectual, and moral life.
But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.
Life, faculties, production--in other words, individuality, liberty, property -- this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.
Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.
What Is Law?
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.
Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?
If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.
Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?
If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.
You can follow this series and read the introductory comments by your humble host and Walt Williams through this link. (Highly recommended for proper understanding of what we are seeking to do here at Rerum Novarum.) I have no idea how many sections of this I may run. Nonetheless here is the inaugural installment of the series. (This work was first published back in 1850 btw.)
The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!
If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.
Life Is a Gift from God
We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life -- physical, intellectual, and moral life.
But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.
Life, faculties, production--in other words, individuality, liberty, property -- this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.
Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.
What Is Law?
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.
Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?
If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.
Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?
If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.
"NostraShawnus" Dept.
Though they have not archived it yet, when they do you will see that journalist/diva Michelle Malkin's latest column will be located HERE. Check back in a day or so and see if I am not correct.
Though they have not archived it yet, when they do you will see that journalist/diva Michelle Malkin's latest column will be located HERE. Check back in a day or so and see if I am not correct.
Before I get onto blogging today's stuff, the following is a link to some more about Bipolar Disorder courtesy of Lisa Graas:
Miswired Minds
Miswired Minds
Wednesday, October 02, 2002
Bipolar Disorder is No Laughing Matter:
(Guest Editorial by Lisa Graas)
Before running the editorial I will simply note here that completion of the zeal meditation series will be delayed until tomorrow. As for Bastiat's corner, I may run a section today but if not I will give a double dosage tomorrow. Right now I am strongly inclined to let this entry finish off Rerum Novarum's entries for the night. Once you read it you will see why I say this.
#######
It would seem that a lot of people became rather upset by the comments I made on my blog about "Catholic Bipolar Disorder" as diagnosed by Dr. Greg Popcak. Even my closest friend (a Popcak fan) didn't "get it" when I became upset about it. I am confident that everyone who is open-minded, somewhat intelligent and compassionate may be able to see if they will only hear me out.
There are some key components to the problem which, if ANY ONE of them had not been present, I would NEVER have gotten so upset. (1) Dr. Popcak is a professional in the field of psychology; (2) Dr. Popcak is widely read; (3) the term "bipolar disorder" was used rather than a general reference using the word "bipolar" which is a word that can apply to many things; (4) Bipolar disorder is widely misunderstood (and I do not know of any work that Popcak has done to dispel the myths about bipolar disorder); and finally (5) twenty percent of bipolars commit suicide and this is largely due to the combination of the illness itself and the lack of support (misunderstanding) we receive from family, friends, the culture and the medical community. My doctor is wonderful. Many are not. Please note that before this happened, I had never read anything by Popcak but I respected him because of things I have heard about him from other Catholics.
Bipolar Disorder used to be termed "manic-depression". Due to the fact that the vast majority of people misunderstand the illness, a stigma became attached to it. Therefore, the name was changed to "bipolar disorder". Well, guess what. It is still misunderstood and there is now a stigma attached to it, and so now they are thinking of changing the name to "Van Gogh's disease" since the painter Vincent Van Gogh suffered from it. (If you'll remember from the old Don McLean song, he committed suicide. "Starry starry night..." and all that.) Since I mentioned Van Gogh, I can mention the GOOD PART about having bipolar disorder. Bipolars are generally (not always, but generally) more intelligent and more creative than the average person. I have consistently scored very high on I.Q. tests since I was a child and that does not go away when I take medication to deal with the bad stuff, thanks be to God. While only 1% of the population is bipolar, the percentage of bipolars in the community of famous creative and inventive people is much much higher. Bipolars have contributed much to the world. Even so, the name keeps changing because no one cares enough about people with this disorder to take the time to learn about it. Misunderstanding leads to abuse and rejection from the people you love which, in turn, leads to suicide.
Misunderstanding is a very important topic when it comes to discussing this disorder, because it is the worst part of having the disorder. When you have an illness that makes you think you are not loved, it doesn't help to have people abuse you by saying you are not really sick and should "lighten up" or "get off your butt".
Bipolar disorder is genetically inherited. There are at least four people in my extended family who have this and none of them are people I was exposed to when I was growing up. I was not "influenced" by family members who have it. They have the gene and I have the gene. It's as simple as that. It is caused by an inability of the brain to "uptake/re-uptake" certain chemicals in the brain that affect mood and other things in the body.
I do not care to go into all the symptoms of bipolar disorder when this is so easily found out in many places on the internet. If you would like an explanation of bipolar disorder that is interesting, informative and written in laymen's terms, please see The Mercurial Mind, a website that is noted as one of the best sites for educating the average person about this illness. My symptoms are somewhat like what you will find on The Mercurial Mind site, however some of my symptoms are different and more severe. I believe the woman who testifies on the site has been diagnosed with Bipolar II disorder which is a milder form of the illness. My diagnosis is Severe Mixed Episode Bipolar I Disorder with Mood-Congruent Psychosis. That is not just something I got out of a textbook. It is what I live on a daily basis. It is the name that the medical community has given to the hell that I have lived for much of life.
Thankfully, I have mood-congruent psychosis rather than mood-incongruent psychosis. With the latter, you begin to think that the federal government is sending helicopters to your house to take you away and things like that. When people who have this illness, and certain other chemical problems in the brain, believe such things, it is not their fault. You wouldn't blame someone dying of cancer who hallucinates, and yet you (some of you) will say that bipolars "just want attention". It is the disorder that is to blame and not the person. Unfortunately, the person does get blamed most of the time. As my husband has told me, "If you had a broken arm or something it would be different because I can see that. I can't see this because it's in your head." It is also difficult for people to understand how it is that you cannot control your behavior when it is "in your head". Psychosis means that you lose touch with reality and believe things that are not so. It has nothing to do with willpower. Some bipolars have described it this way, and I would agree. "It is as though you are sitting back and watching yourself do things that you don't want to do, but you have no control over it." Sometimes I do things and then, two days later, I look back on it and realize that I was not in my right mind. Then I have to go back and repair the damage that I did even though I was completely insane when I did it.
I have pressured speech. When I am doing the laundry, I might shout out, "Damn you, Lisa!!!" Usually, that's what I say. "Damn you, Lisa!!" It comes out of nowhere. I have NO control over it. Lots of people blurt out things they don't mean to say. This is not like that. I have even thought at one point that I might be possessed by a demon. It is like another entity has taken over my body and speaks "Damn you, Lisa!!!" It is frightening. Very frightening. I never knew with certainty what it was until I learned about bipolar disorder.
I have violent jerking of the body -- sometimes my arm, sometimes my leg, sometimes my whole body at once. This is another thing that made me wonder if I might be possessed. Now that I am on Lithium, my body no longer jerks but I have tremors that are sometimes so widespread in my body that my body actually vibrates. I feel like a LazyBoy recliner, especially when my toddler sits on my lap. She likes the fact that mommy vibrates. I do not.
Most people who are bipolar swing between mania and depression. Some cycle rapidly (swinging from month to month). Some are ultra rapid cyclers, swinging from week to week. Some are "ultra ultra" rapid cyclers, swinging day to day. I am "mixed episode". I have symptoms of mania and depression simultaneously throughout the day, every day, without a vacation ever. I have extreme fatigue ( a symptom of depression ) but also body jerking ( a symptom of mania ). I have an inability to concentrate (depression) but floods of ideas (mania). I am sometimes irritable and can be downright demonic at times. It's not my fault. When I say it's not my fault, people grumble. They think I'm lying. They think it's a cop-out, as if I actually ENJOY living in this hell. I will never understand it as long as I live, but I trust that it is for a reason that I have this, so that God may be glorified in some way, and for that, I am grateful that I have it.
Speaking only for myself, I am happy to be misunderstood. I am grateful for the opportunity to suffer in the abyss of loneliness which comes with depression and then to have others pile more pain of loneliness onto it as they reject me. Mother Teresa said that there is no greater pain than the pain of loneliness, but you see, it is in suffering that we are brought closer to God, and since my pain is often that of loneliness, I can rest in His closeness to me because He gives back to me much more than I have ever lost, and I know more bliss than any of those who may persecute me, so I truly feel sorry for the ones who misunderstand and persecute. I do. It is a great source of sadness to me to see people persecuting others, however, because I know they (the persecutors) are missing out on this gladness that I have found in the arms of God and they are also piling pressure to commit suicide upon those who know neither understanding nor God, hence more suicide. They don't commit suicide because they don't want to live. They want to live. They commit suicide to end the pain.
It is not my pain that I cry out for. It is the pain of those VERY VERY MANY bipolars who do not have God in their lives. Many don't even come close to knowing the Catholic faith and the hope that we have in our suffering, and even if they did have their Catholic faith, it is very difficult to progress on the path of holiness when your willpower is so damaged by disease, you know? It is for those that I cry out. Misunderstanding does not hurt me personally because I know that it brings me closer to my Lord, but when you pile misunderstanding onto those suffering souls who know not God, you are adding to that pile of bodies -- that 20% of people with bipolar disorder who commit suicide. I do not go to bipolar discussion forums because when 20% of your friends kill themselves it gets rather old, especially since you know that many of them would never have done it if only people had loved them enough to understand the illness and to make sure that others understand it, as well.
Thanks for hearing me out.
In the Love of Christ,
Lisa
#######
Lisa can be emailed at the following addresses:
thelighthousecatholic@yahoo.com
graas6@netscape.net
administrator@grantuspeace.com
(Guest Editorial by Lisa Graas)
Before running the editorial I will simply note here that completion of the zeal meditation series will be delayed until tomorrow. As for Bastiat's corner, I may run a section today but if not I will give a double dosage tomorrow. Right now I am strongly inclined to let this entry finish off Rerum Novarum's entries for the night. Once you read it you will see why I say this.
#######
It would seem that a lot of people became rather upset by the comments I made on my blog about "Catholic Bipolar Disorder" as diagnosed by Dr. Greg Popcak. Even my closest friend (a Popcak fan) didn't "get it" when I became upset about it. I am confident that everyone who is open-minded, somewhat intelligent and compassionate may be able to see if they will only hear me out.
There are some key components to the problem which, if ANY ONE of them had not been present, I would NEVER have gotten so upset. (1) Dr. Popcak is a professional in the field of psychology; (2) Dr. Popcak is widely read; (3) the term "bipolar disorder" was used rather than a general reference using the word "bipolar" which is a word that can apply to many things; (4) Bipolar disorder is widely misunderstood (and I do not know of any work that Popcak has done to dispel the myths about bipolar disorder); and finally (5) twenty percent of bipolars commit suicide and this is largely due to the combination of the illness itself and the lack of support (misunderstanding) we receive from family, friends, the culture and the medical community. My doctor is wonderful. Many are not. Please note that before this happened, I had never read anything by Popcak but I respected him because of things I have heard about him from other Catholics.
Bipolar Disorder used to be termed "manic-depression". Due to the fact that the vast majority of people misunderstand the illness, a stigma became attached to it. Therefore, the name was changed to "bipolar disorder". Well, guess what. It is still misunderstood and there is now a stigma attached to it, and so now they are thinking of changing the name to "Van Gogh's disease" since the painter Vincent Van Gogh suffered from it. (If you'll remember from the old Don McLean song, he committed suicide. "Starry starry night..." and all that.) Since I mentioned Van Gogh, I can mention the GOOD PART about having bipolar disorder. Bipolars are generally (not always, but generally) more intelligent and more creative than the average person. I have consistently scored very high on I.Q. tests since I was a child and that does not go away when I take medication to deal with the bad stuff, thanks be to God. While only 1% of the population is bipolar, the percentage of bipolars in the community of famous creative and inventive people is much much higher. Bipolars have contributed much to the world. Even so, the name keeps changing because no one cares enough about people with this disorder to take the time to learn about it. Misunderstanding leads to abuse and rejection from the people you love which, in turn, leads to suicide.
Misunderstanding is a very important topic when it comes to discussing this disorder, because it is the worst part of having the disorder. When you have an illness that makes you think you are not loved, it doesn't help to have people abuse you by saying you are not really sick and should "lighten up" or "get off your butt".
Bipolar disorder is genetically inherited. There are at least four people in my extended family who have this and none of them are people I was exposed to when I was growing up. I was not "influenced" by family members who have it. They have the gene and I have the gene. It's as simple as that. It is caused by an inability of the brain to "uptake/re-uptake" certain chemicals in the brain that affect mood and other things in the body.
I do not care to go into all the symptoms of bipolar disorder when this is so easily found out in many places on the internet. If you would like an explanation of bipolar disorder that is interesting, informative and written in laymen's terms, please see The Mercurial Mind, a website that is noted as one of the best sites for educating the average person about this illness. My symptoms are somewhat like what you will find on The Mercurial Mind site, however some of my symptoms are different and more severe. I believe the woman who testifies on the site has been diagnosed with Bipolar II disorder which is a milder form of the illness. My diagnosis is Severe Mixed Episode Bipolar I Disorder with Mood-Congruent Psychosis. That is not just something I got out of a textbook. It is what I live on a daily basis. It is the name that the medical community has given to the hell that I have lived for much of life.
Thankfully, I have mood-congruent psychosis rather than mood-incongruent psychosis. With the latter, you begin to think that the federal government is sending helicopters to your house to take you away and things like that. When people who have this illness, and certain other chemical problems in the brain, believe such things, it is not their fault. You wouldn't blame someone dying of cancer who hallucinates, and yet you (some of you) will say that bipolars "just want attention". It is the disorder that is to blame and not the person. Unfortunately, the person does get blamed most of the time. As my husband has told me, "If you had a broken arm or something it would be different because I can see that. I can't see this because it's in your head." It is also difficult for people to understand how it is that you cannot control your behavior when it is "in your head". Psychosis means that you lose touch with reality and believe things that are not so. It has nothing to do with willpower. Some bipolars have described it this way, and I would agree. "It is as though you are sitting back and watching yourself do things that you don't want to do, but you have no control over it." Sometimes I do things and then, two days later, I look back on it and realize that I was not in my right mind. Then I have to go back and repair the damage that I did even though I was completely insane when I did it.
I have pressured speech. When I am doing the laundry, I might shout out, "Damn you, Lisa!!!" Usually, that's what I say. "Damn you, Lisa!!" It comes out of nowhere. I have NO control over it. Lots of people blurt out things they don't mean to say. This is not like that. I have even thought at one point that I might be possessed by a demon. It is like another entity has taken over my body and speaks "Damn you, Lisa!!!" It is frightening. Very frightening. I never knew with certainty what it was until I learned about bipolar disorder.
I have violent jerking of the body -- sometimes my arm, sometimes my leg, sometimes my whole body at once. This is another thing that made me wonder if I might be possessed. Now that I am on Lithium, my body no longer jerks but I have tremors that are sometimes so widespread in my body that my body actually vibrates. I feel like a LazyBoy recliner, especially when my toddler sits on my lap. She likes the fact that mommy vibrates. I do not.
Most people who are bipolar swing between mania and depression. Some cycle rapidly (swinging from month to month). Some are ultra rapid cyclers, swinging from week to week. Some are "ultra ultra" rapid cyclers, swinging day to day. I am "mixed episode". I have symptoms of mania and depression simultaneously throughout the day, every day, without a vacation ever. I have extreme fatigue ( a symptom of depression ) but also body jerking ( a symptom of mania ). I have an inability to concentrate (depression) but floods of ideas (mania). I am sometimes irritable and can be downright demonic at times. It's not my fault. When I say it's not my fault, people grumble. They think I'm lying. They think it's a cop-out, as if I actually ENJOY living in this hell. I will never understand it as long as I live, but I trust that it is for a reason that I have this, so that God may be glorified in some way, and for that, I am grateful that I have it.
Speaking only for myself, I am happy to be misunderstood. I am grateful for the opportunity to suffer in the abyss of loneliness which comes with depression and then to have others pile more pain of loneliness onto it as they reject me. Mother Teresa said that there is no greater pain than the pain of loneliness, but you see, it is in suffering that we are brought closer to God, and since my pain is often that of loneliness, I can rest in His closeness to me because He gives back to me much more than I have ever lost, and I know more bliss than any of those who may persecute me, so I truly feel sorry for the ones who misunderstand and persecute. I do. It is a great source of sadness to me to see people persecuting others, however, because I know they (the persecutors) are missing out on this gladness that I have found in the arms of God and they are also piling pressure to commit suicide upon those who know neither understanding nor God, hence more suicide. They don't commit suicide because they don't want to live. They want to live. They commit suicide to end the pain.
It is not my pain that I cry out for. It is the pain of those VERY VERY MANY bipolars who do not have God in their lives. Many don't even come close to knowing the Catholic faith and the hope that we have in our suffering, and even if they did have their Catholic faith, it is very difficult to progress on the path of holiness when your willpower is so damaged by disease, you know? It is for those that I cry out. Misunderstanding does not hurt me personally because I know that it brings me closer to my Lord, but when you pile misunderstanding onto those suffering souls who know not God, you are adding to that pile of bodies -- that 20% of people with bipolar disorder who commit suicide. I do not go to bipolar discussion forums because when 20% of your friends kill themselves it gets rather old, especially since you know that many of them would never have done it if only people had loved them enough to understand the illness and to make sure that others understand it, as well.
Thanks for hearing me out.
In the Love of Christ,
Lisa
#######
Lisa can be emailed at the following addresses:
thelighthousecatholic@yahoo.com
graas6@netscape.net
administrator@grantuspeace.com
"Ground Control to Major Graas" Dept.
We here at Wonderfullll Winoooo...er...um I mean Rerum Novarum have good news to report at this hour. Your humble servant *has* made contact with Lisa Graas of Lisa's Lighthouse and she has expressed interest in doing the requested guest editorial on Bipolar Disorder. So you have that to look forward to dear readers. I may even throw in an edition of Bastiat's Corner and finish the zeal meditation tonight to really round things off nicely. But you will not know without tuning in now will you??? ;-)
We here at Wonderfullll Winoooo...er...um I mean Rerum Novarum have good news to report at this hour. Your humble servant *has* made contact with Lisa Graas of Lisa's Lighthouse and she has expressed interest in doing the requested guest editorial on Bipolar Disorder. So you have that to look forward to dear readers. I may even throw in an edition of Bastiat's Corner and finish the zeal meditation tonight to really round things off nicely. But you will not know without tuning in now will you??? ;-)
While checking in with Bryan Preston and the JunkYard Blog yesterday evening before bedtime, the usual plethora of good subjects was there. Here are three good pieces on a variety of topics:
The Monarchist Democrats
Do Some Democrats Want Nuclear War?
Civil War Commentary
Being a history buff, I particularly like the Civil War piece and Mr. Preston's commentary is spot-on as usual.
The Monarchist Democrats
Do Some Democrats Want Nuclear War?
Civil War Commentary
Being a history buff, I particularly like the Civil War piece and Mr. Preston's commentary is spot-on as usual.
"Wheel of Fish" Dept. (Take II)
[Update: As I am currently undergoing bit by bit (as time allows for it) the formatting of the lions share of the blogs on this weblog with labels for easier categorization, I remembered that this one was a duplicate posting due to the picture which was broken in the first posting. As that link was fixed with a new one showing a variation of the original picture, this duplicate posting will be left in the archives for preserving history as it happened but not tagged with anything. -ISM]
{Ed. Note: Adding the picture was a bad idea not only because the icon is broken but it makes editing the post impossible. So let us try this again...everyone quiet on the set please...5...4...3...2...1...action!!!...}
Courtesy of John Betts I came across a Philosophy Test. The results can be added to other tests I have taken which are available HERE and HERE.
It is called the "Ethical Philosophical Selector". According to the test after it is taken a list will be generated and "the list orders the philosophers/philosophies according to their compatibility with your expressed opinions on ethics". Here are my results prefaced by the explanation:
The list below is modified by your input. The results are scored on a curve. The highest score,100, represents the closest philosophical match to your reponses. This is not to say that you and the philosopher are in total agreement. However this is a philosophy that you may want to study further.
1. Augustine (100%)
2. Aquinas (95%)
3. Kant (82%)
4. Ockham (80%)
5. Bentham (73%)
6. Spinoza (69%)
7. Mill (58%)
8. Noddings (58%)
9. Prescriptivism (57%)
10. Aristotle (56%)
11. Sartre (55%)
12. Plato (48%)
13. Hume (40%)
14. Stoics (40%)
15. Rand (38%)
16. Nietzsche (35%)
17. Cynics (32%)
18. Epicureans (32%)
19. Hobbes (0%)
My scores were in some ways predicable to me viz the philosophers who had the highest matches but there were some surprises too. I have no idea how Noddings made my top ten - I hope that is not indicative of an underlying Alan Alda element. As for the rest it is a mixed bag but two notes on the matter in brief:
1) I am happy that Hobbes, the Epicureans, the Cynics, Neitzsche, Rand, and the Stoics scored near the bottom.
2) I am just as happy that Aquinas, Augustine, and Kant scored at the top.
Hopefully these results mean that for the most part I am doing something right.
[Update: As I am currently undergoing bit by bit (as time allows for it) the formatting of the lions share of the blogs on this weblog with labels for easier categorization, I remembered that this one was a duplicate posting due to the picture which was broken in the first posting. As that link was fixed with a new one showing a variation of the original picture, this duplicate posting will be left in the archives for preserving history as it happened but not tagged with anything. -ISM]
{Ed. Note: Adding the picture was a bad idea not only because the icon is broken but it makes editing the post impossible. So let us try this again...everyone quiet on the set please...5...4...3...2...1...action!!!...}
Courtesy of John Betts I came across a Philosophy Test. The results can be added to other tests I have taken which are available HERE and HERE.
It is called the "Ethical Philosophical Selector". According to the test after it is taken a list will be generated and "the list orders the philosophers/philosophies according to their compatibility with your expressed opinions on ethics". Here are my results prefaced by the explanation:
The list below is modified by your input. The results are scored on a curve. The highest score,100, represents the closest philosophical match to your reponses. This is not to say that you and the philosopher are in total agreement. However this is a philosophy that you may want to study further.
1. Augustine (100%)
2. Aquinas (95%)
3. Kant (82%)
4. Ockham (80%)
5. Bentham (73%)
6. Spinoza (69%)
7. Mill (58%)
8. Noddings (58%)
9. Prescriptivism (57%)
10. Aristotle (56%)
11. Sartre (55%)
12. Plato (48%)
13. Hume (40%)
14. Stoics (40%)
15. Rand (38%)
16. Nietzsche (35%)
17. Cynics (32%)
18. Epicureans (32%)
19. Hobbes (0%)
My scores were in some ways predicable to me viz the philosophers who had the highest matches but there were some surprises too. I have no idea how Noddings made my top ten - I hope that is not indicative of an underlying Alan Alda element. As for the rest it is a mixed bag but two notes on the matter in brief:
1) I am happy that Hobbes, the Epicureans, the Cynics, Neitzsche, Rand, and the Stoics scored near the bottom.
2) I am just as happy that Aquinas, Augustine, and Kant scored at the top.
Hopefully these results mean that for the most part I am doing something right.
"Wheel of Fish" Dept.
The list below is modified by your input. The results are scored on a curve. The highest score,100, represents the closest philosophical match to your reponses. This is not to say that you and the philosopher are in total agreement. However this is a philosophy that you may want to study further.
1. Augustine (100%)
2. Aquinas (95%)
3. Kant (82%)
4. Ockham (80%)
5. Bentham (73%)
6. Spinoza (69%)
7. Mill (58%)
8. Noddings (58%)
9. Prescriptivism (57%)
10. Aristotle (56%)
11. Sartre (55%)
12. Plato (48%)
13. Hume (40%)
14. Stoics (40%)
15. Rand (38%)
16. Nietzsche (35%)
17. Cynics (32%)
18. Epicureans (32%)
19. Hobbes (0%)
My scores were in some ways predicable to me viz the philosophers who had the highest matches but there were some surprises too. I have no idea how Noddings made my top ten - I hope that is not indicative of an underlying Alan Alda element. As for the rest it is a mixed bag but two notes on the matter in brief:
1) I am happy that Hobbes, the Epicureans, the Cynics, Neitzsche, Rand, and the Stoics scored near the bottom.
2) I am just as happy that Aquinas, Augustine, and Kant scored at the top.
Hopefully these results mean that for the most part I am doing something right.
The list below is modified by your input. The results are scored on a curve. The highest score,100, represents the closest philosophical match to your reponses. This is not to say that you and the philosopher are in total agreement. However this is a philosophy that you may want to study further.
1. Augustine (100%)
2. Aquinas (95%)
3. Kant (82%)
4. Ockham (80%)
5. Bentham (73%)
6. Spinoza (69%)
7. Mill (58%)
8. Noddings (58%)
9. Prescriptivism (57%)
10. Aristotle (56%)
11. Sartre (55%)
12. Plato (48%)
13. Hume (40%)
14. Stoics (40%)
15. Rand (38%)
16. Nietzsche (35%)
17. Cynics (32%)
18. Epicureans (32%)
19. Hobbes (0%)
My scores were in some ways predicable to me viz the philosophers who had the highest matches but there were some surprises too. I have no idea how Noddings made my top ten - I hope that is not indicative of an underlying Alan Alda element. As for the rest it is a mixed bag but two notes on the matter in brief:
1) I am happy that Hobbes, the Epicureans, the Cynics, Neitzsche, Rand, and the Stoics scored near the bottom.
2) I am just as happy that Aquinas, Augustine, and Kant scored at the top.
Hopefully these results mean that for the most part I am doing something right.
Tuesday, October 01, 2002
"Bastiat's Corner" Dept.
A Prologue of sorts to this series can be read HERE.
Before I start the series I want to put forward parts of the Introduction to my printed work. It was written by Walter E. Williams - a commentator whom I have respected for a good many years. Like me he saw - and sees - perennial value in this work and in that light some of his comments are as follows:
I must have been forty years old before reading Frederic Bastiat's classic The Law. ... After reading the book I was convinced that a liberal-arts education without Bastiat is incomplete. Reading Bastiat made me keenly aware of all the time wasted, along with the frustrations of going down one blind alley after another, organizing my philosophy of life. The Law did not produce a philosophical conversion for me as much as it created order in my thinking about liberty and just human conduct...
This series will be added to from time to time as I see fit to do it. With elections coming up, I think the time to influence some voters is in order. (In light of the 2000 Presidents contest, every mind properly formed may be vital in 2002.) Your humble blog host intends to do his part, however small, to do just that.
A Prologue of sorts to this series can be read HERE.
Before I start the series I want to put forward parts of the Introduction to my printed work. It was written by Walter E. Williams - a commentator whom I have respected for a good many years. Like me he saw - and sees - perennial value in this work and in that light some of his comments are as follows:
I must have been forty years old before reading Frederic Bastiat's classic The Law. ... After reading the book I was convinced that a liberal-arts education without Bastiat is incomplete. Reading Bastiat made me keenly aware of all the time wasted, along with the frustrations of going down one blind alley after another, organizing my philosophy of life. The Law did not produce a philosophical conversion for me as much as it created order in my thinking about liberty and just human conduct...
This series will be added to from time to time as I see fit to do it. With elections coming up, I think the time to influence some voters is in order. (In light of the 2000 Presidents contest, every mind properly formed may be vital in 2002.) Your humble blog host intends to do his part, however small, to do just that.
"You Don't Know How It Feels ... To Be Me" Dept.
I noticed that Lisa Graas now has a weblog. (Courtesy of Kevin Miller's "De Virutibus" BLOG.) As she mentions being a Tom Petty fan I have chosen a lyric from Tom that seems pretty fitting for this circumstance. For you see, Lisa seems rather annoyed at Greg Popcak, the very Greg Popcak whom I stated late last night that I was going to quote on this humble blog today. (Though not on the subject that she talks about.)
Now I have to confess that I do not know very much about Lisa's predicament (Bipolar Disorder) but I am open to being further educated on the matter if she is so willing to enlighten your humble servant and his readers about this. Lisa, I give you a formal invitation to write an editorial for Rerum Novarum on this based both on what you have been told by doctors as well as what you personally have experienced with it. If you feel the need to go overlong in the piece I will run it as a two part series if need be.
Please consider this both a public service of sorts and also the opportunity to explain this situation apart from the Popcak incident and thus without the need to feel defensive. Education is often the cure for ignorance after all.
I noticed that Lisa Graas now has a weblog. (Courtesy of Kevin Miller's "De Virutibus" BLOG.) As she mentions being a Tom Petty fan I have chosen a lyric from Tom that seems pretty fitting for this circumstance. For you see, Lisa seems rather annoyed at Greg Popcak, the very Greg Popcak whom I stated late last night that I was going to quote on this humble blog today. (Though not on the subject that she talks about.)
Now I have to confess that I do not know very much about Lisa's predicament (Bipolar Disorder) but I am open to being further educated on the matter if she is so willing to enlighten your humble servant and his readers about this. Lisa, I give you a formal invitation to write an editorial for Rerum Novarum on this based both on what you have been told by doctors as well as what you personally have experienced with it. If you feel the need to go overlong in the piece I will run it as a two part series if need be.
Please consider this both a public service of sorts and also the opportunity to explain this situation apart from the Popcak incident and thus without the need to feel defensive. Education is often the cure for ignorance after all.
Bastiat's Corner - A Prologue:
[With elections coming up I thought it was fitting to make this series more prominent at Rerum Novarum both for the sake of its timeless content as well as to highlight in spades what is wrong with the American political landscape where politicians of all sides to some extent pervert the law. Please read this series carefully, reflect upon its content, and make your voices heard at the ballot box while there is still a ballot box from which you can make yourself heard. (The series can be followed through Rerum Novarum's archives by clicking on the last line of this entry below and the last line of all entries in this series.) - I. Shawn McElhinney 10/24/02]
[Update: This is to check and see if Blogger will allow me to update text as links are for some reason not currently able to be fixed. If this works, I will post in the relevant archive sections where the links are bad as well as where to go to correct the problem. - ISM 3/03/03]
A feature I intend to inaugurate tomorrow is one titled "Bastiat's Corner". Frederic Bastiat was a French economist, statesman, and author. In his position as a Deputy to the Legislative Assembly he was there at the governing level when France went the way of socialism in the 1840's. He was also there "in the trenches" if you will explaining the fallacies of this noxious philosophy as they presented themselves one by one. No one cared to listen then, maybe if we reiterate those lessons now people would be more predisposed to listen.
We often hear today that "Communism is dead" and yet we see increasing socialism and have for a long time. In this light, the thesis of Mr. Bastiat (in essence that socialism must inevitably degenerate into a form of communism) becomes one which we should take seriously. I hope to put excerpts from his magnum opus "The Law" up from time to time at Rerum Novarum.
The first installment will go up tomorrow or so. I found in Bastiat a synthesis of my own views which makes this source appealing to me. (But then my political mentors Goldwater and Reagan were almost certainly not unaware of him.) Anyway, that is for tomorrow night and I will forgo the second part on zeal until then too. (As I am too tired to hand type it out at this time.) Tomorrow we will have Bastiat, Popcak, and the results of another test your humble blog host took earlier today. See you tomorrow ... same Bat time ... same Bat blog ...
[With elections coming up I thought it was fitting to make this series more prominent at Rerum Novarum both for the sake of its timeless content as well as to highlight in spades what is wrong with the American political landscape where politicians of all sides to some extent pervert the law. Please read this series carefully, reflect upon its content, and make your voices heard at the ballot box while there is still a ballot box from which you can make yourself heard. (The series can be followed through Rerum Novarum's archives by clicking on the last line of this entry below and the last line of all entries in this series.) - I. Shawn McElhinney 10/24/02]
[Update: This is to check and see if Blogger will allow me to update text as links are for some reason not currently able to be fixed. If this works, I will post in the relevant archive sections where the links are bad as well as where to go to correct the problem. - ISM 3/03/03]
A feature I intend to inaugurate tomorrow is one titled "Bastiat's Corner". Frederic Bastiat was a French economist, statesman, and author. In his position as a Deputy to the Legislative Assembly he was there at the governing level when France went the way of socialism in the 1840's. He was also there "in the trenches" if you will explaining the fallacies of this noxious philosophy as they presented themselves one by one. No one cared to listen then, maybe if we reiterate those lessons now people would be more predisposed to listen.
We often hear today that "Communism is dead" and yet we see increasing socialism and have for a long time. In this light, the thesis of Mr. Bastiat (in essence that socialism must inevitably degenerate into a form of communism) becomes one which we should take seriously. I hope to put excerpts from his magnum opus "The Law" up from time to time at Rerum Novarum.
The first installment will go up tomorrow or so. I found in Bastiat a synthesis of my own views which makes this source appealing to me. (But then my political mentors Goldwater and Reagan were almost certainly not unaware of him.) Anyway, that is for tomorrow night and I will forgo the second part on zeal until then too. (As I am too tired to hand type it out at this time.) Tomorrow we will have Bastiat, Popcak, and the results of another test your humble blog host took earlier today. See you tomorrow ... same Bat time ... same Bat blog ...
Monday, September 30, 2002
My friend Stephen Hand of TCR recently reminded me of an ancient practice that may be a possible compromise on the issue of women in the sanctuary as that has become more and more prevalent in the past thirty years:
Deaconesses
In essence what we have here is a clerical position for women within the Church akin to that of a subdeacon. In this light the issue of a female lector or cantor at mass takes on a new meaning in a sense. And perhaps when the magisterium rules definitively against the ordination of women to the diaconite, they can revive this ancient tradition within certain tightly circumscribed protocols. (For example, no sermons, no handling of incense during divine worship, no administration of the sacraments except on non Anointing of the Sick sick calls, etc.) Just an idea folks so kick it around and let me know what you think.
Deaconesses
In essence what we have here is a clerical position for women within the Church akin to that of a subdeacon. In this light the issue of a female lector or cantor at mass takes on a new meaning in a sense. And perhaps when the magisterium rules definitively against the ordination of women to the diaconite, they can revive this ancient tradition within certain tightly circumscribed protocols. (For example, no sermons, no handling of incense during divine worship, no administration of the sacraments except on non Anointing of the Sick sick calls, etc.) Just an idea folks so kick it around and let me know what you think.
Updates to Rerum Novarum and Public Notice of Guest Editorial Feature:
Many additions were made to Rerum Novarum this morning - most of which have been planned for about three weeks but kept getting delayed for various and sundry reasons. Unlike major media outlets the contents of this blog are not a result of intense focus group testing nor Zogby-like polling data mind you; Rerum Novarum does not function that way. (So those who wrote about adding comments boxes, nada as I do not have the time to police them and besides: most of those who inquired about the comments boxes are not the sorts I would long tolerate posting in comments boxes at my blog.) The reason I have the occasional "guest editorial" policy is to bridge the gap if you will in that regard.
With regards to the "Guest Editorial" feature at Rerum Novarum, those interested in doing a guest editorial can email me HERE about it with their ideas and we shall see. I need not agree with the position taken on an issue to run the editorial. But I do reserve the right to edit any offerings for space and other considerations though of course I would run it by the person before it is posted to Rerum Novarum. The reason is because their name will be posted with it and thus they need to give concurrence that it reasonably represents their view on an issue.
All of this is to anticipate in advance the kind of litigation crap that results from people who would claim to be "misrepresented". Remember, it does not get posted in whatever form it is posted without their approval. Also, I *do* save those confirmation of content emails just in case.
The Guest Editorial Feature is an infrequent one - averaging thus far about one every 10 days or so. I derive this calculation from the fact that I have only put up three of them thus far. (Math wizards who want to email me with precise ratios will have their emails put in the Virtual Shredder.) The three posted thus far were by (and about):
1) An editorial by Dr. Art Sippo on the USCCB document.
2) An editoral by Bill Bannon on September 11th in retrospect (from the eyes of a New Yorker).
3) An editorial by Stephen Hand of TCR on extending the Ecclesia Dei Indult.
Initially the feature was derived from certain friends who had written on a subject which interested me (as in Art and Stephen's case: Stephen's was initially going to be the second editorial used). But when I put out a motu proprio on September 11th to some friends who live in New York area - asking if any of them wanted to write an editorial on the subject - one of them responded with a piece on the issue which received my magisterial approval and was immediately posted.
So while there is little precedent to go from thus far, it is safe to say that I usually want these editorials to be driven by events either secular or religious as they happen. (Not that it *has* to be but I want it to generally apply in that way though of course extraordinary situations will be considered.) So if one keeps that in mind it is helpful as I am making the issue of Guest Editorials a "public" one now whereas previously it was a private one. If in doubt about a topic or fittingness of a piece written for this feature, ask me about it. I am reasonably amenable on these matters and if there is a good idea out there, let us hear it here at Rerum Novarum. Who knows, you may have the "makings of a star" :-)
Many additions were made to Rerum Novarum this morning - most of which have been planned for about three weeks but kept getting delayed for various and sundry reasons. Unlike major media outlets the contents of this blog are not a result of intense focus group testing nor Zogby-like polling data mind you; Rerum Novarum does not function that way. (So those who wrote about adding comments boxes, nada as I do not have the time to police them and besides: most of those who inquired about the comments boxes are not the sorts I would long tolerate posting in comments boxes at my blog.) The reason I have the occasional "guest editorial" policy is to bridge the gap if you will in that regard.
With regards to the "Guest Editorial" feature at Rerum Novarum, those interested in doing a guest editorial can email me HERE about it with their ideas and we shall see. I need not agree with the position taken on an issue to run the editorial. But I do reserve the right to edit any offerings for space and other considerations though of course I would run it by the person before it is posted to Rerum Novarum. The reason is because their name will be posted with it and thus they need to give concurrence that it reasonably represents their view on an issue.
All of this is to anticipate in advance the kind of litigation crap that results from people who would claim to be "misrepresented". Remember, it does not get posted in whatever form it is posted without their approval. Also, I *do* save those confirmation of content emails just in case.
The Guest Editorial Feature is an infrequent one - averaging thus far about one every 10 days or so. I derive this calculation from the fact that I have only put up three of them thus far. (Math wizards who want to email me with precise ratios will have their emails put in the Virtual Shredder.) The three posted thus far were by (and about):
1) An editorial by Dr. Art Sippo on the USCCB document.
2) An editoral by Bill Bannon on September 11th in retrospect (from the eyes of a New Yorker).
3) An editorial by Stephen Hand of TCR on extending the Ecclesia Dei Indult.
Initially the feature was derived from certain friends who had written on a subject which interested me (as in Art and Stephen's case: Stephen's was initially going to be the second editorial used). But when I put out a motu proprio on September 11th to some friends who live in New York area - asking if any of them wanted to write an editorial on the subject - one of them responded with a piece on the issue which received my magisterial approval and was immediately posted.
So while there is little precedent to go from thus far, it is safe to say that I usually want these editorials to be driven by events either secular or religious as they happen. (Not that it *has* to be but I want it to generally apply in that way though of course extraordinary situations will be considered.) So if one keeps that in mind it is helpful as I am making the issue of Guest Editorials a "public" one now whereas previously it was a private one. If in doubt about a topic or fittingness of a piece written for this feature, ask me about it. I am reasonably amenable on these matters and if there is a good idea out there, let us hear it here at Rerum Novarum. Who knows, you may have the "makings of a star" :-)
"Am I Losin'" Dept.
I hope I am wrong about my intuition here but in light of developments in the new year that long went unaddressed, I am not so sure anymore.
I addressed most of these fundamental elements at the following link.
An Open Letter to My Friend Albert
I recall when I used to come home never had a dime
But Lord I always had a good time
And I recall drinkin' wine with one of my friends
Lord, I can't go back again
In light of the recent falling out between Dr. Art Sippo and Robert Sungenis, this may be seen as a "me too" approach by certain elements in that camp. To remind readers of this blog who are on Albert's mailing list (not to mention people on discussion lists which I am on) the following was sent to Albert and others back on August 26, 2002 by yours truly:
Albert my brother, know that you are always in my prayers and that I value our friendship which has grown stronger through the adversities that our lives apart from the web have gone through the past two and a half years. But I have to accuse you now or else I would be violating my conscience. This note is a *monitum* if you will of the upcoming accusation you will receive by email. (So you may be warned about what is coming and prepare spiritually for it.)
Written primarily when I was in a more "Inquisitional" mood, this note will: ...
At this point I laid out the agenda of what would be covered. Many of the substantial elements of the open letter go back to about March-April of this year - and were initially targeted for this kind of project in June of this year. (In all except the "open letter" aspect which was of recent vintage.) My email to Albert and the list was sent after the letter had been substantially shaped into a systematic mould if you will.
The project was put on hold through the first half of September for many reasons but it was resumed on Monday of last week and brought to its present form over the span of about six days - an hour or so a day as needed to complete it.
I'm not the one that's here to blame
Its you my friend that's really changed
Its a shame, such a shame
Am I losin' once again?
I decided to handle this issue more delicately than I initially intended because it came to me when writing additional sections that residual rage from my "trad" days was driving the tone of the piece; a reaction if you will to some of my former self and weltanschauung in light of positions Albert adheres to. Because of that I took additional time to try to expunge that element from the letter. Nonetheless, I hope the tone is both charitable as well as firm. My original idea of making the response private - one which I was very stern by email about - is one that I obviously do not plan to adhere to. This is the extent of my public utterances on the matter as I did not want to have to take it this far. But one must have a clean conscience and on this matter mine has not been clean for a while.
Making this public in light of the many public discussions Albert and I have had along with email theology/philosophy list discussions the past two plus years serves to do just that. I hope and pray that my friend reads this and reflects upon the content. I also hope that this does not result in our friendship being sullied.
Why these things happen, Lord I don't understand
But Lord it can sure hurt a man...
I hope I am wrong about my intuition here but in light of developments in the new year that long went unaddressed, I am not so sure anymore.
I addressed most of these fundamental elements at the following link.
An Open Letter to My Friend Albert
I recall when I used to come home never had a dime
But Lord I always had a good time
And I recall drinkin' wine with one of my friends
Lord, I can't go back again
In light of the recent falling out between Dr. Art Sippo and Robert Sungenis, this may be seen as a "me too" approach by certain elements in that camp. To remind readers of this blog who are on Albert's mailing list (not to mention people on discussion lists which I am on) the following was sent to Albert and others back on August 26, 2002 by yours truly:
Albert my brother, know that you are always in my prayers and that I value our friendship which has grown stronger through the adversities that our lives apart from the web have gone through the past two and a half years. But I have to accuse you now or else I would be violating my conscience. This note is a *monitum* if you will of the upcoming accusation you will receive by email. (So you may be warned about what is coming and prepare spiritually for it.)
Written primarily when I was in a more "Inquisitional" mood, this note will: ...
At this point I laid out the agenda of what would be covered. Many of the substantial elements of the open letter go back to about March-April of this year - and were initially targeted for this kind of project in June of this year. (In all except the "open letter" aspect which was of recent vintage.) My email to Albert and the list was sent after the letter had been substantially shaped into a systematic mould if you will.
The project was put on hold through the first half of September for many reasons but it was resumed on Monday of last week and brought to its present form over the span of about six days - an hour or so a day as needed to complete it.
I'm not the one that's here to blame
Its you my friend that's really changed
Its a shame, such a shame
Am I losin' once again?
I decided to handle this issue more delicately than I initially intended because it came to me when writing additional sections that residual rage from my "trad" days was driving the tone of the piece; a reaction if you will to some of my former self and weltanschauung in light of positions Albert adheres to. Because of that I took additional time to try to expunge that element from the letter. Nonetheless, I hope the tone is both charitable as well as firm. My original idea of making the response private - one which I was very stern by email about - is one that I obviously do not plan to adhere to. This is the extent of my public utterances on the matter as I did not want to have to take it this far. But one must have a clean conscience and on this matter mine has not been clean for a while.
Making this public in light of the many public discussions Albert and I have had along with email theology/philosophy list discussions the past two plus years serves to do just that. I hope and pray that my friend reads this and reflects upon the content. I also hope that this does not result in our friendship being sullied.
Why these things happen, Lord I don't understand
But Lord it can sure hurt a man...
Spiritual Instruction on Zeal (Part I)
But if you have bitter zeal and there be contentions in your heart, glory not and be not liars against the truth: for this is not wisdom descending from above, but earthly, sensual, diabolical. (St. James, Cath. Ep., c. iii vv.14 and 15.)
For the anger of man worketh not the justice of God. (St. James, Cath. Ep., c. i., v. 20.)
1. Zeal for the salvation of souls is a sublime virtue, and yet how many errors and sins are committed daily in its name! Evil is never done more effectually and with greater security, says St. Francis de Sales, than when one does it believing he is working for the glory of God.
2. The saints themselves can be mistaken in this delicate matter. We see a proof of this in the incident related to the Apostles Saint James and Saint John; for Our Lord reprimanded them for asking Him to cause fire from heaven to fall upon the Samaritans. (Luke, IX., 54.)
3. Acts of zeal are like coins the stamp upon which is necessary to examine attentively, as there are more counterfeits than good ones. Zeal to be pure should be accompanied by great humility, for it is of all virtues the one which self-love most easily glides. When it does so, zeal is apt to become imprudent, presumptuous, unjust, bitter. Let us consider these characteristics in detail, viewing them, for the sake of greater clearness, in their practical bearings.
4. In every home there grows some thorn, something, in other words, that needs correction; for the best soil is seldom without its noxious weed. Imprudent zeal, by seeking awkwardly to pluck out the thorn, often succeeds only in plunging it farther in, thus rendering the wound deeper and more painful. In such a case it is essential to act with reflection and great prudence. There is a time to speak and a time to be silent, says the Holy Spirit. (Ecclesiastes III., 7.) Prudent zeal is silent when it realizes that to be so is less hurtful than to speak.
5. Some persons are even presumptuous enough in their mistaken zeal to meddle in the domestic affairs of strange families, blaming, counselling, attempting to reform without measure and discretion, thus causing an evil much greater than the one they wish to correct. Let us employ the activity of our zeal in our own reformation, says Saint Bernard, and pray humbly for that of others. It is great presumption on our part thus to assume the role of apostles when we are not as yet faithful disciples. Not that you should be be by any means indifferent to the salvation to souls: on the contrary you must wish it most ardently, but do not undertake to effect it except with great prudence, humility, and diffidence in self.
6. Again there are pious persons whose zeal consists in wishing to make everyone adopt their particular practices of devotion. Such a one, if she have a special attraction for meditating on the Passion of our divine Lord or for visiting the Blessed Sacrament, would like to oblige every one, under pain of reprobation, to pass long hours prostrate before the crucifix or the tabernacle. Another who is especially devoted to visiting the poor and the sick and to the other works of corporeal mercy, acknowledges no piety apart from these excellent practices. Now, this is not an enlightened zeal. Martha and Mary were sisters, says Saint Augustine, but they have not a like office: one acts the other contemplates. If both had passed the day in contemplation, no one would have prepared a repast for their divine Master; if both had been employed in this material work, there would have been no one to listen to His words and garner up His divine lessons. The same may be said of other good works. In choosing among them each person should follow the inspirations of God's grace, and these are very varied. The eye that sees but hears not, must neither envy nor blame the ear that hears but sees not. Omnis spiritus laudet Dominum: let every spirit praise the Lord, says the royal prophet. (Ps. CL, 5.)
7. Bear well in mind that the zeal which would lead you to undertake works not in conformity with your position, however good and useful they may be in themselves, is always a false one. This is especially true if such cause us interior trouble or annoyance; for the holiest things are infallibly displeasing to God when they do not accord with the duties of our state in life.
8. Saint Paul condemned in strong terms those Christians who showed a too exclusive preference for their spiritual masters; some admitting as truth only what came from the mouth of Peter, others acknowledging none save Paul, and others again none but Apollo. What! said he to them, is not Jesus Christ the same for all of you! Is it then Paul who was crucified for you? Is it in his name that you were baptized? (St. Paul, i Cor. i., 13.) This culpable weakness is often reproduced in our day. Persons otherwise pious carry to excess the esteem and affection they have for their spiritual directors, exalt without measure their wisdom and holiness, and do not scruple to deprecate all others. God alone knows the true value of each human being, and we have not the scales of the sanctuary to weigh and compare the respective wisdom and sanctity of this or that person. If you have a good confessor, thank God and try to render his wisdom useful to you by your docility in allowing yourself to be guided; but do not assume that nobody else has as good a one. To deprecate the merits of some in order to exalt those of others at their expense is a sort of slander, that ought to be all the more feared because it is generally so little recognized. [Fr. R.P. Quadrupani: Light and Peace - Instructions for Devout Souls to Dispel Their Doubts and Allay Their Fears pgs. 153-158 (c. 1795)]
The previous installment of this series was on internal peace and can be found here:
Interior Peace
One who only recently tuned into this series can follow it through the above link all the way back to the beginning. The second part of the series on zeal will run either tomorrow or the night after or so.
Sunday, September 29, 2002
"Change In The Weather" Dept.
This John Fogerty song came to mind when I had perhaps the worst day I have had in about four months yesterday. From my Buddy Guy "Feels Like Rain" album:
"Yeah, ah, huh, you better duck and run
Get under cover 'cause a change is come
Storm warnings and it looks like rain
Be nothin' left after the hurricane
There is a jungle it ain't no lie
Look at the people
They got terror in their eyes
Bad wind is comin' it can't be denied
They're runnin' with the dogs
And afraid to die..."
It did not help that it served almost as a prelude to the coming week. I also got fed up with blogger's archive problems last night after three hours of trying to fix the archives according to their troubleshooting guide. The end result: I decided to set up my own archives by linking to the format directly rather than through the blog format that comes with these templates. (For those who have similar problems you can use blogger code or regular HTML and I used the latter on the archives.) I will try to remember every Sunday to add another week to it every week. Anyway, that problem is fixed. Others though of a more serious nature can be sensed on the horizon as they have been brewing for some time. I only hope my initial presuppositions about them are exaggerated. But admittedly I am not optimistic...
"High noon I can't believe my eyes
Wind is ragin' there's a fire in the sky
Ground shakin' everything comin' loose
Run like a coward but it ain't no use
Edge of the river just an ugly scene
People getting pushed, and people gettin' mean
A change is comin; and it's getting' kind of late
There ain't no survivin', there ain't no escape..."
This John Fogerty song came to mind when I had perhaps the worst day I have had in about four months yesterday. From my Buddy Guy "Feels Like Rain" album:
"Yeah, ah, huh, you better duck and run
Get under cover 'cause a change is come
Storm warnings and it looks like rain
Be nothin' left after the hurricane
There is a jungle it ain't no lie
Look at the people
They got terror in their eyes
Bad wind is comin' it can't be denied
They're runnin' with the dogs
And afraid to die..."
It did not help that it served almost as a prelude to the coming week. I also got fed up with blogger's archive problems last night after three hours of trying to fix the archives according to their troubleshooting guide. The end result: I decided to set up my own archives by linking to the format directly rather than through the blog format that comes with these templates. (For those who have similar problems you can use blogger code or regular HTML and I used the latter on the archives.) I will try to remember every Sunday to add another week to it every week. Anyway, that problem is fixed. Others though of a more serious nature can be sensed on the horizon as they have been brewing for some time. I only hope my initial presuppositions about them are exaggerated. But admittedly I am not optimistic...
"High noon I can't believe my eyes
Wind is ragin' there's a fire in the sky
Ground shakin' everything comin' loose
Run like a coward but it ain't no use
Edge of the river just an ugly scene
People getting pushed, and people gettin' mean
A change is comin; and it's getting' kind of late
There ain't no survivin', there ain't no escape..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)