Response to a Self-styled "Traditionalist" (Part I):

Before I respond to a certain individual in three consecutive posts I want to let my readers know that the three knockdown rule is in effect.

The person I am responding to here is referring to a certain individual and Rerum Novarum prefers to deal in issues and not personalities. So to protect the guilty individual identities the person in the reference below has had their name changed. (The latter I will refer to simply as "Todd Rundgrens". The person I am responding to I will refer to as "Yechiel Levine".)

I still haven't heard from the opponents of Mr. [Rundgrens] how they can charge him with anti-semitism WITHOUT implicating our own popes and saints.

The same way we can refer to someone who denies the Trinity as at least a material heretic and not be implicating the ante-Nicene saints. The same way we can refer to someone who denies that Mary was the Mother of God as at least a material heretic and not be implicating the ante-Ephesus saints. Need we continue???

For example, Pope Saint Pius V ordered the jews expelled from the papal states.

Yes he did. Pope St. Pius V did several things which were not to his credit. Unless you think he was impeccable I fail to see what the problem is here.

I went over the subject of zeal in a spiritual instructional on this humble blog recently. If you recall, the first part of the two part reflection read as follows:

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...The saints themselves can be mistaken in this delicate matter.

I rest my case. Pope St. Pius V in his handling of the Jews committed sins in the name of zeal. As this is par for the course for humanity I do not dwell on his failings in this area as we all have our own failings. But then again, the magisterium had not set forth any doctrine on this matter in Pius V's time so holding him to today's standard would be akin to calling St. Cyprian (who is mentioned by name in the Roman Canon) a heretic for not professing infallibility, St. Ignatius for not professing the Trinity, St. Augustine for not professing what was defined at the Council of Trent on Original Sin, or St. Thomas on the Immaculate Conception. Before I forget, here is the entire series on zeal again:

Spiritual Instruction on Zeal (Part I)

Spiritual Instruction on Zeal (Part II)

And lest I forget, though this work I reference has gone through over twenty-five editions since 1795, I give you the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur information now:

Nihil Obstat - Sti. Ludovici, die ii Junii, 1904. F. G. Holweck Censor Liborium

Imprimatur - Sti. Ludovici, die ii Junii, 1904. Joannes J. Glennon, Archiepiscopus, Sti. Ludovici

I'd like an honest answer from Todd's critics. Was Pius V, one of only two popes to be canonized in the last 500 years, an anti-semite?

It would be more accurate to say he was anti-Judaism. His actions were a result of zeal for the salvation of souls - of this I do not doubt. But even saints can have imprudent zeal. Tell you what, if you want to refer to all the saints I listed above as heretics, I will classify St. Pius V as an anti-semite. Fair enough???

It'll be interesting to see how many of you will have the guts to answer [my challenge] truthfully.

I just did. Ball is in your court now Yechiel. Are Sts Ignatius, Cyprian, Augustine, and Thomas all heretics??? I am waiting...

To be continued...

Update on the Covenantal Salvation Thread:

I finished the first part of it the other day and finally got the bugs ironed out. As there is about three different ways I can take the thread at the moment I want to establish a definite direction before I start posting sections. So those I mentioned doing this thread to, rest assured: I am working on it.

In the meantime let us have a bit of fun with a "challenge" sent to my email box today. I am not sure why but those who are the most smug tend to be the ones I enjoy dismantling. But to make this interesting I intend to raise the stakes. For more details stay tuned...

Bryan Preston at the JunkYard Blog has some good observations about the shootings that are taking place in Washington DC: LINK. I have to agree that if citizens in Washington were allowed to arm themselves whomever this is would be far less likely to get away with this kind of thing for long. (And to end this days blogging on a nice note, I will observe reverent silence with regards to what I think should be done to people such as this.)

Sleepy are my eyes
Tonights last written entry
I bid thee adieu...

"Bastiat's Corner" Dept.

For those who are behind, the previous installments can be read through this link. Without further ado, Mr. Bastiat:

The Complete Perversion of the Law

But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.

How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results?

The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy. Let us speak of the first.

A Fatal Tendency of Mankind

Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing.

But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man -- in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.

Property and Plunder

Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.

But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.

Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain -- and since labor is pain in itself -- it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.

When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.

It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.

But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.

This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.

The next installment will include "Victims of Lawful Plunder", "The Result of Legal Plunder", and "The Fate of Non-Conformists". This is must read Blog TV folks - as we have elections coming up and the kind of thievery that most candidates run on has become quite normal. Our Founding Fathers would be horrified by what we tolerate today. But we can deal more with that in the next and subsequent installments.

Speaking of John Carlson...He currently has journalist/diva Michelle Malkin on the radio. (She used to write for the Times and was one of the few voices of sanity in that paper.) She has written a book on immigration and the borders and is discoursing on the subject very impressively. And what a very pleasing voice...again, Mr. Malkin is a *very* fortunate fellow :) It is times like this that I almost want to reconsider my stance against cloning...

From "The Body" to "The Brain" to "The Mat" Dept.

I am curious to know what Mark D. Mouth has to say about the latest from Jesse Ventura. For all of his ranting about low voter turnout, it appears that Ventura did not even vote in the 2000 Presidential race!!! I just heard that from John Carlson on the radio and John is usually quite reliable. (Maybe we should now call him Jesse "the Body-Slammed" Ventura.)

Okay readers, here is your chance to put in your input. I have decided to allow a vote on which subject will be covered in the spiritual reflections series. The candidates for this round include (1) Temptations (2) Spiritual Reading (3) Charity (4) Prayer. The polls are open until Friday evening and you vote by emailing me at ismac@lycos.com

"I'll Play the Blues for You" Dept.

If your down and out
And you feel real hurt
Come on oooover....
To the place where I work
And allll your loneliness
I'll try to soothe...
I'll play the blues for you..

Those who wonder why I am such a fan of the blues can get the notion from what is mentioned on the blog earlier in the week. But as that would only indicate one side of the story, I want to tell the other side here.

Now of course true fans know that blues is human emotion. They can be happy, sad, funny, seductive, or any other emotion though it is the feeling down element that is most commonly known. When this element is in effect it serves as a catharsis if you will - particularly the soulful wailing of a vocal-like instrument such as the electric guitar. I did not plan on discussing this but I read on a blog where the subject was being discussed and decided to inject my buck and change on this subject. (For the record the blog hostess herself seems to have a very balanced view of this subject matter.) It need not be only blues since I have over the years collected albums of almost every genre in existence except disco and rap. (The list of divergent stylings would probably shock people.) That does not mean that I dislike all disco of course or even all rap - though in the case of the latter there is admittedly very little that I happen to care for.) But lest I digress further, here goes...

[T]he blues is not about despair. It's about melancholy and resignation. The latter is the opposite of despair, in a way. Despair wrecks (objects, others, and finally the self); resignation accepts. If it didn't, surely black Americans would have died of grief long before they found their freedom?

One side of the story only.

Do you know the John Lee Hooker song called "The Fog"?

If this person thinks that John Lee Hooker only sang melancholy songs then he does not know much about the late Mr. Hooker (RIP).

Can't resist pointing out that my SERIOUS musical friends all tell me that the complex rhythms of American popular music are actually too simple and repetitive for them. But I can never quite agree with this; think they're missing some subtlety.

Well, I have not been much of a fan of Top 40 radio fan since the late 1980's for much the same reason. But with forms of music such as jazz and blues, these "serious" people (whoever they are) are correct. The dynamic range in both jazz and blues transcends pop music. It also (I would argue) transcends classical music. Nonetheless, there is such a thing as deceptive simplicity. Christianity is a classic example of this when you really get down to nuts and bolts. But I digress...

I once found a critic's comment (perhaps banal to those more knowledgeable than I am) saying that the European musical tradition aimed to make the voice as pure and accurate as a musical instrument; the American tradition (under its African influence) aimed to make instruments as supple and expressive as the human voice.

That is accurate. The utilization of dynamics is key to a good musician. It took me some time to learn how to bend, slide, and trill single note. (I started there since my hands were not made for speed so compensation is called for if you will.) In the blues there is one method of singing called the "call and response" where the singer and his guitar interact with one another.

One point you may never have noticed: Canadian popular music differs from that of the US in that it never had a significant African influence until the 1950s (with the exception of jazz). Our dominant tradition in popular music is Celtic. What we have is what American music would be, minus the influence of African rhythms and vocal styles.

I hope this is not one of those attempts to sound elitist. (Out of charity I will presume that it is not.) I like Celtic music too (being part Irish I almost have to) but this sounds to me almost as if the person is dismissing American music or downgrading it because of African elements. Need I remind this person that many Canadian musicians and groups were influenced by American music forms. (Three that come to mind immediately are Neil Young, Rush, and The Band: all three of which are in my collection and the latter in particular is among my favourites.)

A Thomist worthy of the label looks for the Truth wherever it can be found. This does not mean that they have to like all kinds of music but it does mean that even many of those that do not sound appealing at first should not be immediately dismissed. Many good things are after all an acquired taste. And music much as art often has many rays of truth in them. (And at times it is truth that most people want to ignore.)

But as we started with the blues, let us end there as well with perhaps the greatest influence on modern guitar players - a man whose influence transcended the blues genre. Or (if we really want to annoy the snobs) a former sharecropper/bulldozer operator who was illiterate most of his life and had to teach himself to play guitar in a very unorthodox manner (upside down and backwards because he was left-handed; pickless because he could not grip a pick as his hands were too big). And yet today no guitar instructional is complete IMHO without discussing his contributions to how the instrument is played. (To say nothing of the countless players influenced by him.) From the one man whom Jimi Hendrix was (by his own admission) intimidated by and John Lee Hooker's favourite player: the late great Albert King (RIP).

I ain't got no big name
Ooooo Lord and I ain't no big star
But I'll play the bluuues for you
On my gui-tar
Allll your lone-li-ness
I'll try to soothe
I'll play the blues for you



(Scuse me)

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).

"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...

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... ;-)

"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...

Reflections on Critics and Some Hypothetical Scenarios:

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.

"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 :)

"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...

Your humble servant is working out a few hypothetical examples of wolves in sheeps clothing. It should be available tomorrow if not in the coming week for reading (it still needs a bit of fine tuning if you will).

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)]

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)]

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.

Some stuff I posted earlier today at the Catholic Converts Board on the Councils of Basle (in case you are interested):

Part I

Part II

"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".

"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.

"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.

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

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

"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??? ;-)

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.

"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.

"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.