"From the Mail Bag" Dept.
[Prefatory Note: I have updated this post three times now since originally posting it Saturday night because (frankly) I felt that I could have responded better in some points to Gregory than I initially did. Thus, for those who read this post before each update, there is stuff that you did not see. - ISM 6/23/03 6:05pm]
The Instapundit-like posting day continues with this response written several days ago and just finished formatted for posting about five minutes ago. I think I will unwind with my rosary and a double carona. This will be the last posting for today - and possibly for the weekend. Nonetheless, without further ado, let us get to it.
Hello Mr. McElhinney!
Hello Gregory. My friends call me Shawn :)
Thank you for your answer to my previous email. You had some awesome points. The evidence against "traditionalism" is so great! I get more and more shocked, the more I read, at their foolishness. How can someone believe what they believe?
I wish this was an easy question to answer but it is not. In light of your other questions, I will pass over this one at the present time. (If you want to go over it another time by itself, that would be fine.)
Anyway, I've written some more questions for you if you don't mind. But I do want to clarify that I have not read your revision of your piece "Vatican II and its Authority" yet; I printed the old version and read it about 7 months ago.
The new one is much better in my opinion. I added a couple new sources, refined some of the previous arguments a little, added a couple of new sections, deleted areas that were unnecessarily repetitious. It is also cast into two parts now with the first being an examination and debunking of "traditionalist" misconceptions and the second building on the first with a proposed counter-thesis.
The material is in many respects predominantly the same but the two threads wove together too closely before to be as effective as they could have been. (Plus, these divisions which I utilized in my treatise in all the sections make reading the piece a lot easier.)
So if any of my questions are clearly answered in the revision, you don't have to answer it now. Just say that you explicitly talk about it in your piece. I will get around to reading the revised article soon anyway.
Oh that all emailers were as easy to please as you are Gregory :)
So here are my questions.
1) What exactly is the difference between Ordinary and Universal Magisterium and merely Ordinary Magisterium? I have never seen a distinction made between those two levels of authoriy in what little I've read from theological works or papal documents.
These are technical terms used to specify when the magisterium is clearly speaking definitively and where it may not be. You may recognize this definition from the paper you refer to in this email:
Magisterium (Lat. magister, a master). The Church's divinely appointed authority to teach the truths of religion, "Going therefore, teach ye all nations... teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matt. xxviii, 19-20). This teaching is infallible: "And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (ibid.) The solemn magisterium is that which is exercised only rarely by formal and authentic definitions of councils or popes. Its matter comprises dogmatic definitions of ecumenical councils or of the popes teaching ex cathedra, or of particular councils, if their decrees are universally accepted or approved in solemn form by the pope; also creeds and professions of faith put forward or solemnly approved by pope or ecumenical council. The ordinary magisterium is continually exercised by the Church especially in her universal practices connected with faith and morals, in the unanimous consent of the Fathers (q.v.) and theologians, in the decisions of Roman Congregations concerning faith and morals, in the common sense (q.v.) of the faithful, and various historical documents in which the faith is declared. All these are founts of a teaching, which as a whole is infallible. They have to be studied separately to determine how far and in what conditions each of them is an infallible source of truth. [Catholic Encyclop?dic Dictionary Twenty-Fifth Edition pg. 319; Donald Attwater — General Editor, New York, The Macmillan Company, (c. 1941)]
In essence, when the episcopate teaches in concurrence on a matter of faith and morals, it is definitive. And of course, if the pope makes it clear that he intends to settle an issue, it is definitive. And at that point, since judgment has been passed, the universal episcopate is expected to uphold it. While the term "ordinary and universal magisterium" is relatively new - having been first used in Pope Pius IX's 1863 Apostolic Letter Tuas Libenter - the concept is ancient. After Pope Pius IX pioneered the term, it was subsequently used in Vatican I's Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius.
Interestingly enough, the context of the Apostolic Letter Tuas Libenter actually was to rebut the very kind of dismissals of the ordinary teaching authority that were common amongst the more "enlightened" sorts of the nineteenth century, the Modernists of the early twentieth century (not to mention the Integralists), and numerous self-styled "progressivists" and self-styled "traditionalists" today. It goes to show that old errors do not die but instead they reclothe themselves in later ages to again afflict the Mystical Body. Though these are technical terms, they do have a meaning though the exact understanding of the application of them is a matter of debate. While this should be a matter of debate amongst theologians, there are unfortunately lay people who try to opine that certain teachings they like are definitive by virtue of the "ordinary and universal magisterium". And if they dislike certain teachings, then they are relegated to the "ordinary magisterium" - as if the latter means that they can be either dissented from or publicly disputed. Of course since (i) the ordinary magisterium can be infallible and (ii) it is controvertible if the ordinary magisterium has ever actually contained a doctrinal or moral error that was taught, this kind of speculation should never be entered into lightly, if it is to be at all. Yet pundits pushing certain agendas do not cease to do this. And in light of some of the dynamics involved, it should give such people - if they had a truly Traditional Catholic bone in their bodies - some serious cause for pause.
For from the moment the delineation of "ordinary magisterium" and "ordinary universal magisterium" entered the lexicon, there were those who tried to find ways of minimizing obedience owed to the ecclesial magisterium. And the popes were not silent in condemning this erroneous approach - even before this delineation was made. For the ordinary magisterium partakes of the infallibility of the Church to some degree - a fact made clear not only by Pope Pius IX but also in the proposed (but unpromulgated) schema on the Church from Vatican I.
Dei Filius the Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith made it clear that certain teachings were to be held of faith which were handed down in the ordinary and universal magisterium. But the ordinary and universal magisterium was not limited solely to those things that were divinely revealed. Instead the Second Constitution (which was intended to supplement the first) declared that "the object of infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of faith and as far as the office of guarding it demands. And so we teach that the prerogative of infallibility, with which Christ's Church is endowed embraces not only the whole revealed word of God, but also everything that, although in itself not revealed, is necessary for safeguarding the revealed word, for certainly and definitively proposing and explaining it for belief, and for legitimately asserting and defending it against the errors of men and the contrary oppositions of so-called knowledge" (Schema on the Second Constitution from Vatican I).
This though not promulgated did nonetheless represent the consensus of theological opinion and remained as such until 1964 when Vatican II completed the work of Vatican I and issued two Dogmatic Constitutions - one on the Church and one on Divine Revelation. In the former, the secondary truths were confirmed and the definition of papal infallibility was restated in the sense it was defined - though this was often not understood in the post Vatican I period (even by many theologians). Vatican II also explained how this infallibility applies to the pope and also to the teaching of the united episcopate.
A few years later, when the secondary truths were still being questioned by some dissidents - despite the definitive teaching of Lumen Gentium on the matter, the CDF issued a Declaration solemnly approved by Pope Paul VI where the infallibility of the secondary truths was again defended. The Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae both referenced the teaching of Lumen Gentium §25 and also used almost the exact same wording as the unpromulgated schema from Vatican I. To quote from the Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae: According to Catholic doctrine, the infallibility of the Church's Magisterium extends not only to the deposit of faith but also to those matters without which that deposit cannot be rightly preserved and expounded. This is why infallibility extends beyond solemn definitions of dogma.
This is also why anyone who has tried to explicitly or implicitly dismiss the authority of the Church in matters of secondary truths (i.e. Jansenists, Modernists, Integralists, so-called "traditionalists", so-called "progressivists", etc) need to be opposed without compromise because they undermine the Faith like a termite undermines the stability of a tree from within. But enough on that point and on to the terms "ordinary magisterium" and "ordinary and universal magisterium."
The term "ordinary magisterium" applies to the Church's day to day teaching and practices and is a mosaic of doctrines and disciplines. (The latter are reformable, the former I would argue are not except in their application.) The universal element of the ordinary magisterium embodies the teaching Church taken as a unit if you will - the consensus of the Church teaching on a point of doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.
Some like to say that the ordinary universal magisterium is simply the bishops teaching in unison with the pope whereas the pope speaking alone does not possess the same authority. These are usually the ones who claim that the pope cannot speak infallibly except by solemn definition whereas the episcopal college in union with the pope can do this. (Meaning teach infallibly in non-solemn ways.) I find these kinds of arguments both ridiculously legalistic and also patently untraditional for many reasons.
We cannot separate the pope from the consent of the church because he is the source of communion with the universal church. For this reason, the consent of the church cannot be lacking to him. This point was made explicitly clear by Bishop Gasser in his authoritative Relatio when discussing the fourth chapter of the proposed schema pastor aeternus. When explaining the proper sense of the various parts of that chapter, Bishop Gasser noted to the Council Fathers that "[the pope] is no more able to be separated from the universal Church than the foundation from the building it is destined to support" (Relatio of Bishop Gasser).
His Grace also noted that "we do not separate the Pope, even minimally, from the consent of the Church, as long as that consent is not laid down as a condition which is either antecedent or consequent. We are not able to separate the Pope from the consent of the Church because this consent is never able to be lacking to him" (Relatio of Bishop Gasser).
And as the Fathers voted in accordance with the understanding of the Relatio, I have a problem with theologians who try to modify the sense that a doctrine is defined in. Vatican I in the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius taught that this was never permissible to do. Yet self-styled "traditionalists" and self-styled "progressivists" do it all the time. They also try to claim that anything that is not solemnly defined can be openly disputed. Yet even by their own favourite sources - such as Quanta Cura §5 and the Syllabus of Errors in proposition 22 referencing Tuas Libenter - they stand refuted. Now I know that the "progressivists" (falsely so-called) will write these off as irrelevant but the "trads" who by implying that they are "Traditional" are hypocritical for doing this. They either are very ignorant or they are practicing selective adherence to magisterial teachings that they like and disregarding those that they do not like. I believe most of the time it is the former because as a "trad" I relied on those who prooftexted magisterial documents as they so often do. And as the old saying goes, if you tell a lie enough times, eventually people can come to believe it. But enough on that and back to the subject of the revised piece you refer to.
I quote the Relatio (whch sets out the proper sense of the dogma defined) a bit more in the revised piece. I also added a new Appendix to my treatise which references huge chunks of this essential allocution. It is without question (i) the most authoritative commentary on the proper sense of the defined dogma and (ii) one of the most unknown of sources. It should be unnecessary to even bring such things into the picture if not for the utter lack of traditional obedience to the magisterium on so many fronts today. But since this does not appear to be diminishing in some quarters, it becomes necessary to do. (I also quoted parts of the Relatio which mitigate against sedevacantist theories of papal heresy in that Appendix section.)
2) You said in your article "Vatican II and its Authority":
[I]t is logically impossible for the Church to teach error via the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium since that would be tantamount to undermining the indefectibility of the Church.
That was in the first version yes. It is not present in the second version because (if memory serves) I was reiterating the point in that excerpt. In the revision, I primarily chose to use the expression "ordinary magisterium" to express the same point. The reason was because in the new format, I divided the previous url into two and used the first part to refute the 'trad' misunderstandings on the matter and the second part to construct a counter-thesis. As the text the thesis was based on referred to the ordinary magisterium, I wanted my terms to match up and not cause confusion.
Well, what about when Vatican II is merely elaborating on the doctrine of religious liberty. Of course, when it says something like (i'm paraphrasing it) "this holy synod declares that religious liberty is a man's right" that is infallible.
Correct. But it is not a matter of dogma. Remember, with most 'trads' saying something is infallible is a way of saying that it is a dogma. They do not tend to make the proper distinctions on the subject. This is why they parade around the "pastoral council" canard as they do. If they understood theology very well they would know that pastoral theology presupposes dogmatic theology as well as moral theology and canon law. I go over this in a new section written for the revised piece.
But I can't see how it can be infallible when it is presenting arguments for religious liberty (even if they require religious assent).
The teaching is what is definitive, not the arguments. I did not address religious liberty in that part of the treatise (from which the article was a spinoff of) admittedly. The reason was that I wanted to stick to the two Dogmatic Constitutions as they are the most authoritative of the Council's pronouncements.
With regards to the ordinary magisterium, remember that the Council also does not have to be so explicit in teaching definitively. (This is a point I emphasized a bit more in the revision.) For teachings of the supreme ordinary magisterium do not require any technical form of words to be definitive. If the tenor of the words and/or their context indicate a teaching that pertains to the deposit of faith (and thus must be held), that suffices for definitive status. Here are some examples that come to mind:
"[T]he council intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society." [DH §1]
Thus the doctrinal teaching on these two subjects as they involve a manifested development should be presumed as definitive a priori. And as the intention was to develop the teaching of recent popes, such teachings would have an intrinsically diachronic element to them and thus not be mere novelties.
"This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others within due limits.
The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.{ Cf. John XXIII, encycl. "Pacem in Terris," April 11, 1963: AAS 55 (1963), pp. 260-261; Pius XII, radio message, Dec. 24, 1942: AAS 35 (1943) p. 19; Pius XI, encycl. "Mit Brennender Sorge," March 14, 193i: AAS 29 (1937), p. 160- Leo XIII, encycl. "Libertas Praestantissimum," June 20, 1888: Acts of Leo XIII 8 (1888), pp. 237-238.} This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right. [DH §2]
The basic elaboration of what something means would of course be definitive though the arguments used to support it would not necessarily be. Obviously the statement itself is definitive when the Council explains what it means by a statement that we agree is definitive. Further evidence of the definitive nature of this teaching is in the reiteration by the Council of the above referenced point previously either enunciated or at least implied by the magisterium.
It would seem absurd to be developing a doctrine so manifestly and yet not be intending for its application in society to be definitive. Nonetheless, the part about the right being enshrined in constitutional law is at a minimum authoritative and thus requiring of filial obedience.
"It is in accordance with their dignity as persons--that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility--that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth. However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore, the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature." [DH §2]
The points which speak of what people are "bound" to do by nature and also moral obligation - as well as the notation of the right itself would be properly understood as definitive. Other points could be noted here but I want to skip down to a very important development of doctrine in DH: the definition of the term "public order" and its role in society's regulation of religious expression:
The right to religious freedom is exercised in human society: hence its exercise is subject to certain regulatory norms. In the use of all freedoms the moral principle of personal and social responsibility is to be observed. In the exercise of their rights, individual men and social groups are bound by the moral law to have respect both for the rights of others and for their own duties toward others and for the common welfare of all. Men are to deal with their fellows in justice and civility.
Furthermore, society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion. It is the special duty of government to provide this protection. However, government is not to act in an arbitrary fashion or in an unfair spirit of partisanship. Its action is to be controlled by juridical norms which are in conformity with the objective moral order. These norms arise out of the need for the effective safeguard of the rights of all citizens and for the peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights, also out of the need for an adequate care of genuine public peace, which comes about when men live together in good order and in true justice, and finally out of the need for a proper guardianship of public morality.
These matters constitute the basic component of the common welfare: they are what is meant by public order.[DH §7]
In DH §7, the definition of "public order" as a criteria for the civil regulation of religious expression would almost certainly be a definitive teaching. Obviously the norms would not be concrete in their application in each instance; hence the pastoral slant of the document which intended to provide functional criteria for regulating religious profession that would safeguard the rights of the Church in the civil sphere without being self-contradictory.
Like "just war theory" we have a situation here where the norms are one thing and how they are applied in certain circumstances are another. But since the Church by her very nature promotes the strengthening of the moral order and obedience to civil leaders in most parameters, she cannot be charged with violations of what was defined as "public order."
By contrast, under the old criteria of "common good", a non-Catholic government could turn that principle around and claim that repressing the Catholic profession was for "the common good." Clearly in light of the manner whereby governmental forms had changed - along with the status of the Catholic Church as it was recognized in many countries - a new criteria was needed that safeguarded Catholic faith profession without being able to be turned around and used against the Church.
The rationale of His Eminence Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani - whose view represented one of the schools of thought on this issue before the Council- that "religious liberty was something that the Church stressed when she was in the minority but did not have to concede when she was in the majority" needed to be given the axe. (As no non-Catholic nation would buy such blatantly inconsistent rationale and no one would take the Catholic Church seriously if she actually promulgated such an opinion as binding teaching.)
What is more, this doctrine of freedom has roots in divine revelation." [DH §9]
With regards to the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae (on religious liberty), the arguments themselves would not be strictly speaking definitive. But at the same time, what is an exposition on teaching and what is an argument in support of a teaching is to some degree a mixed bag.
But since the criteria of obedience to a teaching is not whether or not it is definitive, what is of primary importance is that the teaching is handed on authoritatively and adhered to with at least a religious submission of mind and will.
3) If the Council was using extraordinary Magisterium, like Trent, EVERYTHING in the decree's would therefore be infallible I believe. But would EVERYTHING (every sentence) require the assent of faith under pain of heresy?
Strictly speaking, the only parts of Trent which could be properly classified as extraordinary magisterium would be the manifested intention to define in the capitula of the decrees and the canons applicable to particular decrees. The rest would be on the order of the ordinary magisterium - some of which would be definitive and some of which would not be.
4) You said in the article "Vatican II and its Authority" that the word "defines" in the Vatican I decree on infallibility did not merely mean solemn definitions. But are solemn definitions the same thing as ex cathedra? It would seem so because John Paul II says in his Encyclical Ut Unum Sint:
He has the duty to admonish, to caution and to declare at times that this or that opinion being circulated is irreconcilable with the unity of faith. When circumstances require it, he speaks in the name of all the Pastors in communion with him. He can also-under very specific conditions clearly laid down by the First Vatican Council-declare ex cathedra that a certain doctrine belongs to the deposit of faith. By thus bearing witness to the truth, he serves unity.
I believe the term intended is "pertains" to the deposit of faith. Pope John Paul II himself refers to defining a "doctrine" which of course means a wider spectrum than matters of dogma. It is also worth noting that Cardinal Ratzinger noted when asked about the CDF Responsum on the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis that what was translated as "founded on the Word of God" was supposed to say "pertains to the Word of God." (Or "belongs".) My guess is that the same situation is present here.
The very definition itself from Vatican I states we teach and define...that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks 'ex cathedra,' i.e., when exercising his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals which must be held by the universal Church." Both terms "doctrine" and "to be held" go beyond what is delineated as "extraordinary magisterium." The latter strictly speaking applies to dogmas which are not merely "held" but are also "believed."
Our Pope seems to be saying that ex cathedra statements are NO DIFFERENT from a solemn definition.
It is like heresy and schism. A heretic is also a schismatic but a schismatic is not necessarly a heretic. Likewise, a solemn definition of faith is ex cathedra but ex cathedra pronouncements are not limited merely to matters of heresy or what is strictly speaking "de fide."
But I can name a whole lot of statements from Catholic books that say that Vatican I's decree was speaking about ex cathedra statements ; even Dr. Ludwig Ott's book on Catholic dogman says on the last page of the introduction that infallibility of the pope pertains only to ex cathedra definitions. This all contradicts statements you've made in your article.
Three points:
1) Dr. Ott's treatment of infallibility is not complete. (It is a comprehensive book on Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma but not an exhaustive treatment.)
2) Vatican I only defined what was to be believed "de fide." This did not include what was to be held as "certain."
3) Even Dr. Ott recognized that the indirect scope of infallibility applied to matters intimately connected with upholding the deposit which were not themselves revealed. (See what he says on page 299 about canonization of saints, dogmatic facts, and theological conclusions for example. He also notes this in the beginning of the book too prior to page 10.)
Cardinal Manning actually erred in ascribing the definition of Vatican I to not only doctrines pertaining to faith and morals but also "dogmatic facts, censures less than heresy, canonizations of saints, approbations of religious orders." While he was wrong to do this, he was not incorrect to note that these areas were all covered under the charism of infallibility. These were indeed covered but it was not to be held de fide that they were.
Bishop Gasser made it clear that the definition did not touch on these areas which remained in the same state they were in prior to the Council. And that state was one of theological certainty.{1} In short, there are definitive teachings which are "of divine faith" and those teachings or other related elements which are "of ecclesiastical faith." Canonization of saints is not de fide; however it is a matter of ecclesiastical faith. Others could be mentioned but I think the idea is reasonably made.
5) The traditionalist Chris Ferrara has stated that VII can't be infallible because it was merely an "orientation". How can an orientation be infallible, he asks. But what he actually attacks in his writings is far more than merely an orientaion. He believes that decree on religious liberty was in error, WHICH HAS TO DO WITH DOCTRINE.
He is erroneous. DH taught the right to civil religious liberty, not religious liberty under the divine law. Previous popes (Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII) condemned religious liberty as it pertained to the divine law. DH upheld these teachings explicitly in section1 when it stated that:
Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore [The Council] leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.
Over and above all this, the council intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society." [DH §1]
In short, the Declaration was leaving "untouched" the teachings of the Church previously enunciated on the requirements under the divine law. (Which requires people and societies to recognize the Catholic Church as the one true faith.) That is a matter of divine law and is not changeable. And DH did not do so or even manifest the intention to do so. Instead, the Declaration intended to complement the requirements of the divine law by developing the teaching of some of the more recent popes (Leo XIII, Pius XI, Pius XII, and John XXIII were specifically in mind) on the right to the human person as they pertained to the constitutional order of civil society. The one condemned was religious liberty under the divine law, the one approved was religious liberty within due limits in civil society. In short, the two notions of religious liberty are not the same.
But he does seem to have a point with regard to the general attitude of the Church since VII with regard to non-Catholics.
The Second Vatican Council embraced the very traditional understanding of ecclesiology of communion. Prior to the schism of west and east - and the subsequent build up of the papal monarchy - there was a much more fully orbed understanding of the Church as mystery and as communion more so than in its visible and juridical elements. This is too detailed to go into now but if you check the Rerum Novarum weblog for the week of 6/01-07, you will find a few responses to the follies of Mr. Ferrara. (The Lidless Eye weblog entry from March 21 goes into the subject of communion ecclesiology also.
That is, I don't see how those things can be binding (either by being infallible or merely requiring religious assent).
Mr. Ferrara is amazingly messed up theologically. I would suggest that if these are areas troubling for you to stay clear of anything he has to say.
For all of his attempts to instruct the magisterium on doctrinal matters, this individual (i) has no formal training (ii) shows a constant inability to understand finer theological nuances. Further still, he (iii) possesses an overly juridical mentality which is more befitting a Fundamentalist than a Catholic. He also, (iv) possesses a remarkable lacuna of authentic charity by demonstrating a serial suspicion complex and presuming the worst possible interpretations he can of anyone who disagrees with him. In short, the demons of pride infest him. The Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary defines "pride" as follows:
Pride, a capital vice opposed to humility (q.v.) consisting in excessive love of one's own excellence, exhibited in three ways: (a) Contempt for lawful authority - a mortal sin; (b) Contempt for equals or inferiors - mortal or venial according to the depth of contempt; (c) Desire to surpass one's equals - a venial sin. St. Thomas and many other spiritual writers put pride in a class by itself as the most deadly and devastating of all vices, which has its part in every sin, of whatever sort that is committed; for every sin is in its degree a contempt of God and often our superior and our neighbour as well. Pride feeds and thrives itself, continually stirring up the mind and will of man to rebellion against the moral law and against his lawful and qualified teachers, whether religious or civil. Ambition, presumption, and vainglory (qqv) are among the most immediate handmaids of pride". [Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary: Donald Attwater General Editor, tenth edition, pg. 422 (c. 1941)]
"Suspicion" is defined by the same dictionary as follows:
Suspicion - St. Thomas distinguishes three degrees of suspicion: when one begins to question anothers goodness on slight grounds, usually a venial fault; when one thinks on slight ground that another is certainly wicked, and this is a mortal sin in the case of grave matter; and when one condemns another outright merely on suspicion, and this is a sin against justice. "If we cannot avoid suspicion, because we are men, we should at least avoid judgments, that is, definite and positive opinions" (St. Augustine)". [Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary: Donald Attwater General Editor, tenth edition, pg. 510 (c. 1941)]
I dare anyone to tell me that these are not applicable to Mr. Ferrara. One thing is certain: he does not fit the mould of how a real Traditional Catholic approaches the subject of obedience. And that will be his downfall, indeed that is always the downfall of those who pride themselves on being "not like other men" (cf. Luke xviii,9-14). The true Traditionalist can say with the Angelic Doctor that [w]e must abide rather by the Pope's judgment than by the opinion of any of the theologians, however well versed he may be in the divine Scriptures." (Quodlibetum IX, Q.8, Quaest. Quodlibetales) The same principle applies with those who claim to be versed in the Great Tradition as all self-styled "traditionalists" by logical inference do.
I don't want to seem imposing by asking a huge number, so I will end it there.
Because of the delay in responding on my part, I took some extra time on this response to you.
Thanks so much for your time and may God love you always, always..
Thank you Gregory. In closing, I borrow some of the words of St. Paul to the Corinthians:
"May the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you always" (2 Cor. xiii,13).
Note:
{1} Vatican II in Lumen Gentium §25 not only confirmed the definitive nature of secondary truths - a point I covered in the paper you referred to. The Council also when reiterating anew the definition of Vatican I on papal infallibility replaced the word "defines" with the expression "proclaims by a definitive act."
The source referenced for the above phrasing adjustment: the aforementioned Relatio of Bishop Gasser which explained the sense of "defines" exactly as I did in my treatise. (And the essay you read which was a spinoff of one of the sections of that writing.)
[Updates: Some material from DH was added to the original post to flesh out the response a little and clarify a couple of points previously overlooked. There was also some material from an unpromulgated schema from Vatican I and the CDF's 1973 Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae subsequently added to the above post to flesh out the subject of secondary truths and church infallibility.
Finally, the definition of magisterium from the previous (and current) version of the treatise piece Vatican II and its Authority was added and incorporated into an expanded explanation on the ordinary magisterium and also on the ordinary and universal magisterium. In short, this entry reads in some areas significantly differently than it did when it was initially posted - ISM 6/26/03 8:45 pm]
Saturday, June 21, 2003
More on Cardinal Rampolla, Etcetera:
(And more on Rerum Novarum from Rerum Novarum)
Dear Shawn,
Thanks for your response. Your prompt retraction is to your credit.
Thank you. The way I see it, I have to be consistent. And in light of my criticisms of the inconsistencies of others, it places a heavier burden on me in that regard.
Can't say I'm convinced about Rampolla being influential in Rerum Novarum.
I will ask a friend of mine whose knowledge of these kinds of issues by far surpasses my own. He is somewhat of an expert on a number of church subjects - among them Leo XIII.
You may well be right (and my hunch wrong) that he was head of the Holy Office under Pius X, but so far the only post-Leo XIII title I've seen for Rampolla (in the Catholic Encyclopedia under Cardinals for the year 1913) was "Archpriest of the Vatican." I'll keep looking.
There is also the possibility that it was not listed because cabinet positions at the Holy See can change hands reasonably quickly at times. For example, Mariano Rampolla del Tindaro died in 1913 and was succeeded as Prefect in 1914 by Domenico Ferrata. St. Pius X died that same year and Benedict XV was elected. Benedict appointed Raphael Merry del Val to be prefect in 1914. So between 1913 and 1914, there were three prefects of the Holy Office in two years.
Look, here's my beef. It seemed to me that you were making Rampolla out to be a traditional Catholic, but everything I've read about him points the other way; he is usually described as liberal or progressive,
Well, the manner whereby I define the term "traditionalist" would apply to Rampolla. In essence I define "traditionalist" as akin to the manner whereby the term "conservative" used to be understood - say a hundred years ago. And by that criteria, both Rampolla as well as the policies of Rerum Novarum are both "conservative" or "traditional" their relative novel features notwithstanding.
I believe the problem is that most people make unwarranted dichotomies here. This is in part because they try to follow what has come to be known as "conventional wisdom" viz how these terms are used and applied. My argument is that trying to explain theological issues with political labels - part and parcel to conventional wisdom today - is intrinsically flawed.
and the policy he persuaded Leo XIII to adopt in France (ordering Catholics to work with the Masonic government that was openly persecuting the Church) seems to me to confirm this.
Well, part of the problem is that that the policy was still taken at the time not to have any interaction whatsoever with the Masons. This was not a realistic position to be taking. For even the working out of Concordants with nations influenced by Masons - which the Church did - meant working with the Masons to some degree. This was unavoidable though there was an attempt to introduce distinctions into the mix which were (to put it politely) were fictitious. The Church needed to assert the positive elements of masonry such as concern for their fellow man in the temporal order.
This is part and parcel to the manner whereby she assimilates the good in an error and discards the bad. The arguments of Marx and Engels about the Church's lack of concern for the workers retained their credibility as long as the Church was silent on this subject. And Pope Pius IX of blessed memory was neither in a position to do anything about it at the time nor was he intellectually equipped to approach this subject.{1} By contrast, Pope Leo XIII was both divested of all temporal power and intellectually formidable. He also had the intellectual strength which does not often manifest itself in people of advanced age to deal forthrightly and fairly with contemporary issues.
Now obviously the temporal order cannot be separated from the spiritual realm in the truest sense of the concept. However, I would argue that the central flaw to Counter-reformation policies - and this even touched on some areas of theology - was the recourse to dualist outlooks. This mentality affected the predominant theological views on a number of issues including ecumenism and religious liberty. I will not delve into these two topics at this time but they are examples where there were clear dualist tendencies. (In practice on ecumenism and in theory on the Roman school's approach to religious liberty which was blatantly contradictory internally as a result of dualist thinking.) But I digress.
Perhaps it is this policy that led to rumors about his Masonic connections (his name also appears on the occult OTO Manifesto - who knows?).
Well, some Masonic groups claim a lot of personages as their own who were not. I remember many years ago when my old SSPX pastor Fr. Christopher Hunter (a former history teacher) explained to me once how the attempts of the Masons to claim George Washington as one of theirs was a farce. The quickest way to appear valid in some people's eyes is to claim a "big name" for your movement. Businesses do it today with celebrity endorsers, the Masons act in like manner with some of the names they throw out whom they try to claim as their own.
Rampolla may well have been correct about some of the excesses of the crackdown on modernism, but wouldn't a better source for this be Pius X himself? He admonished over zealous anti-modernists more than Rampolla did, and more credibly to my mind. If you are trying to reach traditionalists, don't use Rampolla; any reference to him will automatically be dismissed.
Well, I opened with Rampolla and closed with St. Pius X. And in mentioning Rampolla, I outlined his influence in Leo's pontificate and his position as prefect under Pius X specifically to supply for the standard approaches that many would take with Rampolla. That he and the pope were of one mind on this issue is significant. And that Cardinal Rampolla in his defense of the pope was actually defending Pope Pius X is also significant.
This is friendly - and admittedly unasked for - advice from an integrist who knows his own.
Well, you may very well not be an Integrist actually. Just because you support many of the same philosophies (perhaps) of the Integrists does not make you one of them. I am sympathetic to many of the views of the Integrists - and I even hold some of them myself. But similarity does not denote identity.
BTW, I saw the picture of your dad. I have a holy hour every Thursday night in front of the Blessed Sacrament exposed, and tonight I prayed for the repose of his soul, and for God's blessings upon you both.
Thank you my friend. Words cannot express the depth of my appreciation for your charity. May the Lord reward you in like manner.
Note:
{1} Pope Bl. Pius IX did lay the foundations for the Catholic social teaching promulgated by Pope Leo XIII in his condemnations though: the Church's first recourse before she can assimilate the viable elements of any erroneous philosophy is to condemn the erroneous philosophy outright. The Church tended after Trent to shy away from her earlier policy of this kind of assimilation. Only with Pope Leo's pontificate would she gradually resume this practice with the errors of the Enlightenment - a policy that did not reach full fruition until the Second Vatican Council and the succeeding pontificates. (Pope John Paul II in particular deserves special mention for his undermining of the fallacious philosophies of the so-called "Enlightenment" period.)
(And more on Rerum Novarum from Rerum Novarum)
Dear Shawn,
Thanks for your response. Your prompt retraction is to your credit.
Thank you. The way I see it, I have to be consistent. And in light of my criticisms of the inconsistencies of others, it places a heavier burden on me in that regard.
Can't say I'm convinced about Rampolla being influential in Rerum Novarum.
I will ask a friend of mine whose knowledge of these kinds of issues by far surpasses my own. He is somewhat of an expert on a number of church subjects - among them Leo XIII.
You may well be right (and my hunch wrong) that he was head of the Holy Office under Pius X, but so far the only post-Leo XIII title I've seen for Rampolla (in the Catholic Encyclopedia under Cardinals for the year 1913) was "Archpriest of the Vatican." I'll keep looking.
There is also the possibility that it was not listed because cabinet positions at the Holy See can change hands reasonably quickly at times. For example, Mariano Rampolla del Tindaro died in 1913 and was succeeded as Prefect in 1914 by Domenico Ferrata. St. Pius X died that same year and Benedict XV was elected. Benedict appointed Raphael Merry del Val to be prefect in 1914. So between 1913 and 1914, there were three prefects of the Holy Office in two years.
Look, here's my beef. It seemed to me that you were making Rampolla out to be a traditional Catholic, but everything I've read about him points the other way; he is usually described as liberal or progressive,
Well, the manner whereby I define the term "traditionalist" would apply to Rampolla. In essence I define "traditionalist" as akin to the manner whereby the term "conservative" used to be understood - say a hundred years ago. And by that criteria, both Rampolla as well as the policies of Rerum Novarum are both "conservative" or "traditional" their relative novel features notwithstanding.
I believe the problem is that most people make unwarranted dichotomies here. This is in part because they try to follow what has come to be known as "conventional wisdom" viz how these terms are used and applied. My argument is that trying to explain theological issues with political labels - part and parcel to conventional wisdom today - is intrinsically flawed.
and the policy he persuaded Leo XIII to adopt in France (ordering Catholics to work with the Masonic government that was openly persecuting the Church) seems to me to confirm this.
Well, part of the problem is that that the policy was still taken at the time not to have any interaction whatsoever with the Masons. This was not a realistic position to be taking. For even the working out of Concordants with nations influenced by Masons - which the Church did - meant working with the Masons to some degree. This was unavoidable though there was an attempt to introduce distinctions into the mix which were (to put it politely) were fictitious. The Church needed to assert the positive elements of masonry such as concern for their fellow man in the temporal order.
This is part and parcel to the manner whereby she assimilates the good in an error and discards the bad. The arguments of Marx and Engels about the Church's lack of concern for the workers retained their credibility as long as the Church was silent on this subject. And Pope Pius IX of blessed memory was neither in a position to do anything about it at the time nor was he intellectually equipped to approach this subject.{1} By contrast, Pope Leo XIII was both divested of all temporal power and intellectually formidable. He also had the intellectual strength which does not often manifest itself in people of advanced age to deal forthrightly and fairly with contemporary issues.
Now obviously the temporal order cannot be separated from the spiritual realm in the truest sense of the concept. However, I would argue that the central flaw to Counter-reformation policies - and this even touched on some areas of theology - was the recourse to dualist outlooks. This mentality affected the predominant theological views on a number of issues including ecumenism and religious liberty. I will not delve into these two topics at this time but they are examples where there were clear dualist tendencies. (In practice on ecumenism and in theory on the Roman school's approach to religious liberty which was blatantly contradictory internally as a result of dualist thinking.) But I digress.
Perhaps it is this policy that led to rumors about his Masonic connections (his name also appears on the occult OTO Manifesto - who knows?).
Well, some Masonic groups claim a lot of personages as their own who were not. I remember many years ago when my old SSPX pastor Fr. Christopher Hunter (a former history teacher) explained to me once how the attempts of the Masons to claim George Washington as one of theirs was a farce. The quickest way to appear valid in some people's eyes is to claim a "big name" for your movement. Businesses do it today with celebrity endorsers, the Masons act in like manner with some of the names they throw out whom they try to claim as their own.
Rampolla may well have been correct about some of the excesses of the crackdown on modernism, but wouldn't a better source for this be Pius X himself? He admonished over zealous anti-modernists more than Rampolla did, and more credibly to my mind. If you are trying to reach traditionalists, don't use Rampolla; any reference to him will automatically be dismissed.
Well, I opened with Rampolla and closed with St. Pius X. And in mentioning Rampolla, I outlined his influence in Leo's pontificate and his position as prefect under Pius X specifically to supply for the standard approaches that many would take with Rampolla. That he and the pope were of one mind on this issue is significant. And that Cardinal Rampolla in his defense of the pope was actually defending Pope Pius X is also significant.
This is friendly - and admittedly unasked for - advice from an integrist who knows his own.
Well, you may very well not be an Integrist actually. Just because you support many of the same philosophies (perhaps) of the Integrists does not make you one of them. I am sympathetic to many of the views of the Integrists - and I even hold some of them myself. But similarity does not denote identity.
BTW, I saw the picture of your dad. I have a holy hour every Thursday night in front of the Blessed Sacrament exposed, and tonight I prayed for the repose of his soul, and for God's blessings upon you both.
Thank you my friend. Words cannot express the depth of my appreciation for your charity. May the Lord reward you in like manner.
Note:
{1} Pope Bl. Pius IX did lay the foundations for the Catholic social teaching promulgated by Pope Leo XIII in his condemnations though: the Church's first recourse before she can assimilate the viable elements of any erroneous philosophy is to condemn the erroneous philosophy outright. The Church tended after Trent to shy away from her earlier policy of this kind of assimilation. Only with Pope Leo's pontificate would she gradually resume this practice with the errors of the Enlightenment - a policy that did not reach full fruition until the Second Vatican Council and the succeeding pontificates. (Pope John Paul II in particular deserves special mention for his undermining of the fallacious philosophies of the so-called "Enlightenment" period.)
Fr Rob Johansen is apparently blogging again regularly. (I will have to "reclassify" his blog at some point if the trend continues.) In the meantime, he is asking for advice on how to handle couples who want to marry who (i) have the right to marry under Church law but who (ii) refuse to abide by Church teaching on proper preparation. So go to his blog and offer suggestions if you have any. Oh, and thanks to Bill Cork for the heads up on Fr. Rob's return to active blogging.
Speaking of John Kerry...
Matt Drudge exposes John Kerry for the lying two-faced fraud he is. Thanks to Bryan Preston for the heads-up. (It has been a couple weeks since I visited Drudge strangely enough.)
Matt Drudge exposes John Kerry for the lying two-faced fraud he is. Thanks to Bryan Preston for the heads-up. (It has been a couple weeks since I visited Drudge strangely enough.)
"JunkYard BLOG" Dept.
(A Rerum Novarum Pentuple Slam)
It has been a while since we posted a JYB update. Without further ado, let us get to it...
KERRY'S BACKFIRE
The other day Sen. John Kerry accused President Bush of lying to the country in the runup to war in Iraq. The "lies" centered on Iraq's ability to attack the US with WMDs and its possession of such weapons, and with the diplomatic games in the UN prior to the war, and so forth. Kerry's move was a pre-primary ploy to shore up his credentials with the left, which has all along insisted that everything the Bush administration has done from 9-11 forwards has been nothing but a house of lies. 9-11? Bush planned it. War in Afghanistan? Fought for a pipeline. War in Iraq? Blood for oil, or to advance a nefarious scheme to remake the MidEast. You know the drill.
There's evidence today that Kerry's move will backfire....Click Here For More
If Kerry cannot convince his own allies that he is sincere, he is in deep kim chee.
LOOK OUT, BILL O'REILLY
Fox News has picked up Dennis Miller to be a regular contributor. He'll start out doing a weekly gig on Hannity and Colmes, but look for him to get a show of his own before long.
Prediction: Dennis Miller would do to O'Reilly on TV what Rush Limbaugh is doing to him on the radio. (Except maybe not as bad.)
COOKING THE BOOK SALES
Hillary! is a fast learner. Former Veep and aspiring TV mogul Al Gore and is wife wrote a book that was released recently and very quickly forgotten, leading ultimately to conclusions that he has no remaining political viability. With the release of her book, Hillary! is making sure such a fate doesn't happen to her. According to the Prowler, she's making bulk purchases a pre-requisite for booking her to speak before various groups. The DNC is also in the game, and plans to send out copies of the book as thank-yous for donations to the Democrat party. That move will obviously boost sales. They want to make sure Hillary!'s Lying History (nod to HH) remains atop the bestseller lists for the summer and are leaving nothing to chance...or the whims of the book-buying public.
(via The Corner)
posted by B. Preston at 8:24 AM
I am not at all surprised, indeed I should have issued a NostraShawnus prediction on the matter. Hillary is not that popular folks, and I doubt she could have won a Senate race outside of New York - where the devil himself could win running as aDevilcrat Democrat.
FALLOUT FROM THE WALKOUT
Texas Dems, about whom I've written before, may have won a pyrrhic victory when they killed the GOP-sponsored state redistricting plan during their flight to Oklahoma earlier this year. They won the battle for now, but in the process have opened up a dangerous fissure in their own fragile coalition...Go Here For More
I KNEW IT!!!
So did I.
I hate traffic cameras. Hate them hate them hate them, and not just because they've nabbed me. They're Orwellian infringements on the right to face one's accuser, and as I've long suspected and Radley Balko reports, towns are goosing the yellow lights to get more violations, and therefore more funds. It's a high-tech cash cow disguised as a safety device.
Bryan Preston was recently in Japan for a couple of weeks. (It has been about that long since I read JYB so I was unaware of this.) There are some good posts at his site on the trip worth a read as well.
(A Rerum Novarum Pentuple Slam)
It has been a while since we posted a JYB update. Without further ado, let us get to it...
KERRY'S BACKFIRE
The other day Sen. John Kerry accused President Bush of lying to the country in the runup to war in Iraq. The "lies" centered on Iraq's ability to attack the US with WMDs and its possession of such weapons, and with the diplomatic games in the UN prior to the war, and so forth. Kerry's move was a pre-primary ploy to shore up his credentials with the left, which has all along insisted that everything the Bush administration has done from 9-11 forwards has been nothing but a house of lies. 9-11? Bush planned it. War in Afghanistan? Fought for a pipeline. War in Iraq? Blood for oil, or to advance a nefarious scheme to remake the MidEast. You know the drill.
There's evidence today that Kerry's move will backfire....Click Here For More
If Kerry cannot convince his own allies that he is sincere, he is in deep kim chee.
LOOK OUT, BILL O'REILLY
Fox News has picked up Dennis Miller to be a regular contributor. He'll start out doing a weekly gig on Hannity and Colmes, but look for him to get a show of his own before long.
Prediction: Dennis Miller would do to O'Reilly on TV what Rush Limbaugh is doing to him on the radio. (Except maybe not as bad.)
COOKING THE BOOK SALES
Hillary! is a fast learner. Former Veep and aspiring TV mogul Al Gore and is wife wrote a book that was released recently and very quickly forgotten, leading ultimately to conclusions that he has no remaining political viability. With the release of her book, Hillary! is making sure such a fate doesn't happen to her. According to the Prowler, she's making bulk purchases a pre-requisite for booking her to speak before various groups. The DNC is also in the game, and plans to send out copies of the book as thank-yous for donations to the Democrat party. That move will obviously boost sales. They want to make sure Hillary!'s Lying History (nod to HH) remains atop the bestseller lists for the summer and are leaving nothing to chance...or the whims of the book-buying public.
(via The Corner)
posted by B. Preston at 8:24 AM
I am not at all surprised, indeed I should have issued a NostraShawnus prediction on the matter. Hillary is not that popular folks, and I doubt she could have won a Senate race outside of New York - where the devil himself could win running as a
FALLOUT FROM THE WALKOUT
Texas Dems, about whom I've written before, may have won a pyrrhic victory when they killed the GOP-sponsored state redistricting plan during their flight to Oklahoma earlier this year. They won the battle for now, but in the process have opened up a dangerous fissure in their own fragile coalition...Go Here For More
I KNEW IT!!!
So did I.
I hate traffic cameras. Hate them hate them hate them, and not just because they've nabbed me. They're Orwellian infringements on the right to face one's accuser, and as I've long suspected and Radley Balko reports, towns are goosing the yellow lights to get more violations, and therefore more funds. It's a high-tech cash cow disguised as a safety device.
Bryan Preston was recently in Japan for a couple of weeks. (It has been about that long since I read JYB so I was unaware of this.) There are some good posts at his site on the trip worth a read as well.
Pete Vere theorizes that Canada legalizing so-called "homosexual marriages" may be Canada's moral 9-11. I hope he is right about that. And I hope there is a greater resolve over there than there is in America. (It is better since 9-11 but not to the extent that I was hoping it would be.) They are talking about decriminalizing pedophilia in this country. That does not appear to me to be a sign that there is any repentence for what brought 9-11 on. The parties involved who died in the Towers and planes may have been innocent but we as a nation were not (and are not).
I hate to say it, but there will probably be the need for another 9-11 type disaster before some in this country actually get it. I hope that my intuition is in error here but I am not too optimistic about that to put it frankly.
I hate to say it, but there will probably be the need for another 9-11 type disaster before some in this country actually get it. I hope that my intuition is in error here but I am not too optimistic about that to put it frankly.
On the Bishop O'Brien situation, my somewhat complicated viewpoint is well summarized by this entry from fellow Blessed Sacrament parishoner Mark Shea.
And another on-target post from Mark titled Serious Catholics are Still Stuck in the 19th Century When it Comes to Paying for Ministry can be read HERE. I want to muse for a moment on the latter and offer a "plan" if you will for solving the problem.
One of our Dominican pastors (referring to Mark and myself) is Fr. John Adams OP. He likes to say that there are three ways of contributing to the Church: time, talent, and treasure. Obviously everyone has varying degrees of talent and allottments of time. But there are many who - while they would not consider themselves talented along the lines of many of St. Blog's members or other Catholics with a prominent presence on the web - who also have a lack of time but not necessarily of treasure.
Thus, if (i) there are three key ways to contribute to ministry and (ii) most people would claim to have either a shortage of the first two or not in their estimate enough of one or both of them to contribute substantially from that angle, then (iii) there is always treasure.
Those of the richest country in the world like to whine about the problems and not contribute to effective ways of solving them. Again, the three ways are time, talent, and treasure. If you do not have the time, and you do not think you have the talent, then give the treasure. Do not give like Ebeneezer Scrooge and then whine about things "not improving." Each has their role to play and you would not be doing yours. Or to really put it bluntly, put up (the treasure) or shut the hell up (about the problems in the Church). It is that simple really.
And another on-target post from Mark titled Serious Catholics are Still Stuck in the 19th Century When it Comes to Paying for Ministry can be read HERE. I want to muse for a moment on the latter and offer a "plan" if you will for solving the problem.
One of our Dominican pastors (referring to Mark and myself) is Fr. John Adams OP. He likes to say that there are three ways of contributing to the Church: time, talent, and treasure. Obviously everyone has varying degrees of talent and allottments of time. But there are many who - while they would not consider themselves talented along the lines of many of St. Blog's members or other Catholics with a prominent presence on the web - who also have a lack of time but not necessarily of treasure.
Thus, if (i) there are three key ways to contribute to ministry and (ii) most people would claim to have either a shortage of the first two or not in their estimate enough of one or both of them to contribute substantially from that angle, then (iii) there is always treasure.
Those of the richest country in the world like to whine about the problems and not contribute to effective ways of solving them. Again, the three ways are time, talent, and treasure. If you do not have the time, and you do not think you have the talent, then give the treasure. Do not give like Ebeneezer Scrooge and then whine about things "not improving." Each has their role to play and you would not be doing yours. Or to really put it bluntly, put up (the treasure) or shut the hell up (about the problems in the Church). It is that simple really.
Points to Ponder:
Though they are not my cup of tea, I do not in any way begrudge people wanting a tattoo or a piercing of some minor kind. (With the piercings, ears are fine and even nose or lip if the latter two are not too ostentatious in display.) But anything of course is subject to extremes. Last night on the news program, they were talking about the recent fad. Apparently, facial piercings, tattoos covering large chunks of one's body, and even tongue/genital piercings is not enough. Some are now having their tongues split for the "forked tongue" look. Is this perhaps an explicit manifestation of the "guiding light" that drives not a few people to these kinds of extremes??? [I. Shawn McElhinney: Musing from 12:30 this morning]
Though they are not my cup of tea, I do not in any way begrudge people wanting a tattoo or a piercing of some minor kind. (With the piercings, ears are fine and even nose or lip if the latter two are not too ostentatious in display.) But anything of course is subject to extremes. Last night on the news program, they were talking about the recent fad. Apparently, facial piercings, tattoos covering large chunks of one's body, and even tongue/genital piercings is not enough. Some are now having their tongues split for the "forked tongue" look. Is this perhaps an explicit manifestation of the "guiding light" that drives not a few people to these kinds of extremes??? [I. Shawn McElhinney: Musing from 12:30 this morning]
Update on 2003 Prediction Threads -Part IV:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
As we are at roughly the halfway point of the year, a look at some of the predictions made by yours truly and others at the start of 2003 on the upcoming year would be good. The ones that have come to pass already will be marked with a "Y", the ones which have clearly failed - or are on the verge of it - will be marked with a "N." The ones where the jury remains out on will be marked with a "U." My words will be in regular font and the predictions in darkgreen font from this point onward.
We have already looked at the track records of Jeff Miller and also that of Anne Wilson. Further still, we have examined the predictions of The Mighty Barrister. Let us move onto mine as blogged on January 2, 2003 and see how they compare.
Congress will not make deep and permanent tax cuts.
Rating: Y. They have already waffled on the tax proposal and approved one which is about forty percent of the piddly 750 billion proposal of the President. (And I say "piddley" because this is spread out over ten years and will not even come close to 1/2 of 1% of the GDP in that time span.) And these losers claim that they have to "pay for it"??? Gimme a break!!!
Congress will not make drug testing mandatory for all foreign born residents of this county.
Rating: U. This will pan before the year is out though. Because with an election coming up in 2004, the Republicans will not want to "disturb" the illegal immigrants who will illegally vote Democratic in the next election.
Congress will not allow for oil drilling on US soil insofar as we can stop pretending to "need" foreign oil. (And thereby drop gas prices to below a dollar a gallon easily.)
Rating: U. But you watch, this will pan. Because the Republicans will not want to envigorate the environmental wackos to canvass the districts against them. And if they do that, they will.
The Supreme Court will not overturn Roe v. Wade
Rating: U. But money in the bank by the end of the year.
President Bush's first Supreme Court nominee not be a Hispanic.
Rating: U. If not Estrada than another Hispanic. Because that is what will get him votes from one of the largest (and growing) demographic voting block. Bush is politically shrewder than "conventional wisdom" pundits give him credit for. This of course presumes that he wins a second term. And as this one may stretch past 2003, I guess this would have to be chalked up as a blown prediction. We shall see...
For a few non-political predictions:
Catholic Apologetics International will end 2003 retaining a red light rating from Petersnet.
Rating: U. This is unlikely to not pan but I did go out on a limb with this one. And as Petersnet is not likely to review CAItanic this year since they rereviewed them last year - at the request of myself and others - this is almost money in the bank as well.
There will not be a successful accord worked out between the SSPX and Rome. (And at least one article on the 1988 consecrations will emanate from an influential cleric in the SSPX before the year is out which will be published either in the Angeles or one of the "encyclical letters" of their bishops, or district superiors.)
Rating: U. This prediction will probably hold but not as securely as I initially thought it would. (And I would love to be wrong about this one but I do not believe I will be.)
The US Bishops will not hold a much-needed Plenary Council in 2003.
Rating: U. But this is money in the bank also.
Thus far, I am 1-0-7 in accuracy. Of the "U's", I am going to go at least 6-1.
Conclusion of Examination:
The readers probably thought I posted this because I was leading by some margin. Actually not because while I do believe I will go 8-0 eventually (and possibly 7-0-1 this year) - barring some unforseen desire by CAItanic to reconcile with the Church which would be a prediction I would err gladly on - at the moment the leader could not be clearer.
Unquestionably, Jeff Miller is ahead of us all in accuracy to date in his 2003 predictions. (As far as number of correctly validated predictions.) The rest of us combined do not have half as many correct predictions as he does. But we are not going to score this by numbers but by percentages.
However, even if we do this by proportion and percentages - which is how it will be scored, Jeff at 53.8% still dwarfs The Mighty One (28.5%), your humble servant of Rerum Novarum (12.5%), and Anne Wilson (0%). But the race is only half over thus far and there is enough uncertain predictions out there to make it anyone's game in the end...
12:50pm Update: The Curt One Responds:
Literally within the hour after this one posted, I went to his site and apparently, Jeff Miller saw my rankings and scored my predictions before I did. (He gives me a 4-0-4 ranking.) I will of course accept the ratings he gave me as (i) it is always better to let an outsider rank one's own predictions and (ii) He was far more generous than I was with my predictions - giving me Y's for three that I noted would be money in the bank at the end of the year - but did not rank as Y's yet. (Referring to the Roe v. Wade one, the one about drilling on US soil, and the mandatory drug testing for foreign born residents of the country.) So that brings me from 12.5% up to 50%.
Nonetheless, even at 50%, I still trail Jeff at53.8% 57.1%. (He supplied the proof on the Jackson one which I knew had been fulfilled but could not recall where. And apparently someone else is about to be shaken down based on what I saw last night on the news so the Y on the Jackson prediction is adequately sustained.) Nonetheless, The Mighty One and Anne Wilson are not out of it yet my friends as there is still almost half the track left to run...
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
As we are at roughly the halfway point of the year, a look at some of the predictions made by yours truly and others at the start of 2003 on the upcoming year would be good. The ones that have come to pass already will be marked with a "Y", the ones which have clearly failed - or are on the verge of it - will be marked with a "N." The ones where the jury remains out on will be marked with a "U." My words will be in regular font and the predictions in darkgreen font from this point onward.
We have already looked at the track records of Jeff Miller and also that of Anne Wilson. Further still, we have examined the predictions of The Mighty Barrister. Let us move onto mine as blogged on January 2, 2003 and see how they compare.
Congress will not make deep and permanent tax cuts.
Rating: Y. They have already waffled on the tax proposal and approved one which is about forty percent of the piddly 750 billion proposal of the President. (And I say "piddley" because this is spread out over ten years and will not even come close to 1/2 of 1% of the GDP in that time span.) And these losers claim that they have to "pay for it"??? Gimme a break!!!
Congress will not make drug testing mandatory for all foreign born residents of this county.
Rating: U. This will pan before the year is out though. Because with an election coming up in 2004, the Republicans will not want to "disturb" the illegal immigrants who will illegally vote Democratic in the next election.
Congress will not allow for oil drilling on US soil insofar as we can stop pretending to "need" foreign oil. (And thereby drop gas prices to below a dollar a gallon easily.)
Rating: U. But you watch, this will pan. Because the Republicans will not want to envigorate the environmental wackos to canvass the districts against them. And if they do that, they will.
The Supreme Court will not overturn Roe v. Wade
Rating: U. But money in the bank by the end of the year.
President Bush's first Supreme Court nominee not be a Hispanic.
Rating: U. If not Estrada than another Hispanic. Because that is what will get him votes from one of the largest (and growing) demographic voting block. Bush is politically shrewder than "conventional wisdom" pundits give him credit for. This of course presumes that he wins a second term. And as this one may stretch past 2003, I guess this would have to be chalked up as a blown prediction. We shall see...
For a few non-political predictions:
Catholic Apologetics International will end 2003 retaining a red light rating from Petersnet.
Rating: U. This is unlikely to not pan but I did go out on a limb with this one. And as Petersnet is not likely to review CAItanic this year since they rereviewed them last year - at the request of myself and others - this is almost money in the bank as well.
There will not be a successful accord worked out between the SSPX and Rome. (And at least one article on the 1988 consecrations will emanate from an influential cleric in the SSPX before the year is out which will be published either in the Angeles or one of the "encyclical letters" of their bishops, or district superiors.)
Rating: U. This prediction will probably hold but not as securely as I initially thought it would. (And I would love to be wrong about this one but I do not believe I will be.)
The US Bishops will not hold a much-needed Plenary Council in 2003.
Rating: U. But this is money in the bank also.
Thus far, I am 1-0-7 in accuracy. Of the "U's", I am going to go at least 6-1.
Conclusion of Examination:
The readers probably thought I posted this because I was leading by some margin. Actually not because while I do believe I will go 8-0 eventually (and possibly 7-0-1 this year) - barring some unforseen desire by CAItanic to reconcile with the Church which would be a prediction I would err gladly on - at the moment the leader could not be clearer.
Unquestionably, Jeff Miller is ahead of us all in accuracy to date in his 2003 predictions. (As far as number of correctly validated predictions.) The rest of us combined do not have half as many correct predictions as he does. But we are not going to score this by numbers but by percentages.
However, even if we do this by proportion and percentages - which is how it will be scored, Jeff at 53.8% still dwarfs The Mighty One (28.5%), your humble servant of Rerum Novarum (12.5%), and Anne Wilson (0%). But the race is only half over thus far and there is enough uncertain predictions out there to make it anyone's game in the end...
12:50pm Update: The Curt One Responds:
Literally within the hour after this one posted, I went to his site and apparently, Jeff Miller saw my rankings and scored my predictions before I did. (He gives me a 4-0-4 ranking.) I will of course accept the ratings he gave me as (i) it is always better to let an outsider rank one's own predictions and (ii) He was far more generous than I was with my predictions - giving me Y's for three that I noted would be money in the bank at the end of the year - but did not rank as Y's yet. (Referring to the Roe v. Wade one, the one about drilling on US soil, and the mandatory drug testing for foreign born residents of the country.) So that brings me from 12.5% up to 50%.
Nonetheless, even at 50%, I still trail Jeff at
Friday, June 20, 2003
Update on 2003 Prediction Threads (Part III):
As we are at roughly the halfway point of the year, a look at some of the predictions made by yours truly and others at the start of 2003 on the upcoming year would be good. The ones that have come to pass already will be marked with a "Y", the ones which have clearly failed - or are on the verge of it - will be marked with a "N." The ones where the jury remains out on will be marked with a "U." My words will be in regular font and the predictions in darkgreen font from this point onward.
We have already looked at the trackrecords of Jeff Miller and Anne Wilson. Let us see how they compare with the predictions of The Mighty One who blogged the following on January 6, 2003:
The United States will see its first suicide bomber within its territory, like these two yahoos who killed themselves and murdered 23 others in a weekend attack in Israel.
Rating: U. It has not happened yet thankfully. And hopefully it will not happen at all.
The U.S. will announce plans to lessen its forces in South Korea.
Rating: Y. They have announced plans to withdraw completely. So that a lessening of forces is such a slam dunk, we might as well give out the Y now.
The War with Iraq will conclude fairly quickly, with minimal loss of life in the war itself, but the U.S. will be quickly condemned by most of the world for unilateral aggression against a smaller opponent in the interests of gaining access to foreign oil and to set up a puppet regime to assure the free flow of that oil.
Rating: Y. Almost right on script did this happen.
The U.S. media will continue its unrelenting attack on the Church, and, unfortunately, priests and bishops will continue to give them plenty of ammunition.
Rating: U. There has been no sign of a continuing barrage of ammunition thus far. But the year is still halfway to go so this will probably pan.
Somewhat "credible" rumors will surface that John Paul II has "handpicked" his successor.
Rating: U. Rumours have surfaced; however, they cannot be said to be credible. And this will likely not pan even though it is phrased in an ambiguous manner to the point that Miss Cleo would be proud.
Democrats will continue to play the race card, successfully, and will continue to ply and advance their own racist policies, without resistance of any kind. Republicans lost the moral high ground when Lott covered himself in gasoline-soaked KKK flyers and set himself on fire outside of Martin Luther King Elementary School and Day Care Center while screaming "Whites Uber Alles!" (that's what happened, right?).
Rating: U. The key word "successfully" makes this a virtually certain blown prediction. But the year is young and the Republicans have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory before.
Although there will be no ecumenical council, the USCCB will announce several additional "policy" and liturgical changes which will further distance the American Catholic Church from the Roman Catholic Church.
Rating: N. I presume he means "plenary synod." The proposed changes have not done this and indeed the currents in Rome indicate a strong clamp down on discipline before the year is out. I will change this if wrong but this one appears to be a blown prediction.
Blogging as an artform will hit its peak and slowly decline. Except for St. Blog's Parish. ;-)
Rating: U. This will probably pan though I hope not. (Except for the St. Blog's part of course - may they grow and flourish.)
Thus far, The Mighty One is 2-1-4 in accuracy. Of the "U's", he will at a minimum go 2-2 and probably will go 3-1. Though 4-0 is also a possibility though I would argue less likely than 2-2.
In the final installment - which I will hopefully get to this evening when time allows for it - we will look at the predictions for 2003 made by yours truly and how they are thus far fairing. (Along with a verdict on who is thus far more accurate in their prophecies.) Stay tuned for details...
As we are at roughly the halfway point of the year, a look at some of the predictions made by yours truly and others at the start of 2003 on the upcoming year would be good. The ones that have come to pass already will be marked with a "Y", the ones which have clearly failed - or are on the verge of it - will be marked with a "N." The ones where the jury remains out on will be marked with a "U." My words will be in regular font and the predictions in darkgreen font from this point onward.
We have already looked at the trackrecords of Jeff Miller and Anne Wilson. Let us see how they compare with the predictions of The Mighty One who blogged the following on January 6, 2003:
The United States will see its first suicide bomber within its territory, like these two yahoos who killed themselves and murdered 23 others in a weekend attack in Israel.
Rating: U. It has not happened yet thankfully. And hopefully it will not happen at all.
The U.S. will announce plans to lessen its forces in South Korea.
Rating: Y. They have announced plans to withdraw completely. So that a lessening of forces is such a slam dunk, we might as well give out the Y now.
The War with Iraq will conclude fairly quickly, with minimal loss of life in the war itself, but the U.S. will be quickly condemned by most of the world for unilateral aggression against a smaller opponent in the interests of gaining access to foreign oil and to set up a puppet regime to assure the free flow of that oil.
Rating: Y. Almost right on script did this happen.
The U.S. media will continue its unrelenting attack on the Church, and, unfortunately, priests and bishops will continue to give them plenty of ammunition.
Rating: U. There has been no sign of a continuing barrage of ammunition thus far. But the year is still halfway to go so this will probably pan.
Somewhat "credible" rumors will surface that John Paul II has "handpicked" his successor.
Rating: U. Rumours have surfaced; however, they cannot be said to be credible. And this will likely not pan even though it is phrased in an ambiguous manner to the point that Miss Cleo would be proud.
Democrats will continue to play the race card, successfully, and will continue to ply and advance their own racist policies, without resistance of any kind. Republicans lost the moral high ground when Lott covered himself in gasoline-soaked KKK flyers and set himself on fire outside of Martin Luther King Elementary School and Day Care Center while screaming "Whites Uber Alles!" (that's what happened, right?).
Rating: U. The key word "successfully" makes this a virtually certain blown prediction. But the year is young and the Republicans have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory before.
Although there will be no ecumenical council, the USCCB will announce several additional "policy" and liturgical changes which will further distance the American Catholic Church from the Roman Catholic Church.
Rating: N. I presume he means "plenary synod." The proposed changes have not done this and indeed the currents in Rome indicate a strong clamp down on discipline before the year is out. I will change this if wrong but this one appears to be a blown prediction.
Blogging as an artform will hit its peak and slowly decline. Except for St. Blog's Parish. ;-)
Rating: U. This will probably pan though I hope not. (Except for the St. Blog's part of course - may they grow and flourish.)
Thus far, The Mighty One is 2-1-4 in accuracy. Of the "U's", he will at a minimum go 2-2 and probably will go 3-1. Though 4-0 is also a possibility though I would argue less likely than 2-2.
In the final installment - which I will hopefully get to this evening when time allows for it - we will look at the predictions for 2003 made by yours truly and how they are thus far fairing. (Along with a verdict on who is thus far more accurate in their prophecies.) Stay tuned for details...
Update on 2003 Prediction Threads (Part II):
As we are at roughly the halfway point of the year, a look at some of the predictions made by yours truly and others at the start of 2003 on the upcoming year would be good. The ones that have come to pass already will be marked with a "Y", the ones which have clearly failed - or are on the verge of it - will be marked with a "N." The ones where the jury remains out on will be marked with a "U." My words will be in regular font and the predictions in darkgreen font from this point onward.
We have already looked at Jeff Miller's trackrecord. Let us see how it compares with that of Anne Wilson who blogged these on January 1, 2003.
Happy New Year predictions: Don't skin me if I'm wrong.
1. Teenage girls will cover up their midriffs and go back to the thrift stores rather than the mall.
Rating: U. Honestly, thus far this one has not panned. I mean, there is no shortage of exposed midriffs out there. But there is still time...
2. We will not go to war against Iraq, at least not in 2003.
Rating: N. Anne really botched this one.
3. Return of the King will top the two Matrix sequels put together.
Rating: U. I was unaware that there were going to be two Matrix sequels but the first one did very well. We shall see if this one pans or not. My guess is that it will.
4. Great chunks of the No Child Left Behind Act ("Bush education reform bill") will get repealed by Congress and/or thrown out by federal courts.
Rating: U. I have not followed this subject too closely but my guess is that it will end up being correct.
5. Restaurants will once again offer "dieters' specials" on their menu - steak (or a steakburger) and a salad, to accomodate the growing wave of low-carb eaters.
Rating: U. I have not heard of any trend in this direction thus far but - if I am wrong - I will change this rating.
6. Watch for the rise of a "not in our name" movement among liberal and/or reformist Muslims sick and tired of jihadis killing people, abusing women, and generally denigrating the West. Look for India or Canada as possible epicenters.
Rating: U. But I have a hunch this one will not pan. Canada is too busy trying to "out-sleaze" the US at present. And in light of where they are going, Canada is probably "Mini Me" to our "Dr. Evil." (Or "Great Satan" and "Great Satan Lite" in Khomeini-speak.) If they succeed in what I noted earlier, they will have successfully IMHO outsleazed us and such a movement would be branded "hate speech."
7. DVD burners will eventually come with edit capabilities, so you can chop that ugly sex-ed scene in Never Been Kissed, or the gratuitous grappling in Titanic.
Rating: U. It will happen but I doubt it will be this year. Admittedly I am not exactly on top of the latest DVD developments in technology but we shall see...
8. The voucher debate will explode when a wahhabist school sign up for voucher funds.
Rating: U. Again, this may not happen in 2003 but it will eventually happen.
9. Wal-Mart will sell enough cheap Linux boxes that it will finally be worthwhile to feature popular PC strategy games on Linux platforms.
Rating: U. But definitely probable.
10. A better smallpox vaccine will be released.
Rating: U. As the war is already over, there is not much of an impending drive for a better smallpox vaccine. So this one will probably not pan in 2003.
Thus far, Anne is 0-1-9 in accuracy. Of the "U's", she is probably going to go 7-2 - and at least 6-3. In another installment later in the day, we will look at another who made predictions for 2003 and how they are thus far fairing. Stay tuned for details...
As we are at roughly the halfway point of the year, a look at some of the predictions made by yours truly and others at the start of 2003 on the upcoming year would be good. The ones that have come to pass already will be marked with a "Y", the ones which have clearly failed - or are on the verge of it - will be marked with a "N." The ones where the jury remains out on will be marked with a "U." My words will be in regular font and the predictions in darkgreen font from this point onward.
We have already looked at Jeff Miller's trackrecord. Let us see how it compares with that of Anne Wilson who blogged these on January 1, 2003.
Happy New Year predictions: Don't skin me if I'm wrong.
1. Teenage girls will cover up their midriffs and go back to the thrift stores rather than the mall.
Rating: U. Honestly, thus far this one has not panned. I mean, there is no shortage of exposed midriffs out there. But there is still time...
2. We will not go to war against Iraq, at least not in 2003.
Rating: N. Anne really botched this one.
3. Return of the King will top the two Matrix sequels put together.
Rating: U. I was unaware that there were going to be two Matrix sequels but the first one did very well. We shall see if this one pans or not. My guess is that it will.
4. Great chunks of the No Child Left Behind Act ("Bush education reform bill") will get repealed by Congress and/or thrown out by federal courts.
Rating: U. I have not followed this subject too closely but my guess is that it will end up being correct.
5. Restaurants will once again offer "dieters' specials" on their menu - steak (or a steakburger) and a salad, to accomodate the growing wave of low-carb eaters.
Rating: U. I have not heard of any trend in this direction thus far but - if I am wrong - I will change this rating.
6. Watch for the rise of a "not in our name" movement among liberal and/or reformist Muslims sick and tired of jihadis killing people, abusing women, and generally denigrating the West. Look for India or Canada as possible epicenters.
Rating: U. But I have a hunch this one will not pan. Canada is too busy trying to "out-sleaze" the US at present. And in light of where they are going, Canada is probably "Mini Me" to our "Dr. Evil." (Or "Great Satan" and "Great Satan Lite" in Khomeini-speak.) If they succeed in what I noted earlier, they will have successfully IMHO outsleazed us and such a movement would be branded "hate speech."
7. DVD burners will eventually come with edit capabilities, so you can chop that ugly sex-ed scene in Never Been Kissed, or the gratuitous grappling in Titanic.
Rating: U. It will happen but I doubt it will be this year. Admittedly I am not exactly on top of the latest DVD developments in technology but we shall see...
8. The voucher debate will explode when a wahhabist school sign up for voucher funds.
Rating: U. Again, this may not happen in 2003 but it will eventually happen.
9. Wal-Mart will sell enough cheap Linux boxes that it will finally be worthwhile to feature popular PC strategy games on Linux platforms.
Rating: U. But definitely probable.
10. A better smallpox vaccine will be released.
Rating: U. As the war is already over, there is not much of an impending drive for a better smallpox vaccine. So this one will probably not pan in 2003.
Thus far, Anne is 0-1-9 in accuracy. Of the "U's", she is probably going to go 7-2 - and at least 6-3. In another installment later in the day, we will look at another who made predictions for 2003 and how they are thus far fairing. Stay tuned for details...
Update on 2003 Prediction Threads (Part I):
As we are at roughly the halfway point of the year, a look at some of the predictions made by yours truly and others at the start of 2003 on the upcoming year would be good. The ones that have come to pass already will be marked with a "Y", the ones which have clearly failed - or are on the verge of it - will be marked with a "N." The ones where the jury remains out on will be marked with a "U." My words will be in regular font and the predictions in darkgreen font from this point onward.
Let us start with Jeff Miller of The Curt Jester. Back when he was actively maintaining his Atheist to a Theist blog, Jeff made the following predictions for 2003 in the first days of 2003.
The National Catholic Reporter will call for Pope John Paul II to resign
Rating: U
If they have thus far, I am not aware of it. But then I seldom read the National Catholic Distorter anyway so if I am wrong, this rating will change.
The Boston Globe will praise VOTF and attack the Bishop
Rating: Y. Talk about a slam dunk!!!
Bill Clinton will attack Bush anddefend invent his own record
Rating: Y. It has already happened.
Jesse Jackson will shake down a company until they give employment to a relative or make a charitable donation to him
Rating: U. Surely there has to be at least one company shaken down in the past six months. As I am not aware of it though, it must at this time be given a "u" rating. But this prediction will pan before the end of the year if it has not already.
The Republican leadership will act as if they lost the election and make concession after concession
Rating: Y. Too numerous to name the examples that establish this prediction as true.
Barbra Streisand will say something stupid
Rating: Y. This one was almost certainly fulfilled on January 1, 2003. And even if not, with the deluge of celebrities who opposed the war, Babs could not have kept her pie hole shut on that issue.
The ACLU will sue someone for referencing God
Rating: Y. They are siding with the guy who is suing about schools reciting the Pledge of Allegience in schools because of the phrase "under God." 'Nuff said.
The Time Man/Woman/Persons/Computer of the year will not be a Republican
Rating: U. They may have to give it to Bush - at least if Weapons of Mass Destruction are found. We shall see...
The Pope will not win the Nobel Peace Prize
Rating: U. This will be a "Y" before the year is out.
A Hollywood Star will warn us about the environment
Rating: Y. This one was certainly fulfilled before January of 2003 was out also.
CNN and MSNBC will continue to lose viewers and blame it on cable saturation
Rating: U. This will probably not pan because they will blame Murdoch of Fox News. Only by indirect stretching can that apply to this prediction.
All judicial nominees will be called racist
Rating: U. "All" is quite encompassing. All that is needed is one that is not called "racist" and this prediction will be falsified.
The government will grow in size
Rating: Y. This one is money in the bank.
Trackrecord thus far: Jeff is 7-0-6 in accuracy. Of the "U's", he is going to go at least 4-2. In another installment later in the day, we will look at another who made predictions for 2003 and how they are thus far fairing. Stay tuned for details...
As we are at roughly the halfway point of the year, a look at some of the predictions made by yours truly and others at the start of 2003 on the upcoming year would be good. The ones that have come to pass already will be marked with a "Y", the ones which have clearly failed - or are on the verge of it - will be marked with a "N." The ones where the jury remains out on will be marked with a "U." My words will be in regular font and the predictions in darkgreen font from this point onward.
Let us start with Jeff Miller of The Curt Jester. Back when he was actively maintaining his Atheist to a Theist blog, Jeff made the following predictions for 2003 in the first days of 2003.
The National Catholic Reporter will call for Pope John Paul II to resign
Rating: U
If they have thus far, I am not aware of it. But then I seldom read the National Catholic Distorter anyway so if I am wrong, this rating will change.
The Boston Globe will praise VOTF and attack the Bishop
Rating: Y. Talk about a slam dunk!!!
Bill Clinton will attack Bush and
Rating: Y. It has already happened.
Jesse Jackson will shake down a company until they give employment to a relative or make a charitable donation to him
Rating: U. Surely there has to be at least one company shaken down in the past six months. As I am not aware of it though, it must at this time be given a "u" rating. But this prediction will pan before the end of the year if it has not already.
The Republican leadership will act as if they lost the election and make concession after concession
Rating: Y. Too numerous to name the examples that establish this prediction as true.
Barbra Streisand will say something stupid
Rating: Y. This one was almost certainly fulfilled on January 1, 2003. And even if not, with the deluge of celebrities who opposed the war, Babs could not have kept her pie hole shut on that issue.
The ACLU will sue someone for referencing God
Rating: Y. They are siding with the guy who is suing about schools reciting the Pledge of Allegience in schools because of the phrase "under God." 'Nuff said.
The Time Man/Woman/Persons/Computer of the year will not be a Republican
Rating: U. They may have to give it to Bush - at least if Weapons of Mass Destruction are found. We shall see...
The Pope will not win the Nobel Peace Prize
Rating: U. This will be a "Y" before the year is out.
A Hollywood Star will warn us about the environment
Rating: Y. This one was certainly fulfilled before January of 2003 was out also.
CNN and MSNBC will continue to lose viewers and blame it on cable saturation
Rating: U. This will probably not pan because they will blame Murdoch of Fox News. Only by indirect stretching can that apply to this prediction.
All judicial nominees will be called racist
Rating: U. "All" is quite encompassing. All that is needed is one that is not called "racist" and this prediction will be falsified.
The government will grow in size
Rating: Y. This one is money in the bank.
Trackrecord thus far: Jeff is 7-0-6 in accuracy. Of the "U's", he is going to go at least 4-2. In another installment later in the day, we will look at another who made predictions for 2003 and how they are thus far fairing. Stay tuned for details...
On Church Dresscodes:
This is a recent entry of mine on a discussion list when the subject of dress codes came up. My words will be in regular font with sources in darkblue. The two other persons on the thread will be in light red font and dark green font.
Personally, I don't think that dress is a big deal. St. Paul says that some people have one way of observing their faith, and some have other ways.
If you're going to be in front of people that you should at least look decent. I also think that the parish has the right to decide what "decor" and "atmosphere" they want to create during the Mass. So to me, it's okay if the parish wants to have altar servers dressed up less casually (or more formally).
Hi SSSSSSS:
I agree with you and GGGG. (And no, I am not "pulling a Clinton" in saying that.) Those who serve the liturgy in any capacity should have a certain dress code. It does not have to be fancy but it should be reasonably uniform and respectable. I will respond to the rest below by interacting with GGGG's note.
ZZZZ,
Maybe you could send this one out for some advice. I teach the altar servers at my parish. I need to have a review class because the lack of reverence and appearance is, in my opinion, lacking.
I agree with this.
I mention to a catechist that I will be sending a letter out about a dress code for the altar servers and she said you will lose many altar servers for our culture has changed and she did not think that how one dresses to Mass is what is important.
Well, it is true that interior dispositions are more important than exterior ones. (The denunciations of the Pharisees come to mind here.) But that does not mean that there is not some importance in how one dresses who serves the liturgy.
Those serving the liturgy should have a dress code of some sort. It need not be all "suits and floor length dress" type but it should have some norms which are recognized and adhered to. God clearly had a dress code in mind in the OT for those who would serve the tent. (See Exodus 25-28 and Numbers 4 for details.) The same principle should hold true for those who serve a much greater altar and a much greater sacrifice now.
his is inregards to shoes verses sneakers. Anything black would be better. Red shoes? No! Red sneakers? NO Is black sneakers fine? I say black shoes, but ........... you know my delemna..
I would recommend a compromise here: black Skechers. I wear them often and have a few different pairs. One I use for the yard work and also for hiking and other sports like endeavours. (They have hiking boots type tread on them.) The other is a much cleaner and more respectable pair. I wear these with either jeans in casual attire (in normal day to day attire) or with slacks and a shirt to mass. They are very clean and well maintained and therefore can be called "respectable" if you will while not being too formal. Here is a picture for reference:
Skechers
I say, too bad, then so be it we lose those who shouldn't be up there anyway if it is such a bother to dress up for God but yet they dress up for other things.
Well, we do not want to lose people going to church. But we can approach this in a manner that is more pastoral I believe.
I understand it is a lack of education as to where they are when they come to Mass. Maybe they should all read Scott Hahns book, "The Lamb's Supper". Or listen to Fr. Larry Richards tape on "The Mass Explained", from the Mary Foundation. He is great!
These are good ideas though they should of course not be imposed on kids or else they will not do them. (Or if they do they will do so haphazardly.) The key is to present them in a way that the kids will do them and think that they came to the idea themselves. It is an axiom in sales that the best salesmen will stay out of the way of a sale and try to get the customer to sell themselves. I see no reason to not try this with the kids.
I am open to hearing other sincere Catholic's opinions as to the best approach to this. My tough way might be correct but be the wrong approach.
Thanks, your advice will be taken seriously, HELP!!!!
This was an area that was particularly difficult for me for a few reasons. When I attended SSPX masses, I was always amongst the "middle of the road" dresscode wise except initially when I started attending as a young adult when I wore sleeveless shirts and jeans. But for most of my tenure there, that was the approach taken.
My basic modus opperandi was that there used to be a dichotomy between "Sunday best" and other clothes because people generally could only afford a few changes of clothing that were suitable for mass. (The rest were work clothes or other kinds of clothing which were clearly not proper for church.)
Today people can often afford a variety of clothes and there is not the same clear division between "Sunday clothes" and "other clothes" as there used to be. That is one reason though it does not explain why some people wear clothes with holes in them or stains, etc. I will get to that in a moment.
When I wore jeans, they were always black{1}and also a neat pair without any holes or any other perforations. When I wore slacks - which I gradually began wearing with greater frequency until that was all I would wear - they were with either sweaters or at least presentable shirts.
I noticed when I stopped attending SSPX masses and resumed communion with the Church that I was often among the best dressed people at the church. I was shocked to see people showing up in torn tee-shirts, yard clothes, or other such attire. I remember this one time a woman sat across one of the aisles in a mini-skirt and it was very difficult for me to focus on the mass.
I had a period in short where I was taking an "I am so much better dressed than these people" attitude. It was not until later when I was starting some general abridgments of my treatise and expanding the section on communion in the hand when I had to confront this attitude which I was not aware that I had. It was particularly when I started adding some material on the attitude of partiality that many "trads" have on this subject - referencing James 2:1-9. That is when it hit me that I was doing nothing differently with the dress code issue.
Is it true that people should dress reasonably well for mass??? Yes it is. Can I know the general dispositions of the individuals involved??? No I cannot. And thus it was very possible that they could be the one saying "have mercy on me the sinner" while I was saying "I thank thee Lord that unlike many of these people I know how to dress for mass" (cf. Luke 18:9-14).Ignorance can account for some of it but there are, I would argue, a diversity of other factors involved as well. But that does not detract from the subject of dress codes for those serving mass in some function.
Those serving some function such as altar server, extraordinary minister, lector, usher, collection gatherer, those who bring up the gifts, etc. should have some dress code. It need not be too stringent but it should have some areas which are definite and non-negotiable. I say this for two reasons (i) they are serving the liturgy and therefore should reflect this in their dispositions and (ii) the example set here could eventually trickle down to those in the pews who are capable of dressing better.
Anyway, that is MHO on the matter FWIW.
Note:
{1} The reason for black was because (i) I am not exactly the most colour coordinated person by nature and (ii) virtually anything will go with black and therefore, it was not difficult to mix colours this way.
This is a recent entry of mine on a discussion list when the subject of dress codes came up. My words will be in regular font with sources in darkblue. The two other persons on the thread will be in light red font and dark green font.
Personally, I don't think that dress is a big deal. St. Paul says that some people have one way of observing their faith, and some have other ways.
If you're going to be in front of people that you should at least look decent. I also think that the parish has the right to decide what "decor" and "atmosphere" they want to create during the Mass. So to me, it's okay if the parish wants to have altar servers dressed up less casually (or more formally).
Hi SSSSSSS:
I agree with you and GGGG. (And no, I am not "pulling a Clinton" in saying that.) Those who serve the liturgy in any capacity should have a certain dress code. It does not have to be fancy but it should be reasonably uniform and respectable. I will respond to the rest below by interacting with GGGG's note.
ZZZZ,
Maybe you could send this one out for some advice. I teach the altar servers at my parish. I need to have a review class because the lack of reverence and appearance is, in my opinion, lacking.
I agree with this.
I mention to a catechist that I will be sending a letter out about a dress code for the altar servers and she said you will lose many altar servers for our culture has changed and she did not think that how one dresses to Mass is what is important.
Well, it is true that interior dispositions are more important than exterior ones. (The denunciations of the Pharisees come to mind here.) But that does not mean that there is not some importance in how one dresses who serves the liturgy.
Those serving the liturgy should have a dress code of some sort. It need not be all "suits and floor length dress" type but it should have some norms which are recognized and adhered to. God clearly had a dress code in mind in the OT for those who would serve the tent. (See Exodus 25-28 and Numbers 4 for details.) The same principle should hold true for those who serve a much greater altar and a much greater sacrifice now.
his is inregards to shoes verses sneakers. Anything black would be better. Red shoes? No! Red sneakers? NO Is black sneakers fine? I say black shoes, but ........... you know my delemna..
I would recommend a compromise here: black Skechers. I wear them often and have a few different pairs. One I use for the yard work and also for hiking and other sports like endeavours. (They have hiking boots type tread on them.) The other is a much cleaner and more respectable pair. I wear these with either jeans in casual attire (in normal day to day attire) or with slacks and a shirt to mass. They are very clean and well maintained and therefore can be called "respectable" if you will while not being too formal. Here is a picture for reference:
Skechers
I say, too bad, then so be it we lose those who shouldn't be up there anyway if it is such a bother to dress up for God but yet they dress up for other things.
Well, we do not want to lose people going to church. But we can approach this in a manner that is more pastoral I believe.
I understand it is a lack of education as to where they are when they come to Mass. Maybe they should all read Scott Hahns book, "The Lamb's Supper". Or listen to Fr. Larry Richards tape on "The Mass Explained", from the Mary Foundation. He is great!
These are good ideas though they should of course not be imposed on kids or else they will not do them. (Or if they do they will do so haphazardly.) The key is to present them in a way that the kids will do them and think that they came to the idea themselves. It is an axiom in sales that the best salesmen will stay out of the way of a sale and try to get the customer to sell themselves. I see no reason to not try this with the kids.
I am open to hearing other sincere Catholic's opinions as to the best approach to this. My tough way might be correct but be the wrong approach.
Thanks, your advice will be taken seriously, HELP!!!!
This was an area that was particularly difficult for me for a few reasons. When I attended SSPX masses, I was always amongst the "middle of the road" dresscode wise except initially when I started attending as a young adult when I wore sleeveless shirts and jeans. But for most of my tenure there, that was the approach taken.
My basic modus opperandi was that there used to be a dichotomy between "Sunday best" and other clothes because people generally could only afford a few changes of clothing that were suitable for mass. (The rest were work clothes or other kinds of clothing which were clearly not proper for church.)
Today people can often afford a variety of clothes and there is not the same clear division between "Sunday clothes" and "other clothes" as there used to be. That is one reason though it does not explain why some people wear clothes with holes in them or stains, etc. I will get to that in a moment.
When I wore jeans, they were always black{1}and also a neat pair without any holes or any other perforations. When I wore slacks - which I gradually began wearing with greater frequency until that was all I would wear - they were with either sweaters or at least presentable shirts.
I noticed when I stopped attending SSPX masses and resumed communion with the Church that I was often among the best dressed people at the church. I was shocked to see people showing up in torn tee-shirts, yard clothes, or other such attire. I remember this one time a woman sat across one of the aisles in a mini-skirt and it was very difficult for me to focus on the mass.
I had a period in short where I was taking an "I am so much better dressed than these people" attitude. It was not until later when I was starting some general abridgments of my treatise and expanding the section on communion in the hand when I had to confront this attitude which I was not aware that I had. It was particularly when I started adding some material on the attitude of partiality that many "trads" have on this subject - referencing James 2:1-9. That is when it hit me that I was doing nothing differently with the dress code issue.
Is it true that people should dress reasonably well for mass??? Yes it is. Can I know the general dispositions of the individuals involved??? No I cannot. And thus it was very possible that they could be the one saying "have mercy on me the sinner" while I was saying "I thank thee Lord that unlike many of these people I know how to dress for mass" (cf. Luke 18:9-14).Ignorance can account for some of it but there are, I would argue, a diversity of other factors involved as well. But that does not detract from the subject of dress codes for those serving mass in some function.
Those serving some function such as altar server, extraordinary minister, lector, usher, collection gatherer, those who bring up the gifts, etc. should have some dress code. It need not be too stringent but it should have some areas which are definite and non-negotiable. I say this for two reasons (i) they are serving the liturgy and therefore should reflect this in their dispositions and (ii) the example set here could eventually trickle down to those in the pews who are capable of dressing better.
Anyway, that is MHO on the matter FWIW.
Note:
{1} The reason for black was because (i) I am not exactly the most colour coordinated person by nature and (ii) virtually anything will go with black and therefore, it was not difficult to mix colours this way.
Thursday, June 19, 2003
Miscellaneous Links from the "Other Blogs"
These are some recent additions to my other weblogs in recent days - starting with a lengthy and detailed response to Kevin Tierney written over a week ago. (And an Addendum written a few days ago when tweaking the longer piece a bit to remove HTML glitches.)
Responsum ad Kevin Tierney
Addendum to the Responsum
My fellow Inquisitor F. John Loughnan recently posted some Common Fallacies of RadTrads that are worth a read. And Gregg the Obscure and Apolonio have also posted posts of interest to the Inquisition very recently. (In the case of Apolonio the texts of some dialogues he is involved with at the moment.)
The Miscellaneous BLOG has also been updated. I decided to post some proposed working definitions for the terms "conservative" and "conservatism" based on how they were once used - and should be used again. Go HERE for details.
[Update: It bears noting that the coarser tonalities in the threads written in response to Kevin Tierney above should not be taken as a measuring stick for our dialogues as a rule. Indeed, things have generally been amicable between us since if not late 2003 than at least early 2004 where we had some very informative (on both sides) dialogues on church and state issues, the proposition of workable remedies for the problems in modern society, a dialogue on the role of law in a just society, etc. The reader is therefore asked to kindly consider the tenor of those dialogues to represent the rule in our dialogues and the above mid 2003 LEI threads to be the exception to the rule. --ISM 3/10/05 10:30am]
These are some recent additions to my other weblogs in recent days - starting with a lengthy and detailed response to Kevin Tierney written over a week ago. (And an Addendum written a few days ago when tweaking the longer piece a bit to remove HTML glitches.)
Responsum ad Kevin Tierney
Addendum to the Responsum
My fellow Inquisitor F. John Loughnan recently posted some Common Fallacies of RadTrads that are worth a read. And Gregg the Obscure and Apolonio have also posted posts of interest to the Inquisition very recently. (In the case of Apolonio the texts of some dialogues he is involved with at the moment.)
The Miscellaneous BLOG has also been updated. I decided to post some proposed working definitions for the terms "conservative" and "conservatism" based on how they were once used - and should be used again. Go HERE for details.
[Update: It bears noting that the coarser tonalities in the threads written in response to Kevin Tierney above should not be taken as a measuring stick for our dialogues as a rule. Indeed, things have generally been amicable between us since if not late 2003 than at least early 2004 where we had some very informative (on both sides) dialogues on church and state issues, the proposition of workable remedies for the problems in modern society, a dialogue on the role of law in a just society, etc. The reader is therefore asked to kindly consider the tenor of those dialogues to represent the rule in our dialogues and the above mid 2003 LEI threads to be the exception to the rule. --ISM 3/10/05 10:30am]
Monday, June 16, 2003
A Rerum Novarum Update:
As I updated the archive links on the main page over the weekend, it seemed appropriate to put together an update of the page. So with that in mind, I started throwing bits and pieces from the archive into a list and looked over material of the past three months for possible additions. The primary goal was to add to categories I had not updated in a while but some recent posts seemed worth posting too so I did that as well.
Generally I do not like to put up posts that are less than two weeks old but there were a few necessary exceptions to the rule here. (One was the series on obedience and the other was my Canada post from yesterday.) There was also the need to reclassify some weblogs and add some of the ones I had been monitoring for some time with the intention to add. But without further ado, let us get to it.
On the War:
This category was retitled On the Recent War and War in General. That way, it is a fitting category for future musings on the subjects of war, just war theory, etc. Here are the additions to the newly retitled category.
On the Reagan Administration's Foreign Policy in the Middle East in Light of the Recent Wars
War Musings on Possible Media Sedition
Iwo Jima Tribute. Delivered by Lieutenant Roland B. Gittelsohn (Iwo Jima War Chaplin) from Uncommon Valor copyright 1946 by the Infantry Journal. (With prefatory commentary by I. Shawn McElhinney.)
On Church Authority:
On New Ultramontanism With Lane Core Jr.
On "Traditionalism" Falsely So-Called:
De-baiting Tactics and Follies Common to Pseudo-Traditionalists and Anti-Catholics
Ferrara's Follies I: On the Mystical Body, Communion Ecclesiology, and Common "Trad" Misinterpretations of the (Supposedly) "Perspicuous" Pius XII/Leo XIII Magisteriums
Ferrara's Follies II: On Communion Ecclesiology, the Mystery of the Church in Dominus Iesus, and Additional Theologically Specious Arguments
On "Traditionalism" Properly So-Called:
Dialogue With a Fellow Catholic With Sympathies to Some of the "Traditionalist" Weltanschauung
On Controverted Subjects:
Canada "Slouches Towards Gommorah" (A "PG-13" Weblog Post)
Blogs Reclassified:
The Old Catholic Light BLOG
Jeff Culbreath's Old El Camino Real BLOG
New Approved Websites:
The Ratzinger Fan Club Website - Christopher Blosser
The Catholic Exchange Website - Various Contributors
New Blogs:
The (New) Catholic Light BLOG
Jeff Culbreath's (New) El Camino Real BLOG
The Ratzinger Fanclub BLOG
Alicia Huntley's Fructus Ventris BLOG
Approved Weblogs of a Predominantly Political Nature:
This section was retitled Approved Weblogs of a Predominantly Political/Social Nature and to the list was added the following:
The Volokh Conspiracy BLOG
Spiritual Instruction:
Spiritual Instruction on Traditional Obedience (Parts I-XIV)
Other Approved Sites or Links of Interest:
Richard Dunn McElhinney (RIP)
There was really no other place to put one of the two links on this without recasting the template. I may do that in the future but until then, the link will remain under this classification.
Cigar Smoker's FAQ
In adding the above link, the original additional comments to Jeff Culbreath's Why I Smoke a Pipe essay link were abridged.
And so by virtue of my authority as Sovereign Thane and Lord High Executioner of Rerum Novarum, I declare that the above links are approved and remain stable and valid in perpetuity all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
As I updated the archive links on the main page over the weekend, it seemed appropriate to put together an update of the page. So with that in mind, I started throwing bits and pieces from the archive into a list and looked over material of the past three months for possible additions. The primary goal was to add to categories I had not updated in a while but some recent posts seemed worth posting too so I did that as well.
Generally I do not like to put up posts that are less than two weeks old but there were a few necessary exceptions to the rule here. (One was the series on obedience and the other was my Canada post from yesterday.) There was also the need to reclassify some weblogs and add some of the ones I had been monitoring for some time with the intention to add. But without further ado, let us get to it.
On the War:
This category was retitled On the Recent War and War in General. That way, it is a fitting category for future musings on the subjects of war, just war theory, etc. Here are the additions to the newly retitled category.
On the Reagan Administration's Foreign Policy in the Middle East in Light of the Recent Wars
War Musings on Possible Media Sedition
Iwo Jima Tribute. Delivered by Lieutenant Roland B. Gittelsohn (Iwo Jima War Chaplin) from Uncommon Valor copyright 1946 by the Infantry Journal. (With prefatory commentary by I. Shawn McElhinney.)
On Church Authority:
On New Ultramontanism With Lane Core Jr.
On "Traditionalism" Falsely So-Called:
De-baiting Tactics and Follies Common to Pseudo-Traditionalists and Anti-Catholics
Ferrara's Follies I: On the Mystical Body, Communion Ecclesiology, and Common "Trad" Misinterpretations of the (Supposedly) "Perspicuous" Pius XII/Leo XIII Magisteriums
Ferrara's Follies II: On Communion Ecclesiology, the Mystery of the Church in Dominus Iesus, and Additional Theologically Specious Arguments
On "Traditionalism" Properly So-Called:
Dialogue With a Fellow Catholic With Sympathies to Some of the "Traditionalist" Weltanschauung
On Controverted Subjects:
Canada "Slouches Towards Gommorah" (A "PG-13" Weblog Post)
Blogs Reclassified:
The Old Catholic Light BLOG
Jeff Culbreath's Old El Camino Real BLOG
New Approved Websites:
The Ratzinger Fan Club Website - Christopher Blosser
The Catholic Exchange Website - Various Contributors
New Blogs:
The (New) Catholic Light BLOG
Jeff Culbreath's (New) El Camino Real BLOG
The Ratzinger Fanclub BLOG
Alicia Huntley's Fructus Ventris BLOG
Approved Weblogs of a Predominantly Political Nature:
This section was retitled Approved Weblogs of a Predominantly Political/Social Nature and to the list was added the following:
The Volokh Conspiracy BLOG
Spiritual Instruction:
Spiritual Instruction on Traditional Obedience (Parts I-XIV)
Other Approved Sites or Links of Interest:
Richard Dunn McElhinney (RIP)
There was really no other place to put one of the two links on this without recasting the template. I may do that in the future but until then, the link will remain under this classification.
Cigar Smoker's FAQ
In adding the above link, the original additional comments to Jeff Culbreath's Why I Smoke a Pipe essay link were abridged.
And so by virtue of my authority as Sovereign Thane and Lord High Executioner of Rerum Novarum, I declare that the above links are approved and remain stable and valid in perpetuity all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Sunday, June 15, 2003
"Will Moral People Fiddle While Canada Burns???"
Monitum: This contains themes which are not suitable for children. - ISM
They say one of the most effective weapons is parody. Therefore, I will open this post with a parody which borrows generously from rocker Neil Young's song "Alabama." Usually I intend for these things to be somewhat funny but this one is not intended as such.
Oh Can-a-da
The devil fools with the best laid plan.
Swing low Can-a-da
You got spare change
You got to feel strange
And now the moment is all that it meant.
Can-a-da, you got a weight on your shoulders
That's breaking your back.
Your mor-al-i-ty has got a wheel in the ditch
And a wheel on the track
Oh Can-a-da
Per-ver-sion seeps in a leg-is-la-tive
Bill down in Can-a-da.
See rel-i-gious folks charged with a hate crime
Feel the sink-ing.
Into a grave of slime?
Can-a-da, you got a weight on your shoulders
That's breaking your back.
Your mor-al-i-ty has got a wheel in the ditch
And a wheel on the track
Oh Can-a-da.
I will not see you nor shake your hand.
My poor brethren up in Can-a-da.
I'm from a new land
I look to you and
See all this ruin
What are you doing Can-a-da?
You'll have no morals left over to help you along
What's going wrong?
What is going tragically (and I would argue fatally) wrong with the land of Pete Vere, John Pacheco, and Mark Cameron??? Well, I will let these gentlemen tell you in their own words - starting with my good friend Pete Vere in an article he has submitted for publication in The Wanderer. Here is the text in full:
O Canada!
Our Homosexualist Land?
Pete Vere, JCL
As a Canadian living in the United States, a number of things make me homesick for the Great White North. Off the top of my head, I can think of St. Joseph’s Oratory in Montreal, French-Canadian culture in Quebec and moose-meat in Northern Ontario. There are also my buddies among the Catholic apologetics scene in Ottawa, where I first cut my teeth as a Catholic writer while studying canon law.
So while surfing the internet the other day, I dropped by Catholic-Legate.com to check in on the gang back home. Rather than make me feel homesick, however, what I read at the website simply made me feel sick. I now live in America and the majority of The Wanderer's readership is American. Under the present circumstances, this is a good thing since it affords me the protection of the First Amendment. Yet as one of Canada’s most popular websites of Catholic apologetics, Catholic-Legate enjoys no such protection. For if Canada’s political institutions get their way, Catholic-Legate could soon become one of many religious websites targeted under new hate crime legislation being railroaded through the Canadian legislature. How I long for the religious sensibility and moral self-restraint of the Clinton administration in comparison to those who have hijacked the Canadian political system!
Let me explain a little. This is the same political regime that recently ordered the Saskatoon StarPhoenix newspaper and Hugh Owens of Regina to pay $1,500 to three homosexual activists. Their crime? Publishing an advertisement quoting verses from Holy Scripture. According to LifeSiteNews.com: "The purpose of the ad was to indicate that the Bible says no to homosexual behaviour. The advertisement displayed references to four Bible passages: Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10..."
Svend Robinson, a member of the Canadian parliament, is now following up on this ruling that criminalizes the Natural Law. He has introduced Bill C-250 before the Canadian legislature, which potentially makes speaking out against "sexual orientation" a hate crime. Mr. Robinson, for our American audience, is Canada's first openly homosexual member of parliament. Not surprisingly, he also belongs to Canada's openly socialist party. Even Monica Lewinsky would blush in modest embarrassment with some of Mr. Robinson’s past reported shenanigans.
Perhaps this is why the Canadian federal government will not be appealing a recent judicial decision of Ontario’s highest court – a decision legalizing so-called marriage for homosexual couples. "The existing common law definition of marriage violates the couple's equality rights on the basis of sexual orientation under [the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]," this ruling stated.
And what about the proposed definition of "sexual orientation"? According to Catholic-Legate, "It was reported that Beth Phinney, Liberal MP for Hamilton Mountain, was in a meeting with a constituent concerning the implications of C-250. Ms. Phinney was asked if the term ‘sexual orientation’ included heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, trisexual, bestiality, pedophilia, incest, polygamy, sadomasochism, etc? The constituent was quite disturbed when this Liberal MP confirmed that 'all of these sexual behaviours would be included under the category of sexual orientation'." Within the context of the Natural Law this strikes me more as a practical definition of sexual disorientation.
Fortunately, I now live in America. The First Amendment protects my religious freedom to express my opinion in the media – even from the long wrist of Svend Robinson. North of the boarder, however, my friend Chris Beneteau may not find himself so lucky in the future.
"Whether or not homosexuality is a choice is irrelevant," Chris writes in one particularly pointed Catholic-Legate commentary. "Homosexuals as well as heterosexuals can both choose to avoid sexual behaviours (such as sodomy) which the weight of scientific evidence suggest are dangerous and potentially fatal. [...] It is one thing for people to do whatever they want behind closed doors, yet it is another thing to force the rest of society to embrace the behaviours. While I agree that the government does not belong in the bedrooms of the nation, I also do not think that they should open the doors and force us to peek in."
I fear even more for John Pacheco, both the founder of Catholic-Legate and the Godfather to my daughter Angela. "Over the past few years," John writes, "religious freedom in this country has come under increasing attack by a wicked and perverse judiciary with an anti-life, anti-religious political agenda. All people of Faith need to band together, and fight this menace head on [...] To our Protestant, Muslim, and Jewish counterparts, please help us protect the sanctity of the human family and the dignity of marriage!
"Bill C-250 would add 'sexual orientation' to the list of protected classes in the hate propaganda sections of the Criminal Code which could criminalize any criticisms of homosexuality or homosexual activity. This could be used to threaten with prosecution...any church that holds homosexual activities to be disordered and immoral; or any citizen who simply philosophically disagrees with the legal, financial or employment 'rights' being sought by gay lobbying group (e.g. adoption, spousal benefits, marriage status, etc.). It could lead to parts of the Bible being labeled 'hate literature' and references made to them in church statements or homilies as propagating hate.
"As a Roman Catholic Apologist, I consider this legislation to be a direct assault on my freedom of speech and my Constitutional right to practice my religion. The persons who are propagating such insidious legislation are engaging in religious persecution. What is the government going to do? Ban the Bible from the country? How about the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Is the government going to start arresting Catholic priests who cite the Catechism in rejecting the homosexual lifestyle?
Love the sinner, but hate the sin. As Catholics, Christ calls us to love our homosexual neighbor and seek the salvation of his soul. We accomplish this task in exhorting those affected by this disorder to live chastely within the boundaries of the Natural Law. Unfortunately, this new piece of proposed Canadian legislation fails to take this distinction into account. Which is not surprising when, in the process of accommodating an ivory-basement judiciary that dissents from our traditional Judeo-Christian morality, our Canadian politicians confuse the boundaries between decriminalization, legalization, and the criminalization of the Natural Law.
The same Chris Beneteau Pete refers to wrote the following Letter to the Editor for the Kingston Whig Standard:
After reading the intollerant letters to the editor by Lin Bennett, Chris Couper, and Pat and Allison Gray, I felt that I must come to the defence of Karen Lahey.
The issue of the homosexual person should be left out of the debate. We are all called to tolerate and love all of our neighbours, yet this does not mean that we have to accept and approve of every single behaviour in the name of open-mindedness. For example, sodomy or anal intercourse is a very important part of the male homosexual experience. And this just the tip of the iceberg. There are many other behaviours that are both shocking and extremely dangerous. All one has to do is watch the annual gay pride parade in Toronto to see these behaviours on display. Unfortunately however, many heterosexuals engage in the same behaviours. Should I be considered 'hateful' because I believe oral sex to be degrading and an assault on the dignity of the human person?
Is it 'close-minded' of me to deplore sado-masochism? Am I to be considered 'heterophobic' as well as 'homophobic' because I abhor these and other behaviours? If so, then I wear these words as badges of honor.
Whether or not homosexuality is a choice is irrelevant. Homosexuals as well as heterosexuals can both choose to avoid sexual behaviours (such as sodomy) which the weight of scientific evidence suggest are dangerous and potentially fatal. If homosexuals and heterosexuals choose to engage in these behaviours that is their own business, but don't expect me to encourage or support the perpetuation of these behaviours.
It is for this reason that I, like Karen Lahey, would never support curriculum materials for children that presents homosexual and heterosexual perversions as being morally acceptable. Society places value judgements on all forms of human behaviour, so why are sexual behaviours exempt?
It is one thing for people to do whatever they want behind closed doors, yet it is another thing to force the rest of society to embrace the behaviours. While I agree that the government does not belong in the bedrooms of the nation, I also do not think that they should open the doors and force us to peek in.
Mark Cameron has not blogged in about a week and a half. I cannot imagine he would let this go by without comment so when he blogs on the subject, We at Rerum Novarum will bring that to you. In the meantime, let us close this entry with two very powerful website letters from our good friend John Pacheco.
Marlene Catterall, MP Ottawa West
Dear Ms. Catterall:
I am writing to you to express my outrage at the imminent passage of Bill C-250 which seeks to include"sexual orientation" in the Criminal Code. As you are surely aware, Bill C-250 would add "sexual orientation" to the list of protected classes in the hate propaganda sections of the Criminal Code which could criminalize any criticisms of homosexuality or homosexual activity. This could be used to threaten with prosecution any psychologist who holds homosexuality to be a pathological condition that may be treated; any church that holds homosexual activities to be disordered and immoral; or any citizen whosimply philosophically disagrees with the legal, financial or employment "rights" being sought by gay lobbying group (e.g. adoption, spousal benefits, marriage status, etc.). It could lead to parts of the Bible being labeled "hate literature" and references made to them in church statements or homilies as propagating hate.
As a Roman Catholic Apologist, I consider this legislation to be a direct assault on my freedom of speech and my Constitutional right to practice my religion. The persons who are propagating such insidious legislation are engaging in religious persecution. What is the government going to do, Ms. Catterall? Ban the bible from the country? How about the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Is it going to start arresting Catholic priests who cite the Catechism in rejecting the homosexual lifestyle? Here is the citation of the Catechism that deals with homosexuality:
"Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." (CCC, 2357)
As I am your constituent, I respectfully ask that you indicate to me whether you support this legislation. I also want to know whether you will support the persecution of FAITHFUL Catholics and other people of Faith. Please, no games. I want straight answers (no pun intended).
I am not asking you to agree with the teaching, Ms. Catterall. I am asking you whether faithful Catholics are going to be persecuted for their religious convictions. Are you going to ask the authorities to come and arrest a Catholic father of 2 young children who speaks out against such a self-destructive lifestyle? If you are, then I'll save you the hassle of locating him. Come and get me.
Yours truly,
John Pacheco
Catholic Apologist
And the latest entry on this subject from John:
Fight Dammit
We've been granted a reprieve until September. The militant homosexuals did not get all of the pie, just a good chunk of it. They've been successful in ramming "homosexual marriage" through the courts, but they didn't get "sexual orientation" added to the Criminal code as a "hate crime" - at least not until the Fall session of Parliament.
While the forces of darkness seem overwhelming, we have to keep in mind that this fight is already over. Jesus has won the fight over Satan and the forces of darkness. The only thing left to do is sort out the details. My brothers and sisters, we have an opportunity here to witness to the Catholic faith like no time in our country's history. As strange as it seems, as the perversion and distortion engulf us, "grace abounds the more". It is at this hour that the Holy Spirit strengthens His people to rise up and meet the dragon head on. The Archangel Michael and his legion are preparing us for the sacrifice that lies ahead. Our Lady is there with him. Are we ready?
This is our hour. This is our chance to witness and suffer for Our Blessed Lord and be united with His suffering on the cross. Pinned there with Him, sharing in His crucifixion, uniting ourselves to the truth itself. One body, one Spirit. To be martyrs for our faith. This is what it is all about. "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me." (Matthew 24:9) Bring it on. Because that is when the rubber meets the road. Where the pretenders go to their place and the contenders go to theirs. It's time to fight. No more politicians or lawyers; no more bureaucrats or fencesitters; no more negotiators or facilitators; no more judas-bishops or rainbow-vested priests. The pretense is gone. All of the illusions are being stripped away. The game of double-speak and diplomacy are over. It's time for straight talk and then action.
Please pray one Hail Mary for me as I beseech and beg the Lord to show me what I must do in this battle. Whether large or small, we all need to take up our Christian responsibility and stand for the truth.
It's time to fight, dammit. This means you.
St. Joseph, patron saint of our country, forget us not, but intercede for us!
St. Michael, prince of the heavenly host, defend us in this day of battle!
- John Pacheco
Those of us who were critical of the Babylon that was the Clinton Administration and thought at times that "it cannot get worse", oh yes it can!!!{1} And our brethren in Canada - including my father's step brother and his family - are in the midst of it all. They need our prayers and support.
One thing that would perhaps help is a financial boycott. If enough people in America can put their names on a letter to the Canadian legislature pledging to never knowingly buy any goods or services from Canada again if this passes, that may (sadly enough) carry more weight than the moral arguments themselves.
The secularists are not religious except insofar as materialism is their religion. So the only way to piss on what they hold as sacred is to do it through the currency. Money does talk and with some people it is the only voice they can hear. In courts of law they have what are called "hostile witnesses." In this case, let us use the dollar as one for the cause of foundational morals.{2}
Notes:
{1} What is happening in Canada is FAR worse than the national security compromises in Chinagate and the abduction of over 1,000 FBI files of political opponents in Filegate. (The Lewinsky incident was peanuts compared to these two which were easily much more impeachable offenses.)
{2} Because, if this passes, Canada as a nation is going to become the next Sodom and Gommorah. At least in America we have laws against this kind of thing for the time being. (Though there are psychiatric associations in America who are trying to reclassify pedophilia as acceptable behaviour.)
There is an old saying that my father used to use in situations like this. It goes similar to the following:
"When they came for the Jews, as I was not a Jew, I did not speak up. When they came for the Muslims, as I was not a Muslim, I did not speak up. When they came for the Catholics, as I was not a Catholic, I did not speak up. When they came for the Protestants, as I was not a Protestant, I did not speak up. When they came for the religious polytheists, as I was not a religious polytheist, I did not speak up. Now they are coming for me and there is no one left to speak up for me."
Well my friends, this principle applies as well to nations as it does to religions. And it is not out of line to say that "they are coming for the Canadians." Do I really have to say anything more than that???
Monitum: This contains themes which are not suitable for children. - ISM
They say one of the most effective weapons is parody. Therefore, I will open this post with a parody which borrows generously from rocker Neil Young's song "Alabama." Usually I intend for these things to be somewhat funny but this one is not intended as such.
Oh Can-a-da
The devil fools with the best laid plan.
Swing low Can-a-da
You got spare change
You got to feel strange
And now the moment is all that it meant.
Can-a-da, you got a weight on your shoulders
That's breaking your back.
Your mor-al-i-ty has got a wheel in the ditch
And a wheel on the track
Oh Can-a-da
Per-ver-sion seeps in a leg-is-la-tive
Bill down in Can-a-da.
See rel-i-gious folks charged with a hate crime
Feel the sink-ing.
Into a grave of slime?
Can-a-da, you got a weight on your shoulders
That's breaking your back.
Your mor-al-i-ty has got a wheel in the ditch
And a wheel on the track
Oh Can-a-da.
I will not see you nor shake your hand.
My poor brethren up in Can-a-da.
I'm from a new land
I look to you and
See all this ruin
What are you doing Can-a-da?
You'll have no morals left over to help you along
What's going wrong?
What is going tragically (and I would argue fatally) wrong with the land of Pete Vere, John Pacheco, and Mark Cameron??? Well, I will let these gentlemen tell you in their own words - starting with my good friend Pete Vere in an article he has submitted for publication in The Wanderer. Here is the text in full:
O Canada!
Our Homosexualist Land?
Pete Vere, JCL
As a Canadian living in the United States, a number of things make me homesick for the Great White North. Off the top of my head, I can think of St. Joseph’s Oratory in Montreal, French-Canadian culture in Quebec and moose-meat in Northern Ontario. There are also my buddies among the Catholic apologetics scene in Ottawa, where I first cut my teeth as a Catholic writer while studying canon law.
So while surfing the internet the other day, I dropped by Catholic-Legate.com to check in on the gang back home. Rather than make me feel homesick, however, what I read at the website simply made me feel sick. I now live in America and the majority of The Wanderer's readership is American. Under the present circumstances, this is a good thing since it affords me the protection of the First Amendment. Yet as one of Canada’s most popular websites of Catholic apologetics, Catholic-Legate enjoys no such protection. For if Canada’s political institutions get their way, Catholic-Legate could soon become one of many religious websites targeted under new hate crime legislation being railroaded through the Canadian legislature. How I long for the religious sensibility and moral self-restraint of the Clinton administration in comparison to those who have hijacked the Canadian political system!
Let me explain a little. This is the same political regime that recently ordered the Saskatoon StarPhoenix newspaper and Hugh Owens of Regina to pay $1,500 to three homosexual activists. Their crime? Publishing an advertisement quoting verses from Holy Scripture. According to LifeSiteNews.com: "The purpose of the ad was to indicate that the Bible says no to homosexual behaviour. The advertisement displayed references to four Bible passages: Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10..."
Svend Robinson, a member of the Canadian parliament, is now following up on this ruling that criminalizes the Natural Law. He has introduced Bill C-250 before the Canadian legislature, which potentially makes speaking out against "sexual orientation" a hate crime. Mr. Robinson, for our American audience, is Canada's first openly homosexual member of parliament. Not surprisingly, he also belongs to Canada's openly socialist party. Even Monica Lewinsky would blush in modest embarrassment with some of Mr. Robinson’s past reported shenanigans.
Perhaps this is why the Canadian federal government will not be appealing a recent judicial decision of Ontario’s highest court – a decision legalizing so-called marriage for homosexual couples. "The existing common law definition of marriage violates the couple's equality rights on the basis of sexual orientation under [the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]," this ruling stated.
And what about the proposed definition of "sexual orientation"? According to Catholic-Legate, "It was reported that Beth Phinney, Liberal MP for Hamilton Mountain, was in a meeting with a constituent concerning the implications of C-250. Ms. Phinney was asked if the term ‘sexual orientation’ included heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, trisexual, bestiality, pedophilia, incest, polygamy, sadomasochism, etc? The constituent was quite disturbed when this Liberal MP confirmed that 'all of these sexual behaviours would be included under the category of sexual orientation'." Within the context of the Natural Law this strikes me more as a practical definition of sexual disorientation.
Fortunately, I now live in America. The First Amendment protects my religious freedom to express my opinion in the media – even from the long wrist of Svend Robinson. North of the boarder, however, my friend Chris Beneteau may not find himself so lucky in the future.
"Whether or not homosexuality is a choice is irrelevant," Chris writes in one particularly pointed Catholic-Legate commentary. "Homosexuals as well as heterosexuals can both choose to avoid sexual behaviours (such as sodomy) which the weight of scientific evidence suggest are dangerous and potentially fatal. [...] It is one thing for people to do whatever they want behind closed doors, yet it is another thing to force the rest of society to embrace the behaviours. While I agree that the government does not belong in the bedrooms of the nation, I also do not think that they should open the doors and force us to peek in."
I fear even more for John Pacheco, both the founder of Catholic-Legate and the Godfather to my daughter Angela. "Over the past few years," John writes, "religious freedom in this country has come under increasing attack by a wicked and perverse judiciary with an anti-life, anti-religious political agenda. All people of Faith need to band together, and fight this menace head on [...] To our Protestant, Muslim, and Jewish counterparts, please help us protect the sanctity of the human family and the dignity of marriage!
"Bill C-250 would add 'sexual orientation' to the list of protected classes in the hate propaganda sections of the Criminal Code which could criminalize any criticisms of homosexuality or homosexual activity. This could be used to threaten with prosecution...any church that holds homosexual activities to be disordered and immoral; or any citizen who simply philosophically disagrees with the legal, financial or employment 'rights' being sought by gay lobbying group (e.g. adoption, spousal benefits, marriage status, etc.). It could lead to parts of the Bible being labeled 'hate literature' and references made to them in church statements or homilies as propagating hate.
"As a Roman Catholic Apologist, I consider this legislation to be a direct assault on my freedom of speech and my Constitutional right to practice my religion. The persons who are propagating such insidious legislation are engaging in religious persecution. What is the government going to do? Ban the Bible from the country? How about the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Is the government going to start arresting Catholic priests who cite the Catechism in rejecting the homosexual lifestyle?
Love the sinner, but hate the sin. As Catholics, Christ calls us to love our homosexual neighbor and seek the salvation of his soul. We accomplish this task in exhorting those affected by this disorder to live chastely within the boundaries of the Natural Law. Unfortunately, this new piece of proposed Canadian legislation fails to take this distinction into account. Which is not surprising when, in the process of accommodating an ivory-basement judiciary that dissents from our traditional Judeo-Christian morality, our Canadian politicians confuse the boundaries between decriminalization, legalization, and the criminalization of the Natural Law.
The same Chris Beneteau Pete refers to wrote the following Letter to the Editor for the Kingston Whig Standard:
After reading the intollerant letters to the editor by Lin Bennett, Chris Couper, and Pat and Allison Gray, I felt that I must come to the defence of Karen Lahey.
The issue of the homosexual person should be left out of the debate. We are all called to tolerate and love all of our neighbours, yet this does not mean that we have to accept and approve of every single behaviour in the name of open-mindedness. For example, sodomy or anal intercourse is a very important part of the male homosexual experience. And this just the tip of the iceberg. There are many other behaviours that are both shocking and extremely dangerous. All one has to do is watch the annual gay pride parade in Toronto to see these behaviours on display. Unfortunately however, many heterosexuals engage in the same behaviours. Should I be considered 'hateful' because I believe oral sex to be degrading and an assault on the dignity of the human person?
Is it 'close-minded' of me to deplore sado-masochism? Am I to be considered 'heterophobic' as well as 'homophobic' because I abhor these and other behaviours? If so, then I wear these words as badges of honor.
Whether or not homosexuality is a choice is irrelevant. Homosexuals as well as heterosexuals can both choose to avoid sexual behaviours (such as sodomy) which the weight of scientific evidence suggest are dangerous and potentially fatal. If homosexuals and heterosexuals choose to engage in these behaviours that is their own business, but don't expect me to encourage or support the perpetuation of these behaviours.
It is for this reason that I, like Karen Lahey, would never support curriculum materials for children that presents homosexual and heterosexual perversions as being morally acceptable. Society places value judgements on all forms of human behaviour, so why are sexual behaviours exempt?
It is one thing for people to do whatever they want behind closed doors, yet it is another thing to force the rest of society to embrace the behaviours. While I agree that the government does not belong in the bedrooms of the nation, I also do not think that they should open the doors and force us to peek in.
Mark Cameron has not blogged in about a week and a half. I cannot imagine he would let this go by without comment so when he blogs on the subject, We at Rerum Novarum will bring that to you. In the meantime, let us close this entry with two very powerful website letters from our good friend John Pacheco.
Marlene Catterall, MP Ottawa West
Dear Ms. Catterall:
I am writing to you to express my outrage at the imminent passage of Bill C-250 which seeks to include"sexual orientation" in the Criminal Code. As you are surely aware, Bill C-250 would add "sexual orientation" to the list of protected classes in the hate propaganda sections of the Criminal Code which could criminalize any criticisms of homosexuality or homosexual activity. This could be used to threaten with prosecution any psychologist who holds homosexuality to be a pathological condition that may be treated; any church that holds homosexual activities to be disordered and immoral; or any citizen whosimply philosophically disagrees with the legal, financial or employment "rights" being sought by gay lobbying group (e.g. adoption, spousal benefits, marriage status, etc.). It could lead to parts of the Bible being labeled "hate literature" and references made to them in church statements or homilies as propagating hate.
As a Roman Catholic Apologist, I consider this legislation to be a direct assault on my freedom of speech and my Constitutional right to practice my religion. The persons who are propagating such insidious legislation are engaging in religious persecution. What is the government going to do, Ms. Catterall? Ban the bible from the country? How about the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Is it going to start arresting Catholic priests who cite the Catechism in rejecting the homosexual lifestyle? Here is the citation of the Catechism that deals with homosexuality:
"Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." (CCC, 2357)
As I am your constituent, I respectfully ask that you indicate to me whether you support this legislation. I also want to know whether you will support the persecution of FAITHFUL Catholics and other people of Faith. Please, no games. I want straight answers (no pun intended).
I am not asking you to agree with the teaching, Ms. Catterall. I am asking you whether faithful Catholics are going to be persecuted for their religious convictions. Are you going to ask the authorities to come and arrest a Catholic father of 2 young children who speaks out against such a self-destructive lifestyle? If you are, then I'll save you the hassle of locating him. Come and get me.
Yours truly,
John Pacheco
Catholic Apologist
And the latest entry on this subject from John:
Fight Dammit
We've been granted a reprieve until September. The militant homosexuals did not get all of the pie, just a good chunk of it. They've been successful in ramming "homosexual marriage" through the courts, but they didn't get "sexual orientation" added to the Criminal code as a "hate crime" - at least not until the Fall session of Parliament.
While the forces of darkness seem overwhelming, we have to keep in mind that this fight is already over. Jesus has won the fight over Satan and the forces of darkness. The only thing left to do is sort out the details. My brothers and sisters, we have an opportunity here to witness to the Catholic faith like no time in our country's history. As strange as it seems, as the perversion and distortion engulf us, "grace abounds the more". It is at this hour that the Holy Spirit strengthens His people to rise up and meet the dragon head on. The Archangel Michael and his legion are preparing us for the sacrifice that lies ahead. Our Lady is there with him. Are we ready?
This is our hour. This is our chance to witness and suffer for Our Blessed Lord and be united with His suffering on the cross. Pinned there with Him, sharing in His crucifixion, uniting ourselves to the truth itself. One body, one Spirit. To be martyrs for our faith. This is what it is all about. "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me." (Matthew 24:9) Bring it on. Because that is when the rubber meets the road. Where the pretenders go to their place and the contenders go to theirs. It's time to fight. No more politicians or lawyers; no more bureaucrats or fencesitters; no more negotiators or facilitators; no more judas-bishops or rainbow-vested priests. The pretense is gone. All of the illusions are being stripped away. The game of double-speak and diplomacy are over. It's time for straight talk and then action.
Please pray one Hail Mary for me as I beseech and beg the Lord to show me what I must do in this battle. Whether large or small, we all need to take up our Christian responsibility and stand for the truth.
It's time to fight, dammit. This means you.
St. Joseph, patron saint of our country, forget us not, but intercede for us!
St. Michael, prince of the heavenly host, defend us in this day of battle!
- John Pacheco
Those of us who were critical of the Babylon that was the Clinton Administration and thought at times that "it cannot get worse", oh yes it can!!!{1} And our brethren in Canada - including my father's step brother and his family - are in the midst of it all. They need our prayers and support.
One thing that would perhaps help is a financial boycott. If enough people in America can put their names on a letter to the Canadian legislature pledging to never knowingly buy any goods or services from Canada again if this passes, that may (sadly enough) carry more weight than the moral arguments themselves.
The secularists are not religious except insofar as materialism is their religion. So the only way to piss on what they hold as sacred is to do it through the currency. Money does talk and with some people it is the only voice they can hear. In courts of law they have what are called "hostile witnesses." In this case, let us use the dollar as one for the cause of foundational morals.{2}
Notes:
{1} What is happening in Canada is FAR worse than the national security compromises in Chinagate and the abduction of over 1,000 FBI files of political opponents in Filegate. (The Lewinsky incident was peanuts compared to these two which were easily much more impeachable offenses.)
{2} Because, if this passes, Canada as a nation is going to become the next Sodom and Gommorah. At least in America we have laws against this kind of thing for the time being. (Though there are psychiatric associations in America who are trying to reclassify pedophilia as acceptable behaviour.)
There is an old saying that my father used to use in situations like this. It goes similar to the following:
"When they came for the Jews, as I was not a Jew, I did not speak up. When they came for the Muslims, as I was not a Muslim, I did not speak up. When they came for the Catholics, as I was not a Catholic, I did not speak up. When they came for the Protestants, as I was not a Protestant, I did not speak up. When they came for the religious polytheists, as I was not a religious polytheist, I did not speak up. Now they are coming for me and there is no one left to speak up for me."
Well my friends, this principle applies as well to nations as it does to religions. And it is not out of line to say that "they are coming for the Canadians." Do I really have to say anything more than that???
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)