Miscellaneous Mutterings:
I worked a little on an update feature which I will post probably tomorrow - one of those multiple post updates from a favourite weblog of mine on certain subjects. In the meantime, a small sampling from Ann Coulter's book Treason can be read HERE. (If memory serves, it is from chapter three.) Liberal Democrats in particular should not skip the link as they have a lot of obtuseness that needs to be dislodged and they might as well start with the truth about Joseph McCarthy and the treason of the liberals since the Roosevelt Administration (with few exceptions).
Moving from that subject to my supposedly "classical liberal formulations" on the subjects of rights and conscience, the following will briefly clarify the matter as discussed on Jeff Culbreath's weblog. (Pertaining to my previous weblog entry titled Traditional Moral Principles.) Jeff's words will be in dark faded cyan colour and Jim Kalb's words will be in dark orange.
While I greatly appreciate his stalwart defense of my rights as a printer, nevertheless I am uncomfortable with the classical liberal formulations that seem to cement his argument. He writes:
"For one cannot demand liberty for a particular faculty for themselves which they then turn around and deny to others: this stance is blatantly hypocritical ... if one demands liberty for their own conscience, then they must extend the same to the consciences of others who do not agree with them. Thus, the homosexual activists who would appeal to not being coerced against their conscience -by enemies either real or imagined- cannot be credible in their complaints if they are hypocritically trying to coerce the consciences of those who do not agree with them."
Is this really true?
I believe it is, yes. One should be consistent with their principles. And prefacing the point noted above was the following statement:
Whatever your view is on Jeff's religious convictions, those who value being true to conscience and of not coercing people to violate their consciences (ala the "liberty of conscience" crowd) need to stop and consider whether they are being true to their own principles.
In other words, those who are making the claim for themselves have to in order to be consistent not deny it to others.
Many people make appeals to conscience in order to excuse their misdeeds.
No argument there.
The fact is that homosexuals should not be extended "freedom of conscience" when it comes to acting upon their homosexual desires.
If you notice, I did not refer to freedom of conscience apart from other key factors - including the notion of public order. And appeals to freedom of conscience in matters that involve the undermining of the public order cannot be sanctioned by any society interested in its own survival.
More to the point, public authorities should grant freedom to Catholic printers while restricting the propogation of homosexualist literature -- or any literature which undermines the social order.
Agreed. And all of that falls under the role of government in regulating the public order of society against those who would commit abuses under the pretext of freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, or any other alleged "freedom." As the subject of religious freedom is directly linked with all freedoms of conscience properly understood, the principles governing the exercise of both are in my view the same. And of course the principles governing religious freedom were spelled out in the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae from the Second Vatican Council:
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. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. [Second Vatican Council: Declaration Dignitatis Humanae §1 (c. 1965)]
Obviously a right that is founded on the nature of the person and not on subjective dispositions, does not stand alone but indeed has corresponding responsibilities attached to it. And in the sentence that completes the above statement, these are touched on briefly with the following words:
In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed. [Second Vatican Council: Declaration Dignitatis Humanae §1 (c. 1965)]
In other words, the right is to stand unimpeded provided that there is proper observance of just public order. And to remind my readers, "public order" is not a vague or ambiguous sentiment but was defined by DH as follows:
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. [Second Vatican Council: Declaration Dignitatis Humanae §7 (c. 1965)]
And as the guarding of public morality as well as the promulgation of governing norms in accordance with objective moral order are necessary to defend society from abuses under the pretext of religious freedom, the same is necessary with any claim to exercise a particular "freedom" claimed by individuals or groups. In short, Jeff and I affirm the same thing albeit by a different approach.
When I was business broker a few years back, I picked up a book on the desk of a colleague and was stunned at what I had read. It was a slick-looking book about how to commit mail order fraud and get away with it! No kidding! Yet this hideous book was legally printed and sold by mainstream book outlets. All in the name of "freedom of the press", no doubt. It is hard to imagine what kind of "conscience" would justify printing this book, but this is not harder than imagining what kind of conscience would justify the practice or promotion of homosexuality.
Agreed. And a government that conformed their juridical prescriptions in accordance with the objective moral order for safeguarding public morality would not allow such works to freely circulate. (As they contribute to the undermining of the public order of society.)
Therefore, I think Catholics should be very careful about adopting the language of "freedom" and "rights" unless they are unequivocal about the kinds of things to which legitimate freedom does not apply.
I believe I have been very precise and unequivocal - not only in my previous post but also in this one as well as all posts where I have discussed the subject of rights and free speech in general. My rationale is consistent.
The part of McElhinney's comment you quoted doesn't commit to liberal rights and the liberal conception of conscience, it just demands that those who assert such things be consistent. So it's consistent with the view that in fact the rights of conscience include neither the right to homosexual activity nor the right to print materials that favor it.
Exactly.
Having said that, I agree it's a bad argument to rely on, because I don't see that liberal rights necessarily require free speech for homophobes in this setting.
The point quoted was simply intended to shame those who would persecute Jeff for speaking his mind when they continually assert the right to say whatever they want to under the pretext of "liberty of conscience." Any theory if it is to be viable cannot be internally contradictory. And as the liberal theory -supported by the theses of an unfettered freedom of conscience and an unfettered freedom of speech- is internally contradictory, it cannot stand up as a viable paradigm to follow. A position that is consistent is not necessarily true; however falsehoods inevitably exist in a position that is intrinsically inconsistent. And the liberal position on this is inconsistent.
Furthermore, as I noted already, there is no separation in my theory of the concepts of liberty of conscience and the requirements of public order. While I agree that the passage Jeff quotes taken by itself is not a strong argument, taken with the other parts of the theory it contributes to a strong defense.
Our sexual practices touch us more closely than our commercial practices. That's why sodomy strikes traditional Catholics as worse than shortchanging a customer. That's also why liberals consider homophobia worse than violating commercial freedom.
True. But liberals who whine about "blacklisting", "inquisitions", and "oppression" come across as hypocrites when they try to get people to boycott the businesses of those they disagree with (read: blacklisting). Likewise, they are hypocrites when they harrass such people in the press or via government or private agencies (read: inquisition). And of course, when they try to shut off from the field of debate a person's viewpoint that they deem offensive simply because it differs from their own (read: oppression). In short, their very weltanschauung is marinated in hypocrisy.
It seems to me it would be quite rational for a liberal to say your lesbian customer should win: your disrespect for her sexual practices is a greater affront to the liberal conception of human dignity, because it relates to something that touches her more closely, than her disrespect for your commercial practices.
I disagree. Whatever the lesbian customer does in her private life is her business. But when she seeks to advertise it and solicits Jeff's business to provide the means of advertisement, she is then trying to get Jeff to sanction with his property her opinions which he does not countenance.
As the right to production is one of the three fundamental rights of man -and precede all legislation- she is violating a fundamental right of Jeff's while Jeff by exercising his freedom of conscience to not give her views airtime (or presstime) does not violate her right of free speech. She can say whatever she wants; however others are not required to give her a microphone or a forum to say it.
The basic problem with the arguement you quote is that it presumes to do a better job of drawing conclusions from liberal premises than liberals do.
Please read my entire argument Jim. You will see that the argument is not as "liberal" as you may presume it is.
There are lots of intelligent, philosophically-minded liberals, and most of them agree with your customer more than with McElhinney.
So??? I was unaware that truth was a matter of Zogby polling. If the position of the liberals you refer to is internally inconsistent and teeming with hypocrisy, why should I or anyone else take them seriously??? Intelligent people often defend facile arguments based on faulty presuppositions. My position is neither inconsistent or hypocritical. Therefore, on those points at the very least my thesis is head and shoulders above the "intelligent" or "philosophically-minded liberals" you refer to.
So why not trust them to draw correct conclusions from their own premises and concentrate on presenting premises and conclusions that are consistent with Catholicism?
My entire approach is based on the philosophical principles of a great economist and statesman of the nineteenth century who was heavily influenced by Catholicism{1} and also the teaching of the Catholic Church exercising her supreme magisterium in ecumenical council. In short, my premises and conclusions are quite consistent with Catholicism but at the same time are capable of being applied to those who are not Catholic as well.
"For one cannot demand liberty for a particular faculty for themselves which they then turn around and deny to others: this stance is blatantly hypocritical ... if one demands liberty for their own conscience, then they must extend the same to the consciences of others who do not agree with them."
I thank Mr. Kalb for his insightful comment. With respect to the quote referenced above, I demand liberty for my conscience as a printer, but do not wish to extend the same liberty of conscience to my adversaries. Is this hypocrisy?
It depends on how you are doing it Jeff. You are not required to extend to them your property (i.e. printing) to make their views known. Further still, as any right properly understood entails a corresponding responsibility, it becomes an issue of grounding one's right to express their views as subservient to the public order of society.
You and your adversary both claim a right to conscience. But of the two, which of you can show that your view is (to paraphrase DH) "in accordance with objective moral order" or involves "a proper guardianship of public morality"??? The one who can demonstrate this has a right to liberty of their conscience unimpeded by civil authority. The one who cannot does not.
The answer is that the highest Catholic standard is not ultimately one of liberty or conscience: it is a standard of objective truth and goodness.
I understand where you are going here; however how is this going to convince someone who asserts that your claims of objective truth are merely your opinions???
Liberty of conscience is a positive good because it is a practical concession to man's fallen condition.
Liberty of conscience is like religious liberty: it has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature" (DH §2). In short, it is far from a concession to fallen condition since it is a part of human nature. However, it has certain restrictions on it much as any right does.
Liberalism, however, makes it an *ultimate* good, and therefore suggests moral equivalence where none exists.
True. The Catholic understanding of this right is that it is limited to the search for truth but ceases once the truth is attained. Or to again quote DH:
[A]ll 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. [Second Vatican Council: Declaration Dignitatis Humanae §2 (c. 1965)]
I go over this principle in more detail when I posted A Few Notes On Dignitatis Humanae back in July of this year.
Perhaps Shawn means to say that it is hypocritical of those who believe in the absolute supremacy of conscience to deny the free exercise of conscience to others.
That is exactly what I was saying - as a prelude thesis to my overarching theory on the three fundamental rights of man.
But we're not in that camp.
Not yet but we will be. Just as in chess or krokano, it pays to look at least a few moves ahead if not several. And that is what I set out to do with the thesis.
Yes, I think that's what Shawn means to say.
Yes, that is what I said.
And a problem with making the argument is that a lesbian customer's exercise of conscience can conflict with a traditionalist Catholic printer's exercise of conscience, because the latter's refusal to print burdens the former's free promotion of her conscientiously chosen way of life, and even her ability to live it freely and openly in an environment that doesn't cover it with shame.
Aah but you are making the mistake of presuming that just because she has a right to express herself that Jeff has to utilize his property to give her that means. Jeff is under no obligation to do that. He is no more required to do that than the lesbian is to make a generous contribution of her salary to the Catholic Church earmarked for printing and distributing materials which proscribe the homosexual agenda and lifestyle.
If you would assert that she is not required to utilize her property to promote an agenda contrary to hers, then you must also recognize that Jeff is not required to put his property up for promoting her agenda.
So a principled liberal has to resolve the conflict.
"Principled" and "liberal" are generally antonymous concepts in today's philosophical climate Jim...
Shawn is convinced that the principled liberal has to find in favor of the printer. I don't see why.
Because a principled liberal who espouses freedom of speech has to extend the same freedom to those who disagree with them, that is why.
If tolerance -- acceptance of what other people conscientiously choose for themselves -- is the supreme virtue, why shouldn't a principled liberal, in case of a conflict, favor conscientious activity that accepts tolerance over conscientious activity that does not?
But we all know that tolerance is not the supreme virtue to a liberal. (And it is not difficult to demonstrate this.) Therefore, since the first part of your question is falsified, the corollary extension you build from it does not need to be interacted with as it has no foundation left on which to stand.
Having noted that, I need to turn in now as it is my birthday and this aging body and mind need their sleep. With God's will and your readership, I shall blog again...
Note:
{1} See the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Claude-Frederic Bastiat. I came to his writings -and assimilated the concepts of his magnum opus- unaware that he was so thoroughly Catholic in his outlook.
The Law was written in the final year of his life around the time of his reacquaintance with the Church. I recommend it without hesitation to anyone of a conservative persuasion who wants to supply order to their thinking on the subjects of law and economics in a Christian society.
Monday, October 20, 2003
Points to Ponder:
It is immensely difficult for secular historians to grapple with the idea of the papacy as a theological proposition. It is easy enough for them to assemble the key texts and to weigh their words in particular historical or ideological contexts. Historians are good at that, and whether they are well or ill disposed towards the papacy, they have taught us much. But historians are not so good at dealing with the possibility that the papacy is part of the divinely willed order of things. Put a little differently, one can ask whether the "idea" of the papacy is to be treated in the same ways, and with the same analytical perspectives, as Marxism, or capitalism, or liberalism, or modernism, or any of the other big ideas that have been powerful forces in human history. Framed in such bald terms, it is easy to hide behind ambiguity, to answer "Yes and No." Compare the "idea" of the Trinity. It is easy enough to see this as a felicitous conjunction, in a certain place and time, of Greek syllogistic and analogical thinking, of Platonic vocabulary, of Latin precision, of catechetical necessities, and of disputational dynamics. Still, all of this being stipulated as true, there is something there that is independent of all the words that have been heaped on top of it. So too, the papal idea. [Thomas F. X. Noble: "Popes for All Seasons" as quoted in First Things October 1998]
It is immensely difficult for secular historians to grapple with the idea of the papacy as a theological proposition. It is easy enough for them to assemble the key texts and to weigh their words in particular historical or ideological contexts. Historians are good at that, and whether they are well or ill disposed towards the papacy, they have taught us much. But historians are not so good at dealing with the possibility that the papacy is part of the divinely willed order of things. Put a little differently, one can ask whether the "idea" of the papacy is to be treated in the same ways, and with the same analytical perspectives, as Marxism, or capitalism, or liberalism, or modernism, or any of the other big ideas that have been powerful forces in human history. Framed in such bald terms, it is easy to hide behind ambiguity, to answer "Yes and No." Compare the "idea" of the Trinity. It is easy enough to see this as a felicitous conjunction, in a certain place and time, of Greek syllogistic and analogical thinking, of Platonic vocabulary, of Latin precision, of catechetical necessities, and of disputational dynamics. Still, all of this being stipulated as true, there is something there that is independent of all the words that have been heaped on top of it. So too, the papal idea. [Thomas F. X. Noble: "Popes for All Seasons" as quoted in First Things October 1998]
On Theological/Philosophical Freedom of Inquiry:
Hi there Shawn
Hi Gregory:
I have two questions. If you have the time, I hope you'd answer them.
I apologize that a previously promised response has not been gotten to yet. (My time for these things is not as extensive as it may appear at times.)
1) You and others on the LidlessEye Inquisition quote at times pre-conciliar authorities on the obligation of Catholics to follow the mind of the Church on issues.
Correct.
Your argument is that trads need to try to be in union with the Pope's views and ideas even when they are not expressed in binding documents.
They need to follow the Pope not only on matters of faith and morals but also with regards to the discipline and government of the Church as well as the guidance of the Church. Pope Bl. Pius IX was clear on this in his Encyclical Letter Quanta Cura condemning certain errors:
[We cannot] pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that "without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals." But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church." [Pope Pius IX: Encyclical Letter Quanta Cura §5 (c. 1864)]
In short, those who act as Pope Pius IX outline are properly understood to be "proximate to heresy" as that is what those who controvert a dogma of the faith in reality without willfully doubting or denying it in the abstract.{1} And there are three areas where obedience is required: faith/morals (teaching or "feeding"), discipline/government (directives or "ruling"), and the agenda of the Church as it pertains to contemporary issues and how to approach them ("guidance"). These are the areas where obedience is required as a matter of Catholic dogma. True Traditionalists give assent in these areas.
Father Hardon's Catholic Dictionary talks about this under the heading "Mind of the Church". My question is, there are some ideas that pre-conciliar popes had that you would not support (in fact, the present pope and hierarchy seem to disagree with them).
Sure. There are areas which the magisterium has loosed that were previously bound -and which I would not support. However, if I knew what I know and lived back when such areas were bound, I would strive to give religious submission of mind and will. At the very least I would render reverent silence and not publish anything that contradicted what the Magisterium set forth. It would not be easy but I already do this with elements of current practice or allowance that I do not personally care for so it is not as if I would have to learn how to do this.
Issues like greater freedom for theologians to speculate, and when the establishment of religion in a state would be justified, come to mind.
Yes those areas come to mind for me too but at the same time a lot of the laxity that came out of post Vatican II was a direct reaction to the ridiculously restrictive theological climate that was predominant in the two hundred years prior to Vatican II. (Particularly the first half of the twentieth century.) It was if you will not an effect lacking a cause.
Well, what about those Catholics in the past who supports what are present Church now appears to believe?
I would avoid the usage of the word "believe" in that context as that denotes dogma. It would be better to say "holds" or "teaches" - these may sound like minor quibbles but I assure you, there are principles of interpretation that need to be followed. (One of which is correct terminology designating dogmas from other teachings or practices.)
They were against the "mind of the Church" at that time.
Only if they were directly opposed to either a teaching of the Church or against the direction that the pope had established that the Church was to follow. On areas where there was no clear directive, people are free to defend their own opinions.
For example, the English Catholic Lord Acton had views on political liberty that seem to be consistent with the present Church's understand, but not with the pre-conciliar understand.
The "pre-conciliar understanding" in this area were not as refined as they would later become. Further still, many who like to posit about the supposedly "perspicuous pre-Vatican II magisterium" have no shortage of errors of their own in properly understanding the latter. (To say nothing about the Magisterium since Vatican II which they also do not well understand.)
In fact, I think I read somewhere that there were cardinals who rebuked Lord Acton.
Possibly. Lord Acton much like Cardinal Newman was an inopportunist with regards to the definition of papal infallibility. However, after it was promulgated, Newman submitted to it albeit he does not appear to have properly understood the range of the teaching.{2} Nonetheless, he accepted it whereas Acton appears to have not done so if pushed to make a stance on the matter. (Probably due in no small part to his association with Dollinger.)
And Lord Acton was not the only one. What about the Catholics who supported democracy before Leo XIII? They were against the mind of the Church also (the church wanted the old monarchies to be revived).
It is quite possible that the Church wanted the old monarchies revived because at the very least they would have an idea of whom they were facing. There were many democratic models being circulated at the time and the Church I believe came to see democracy as synonymous with the model of the French Revolution. Certainly after the events of 1848 this is how Pius IX came to see the matter. (His predecessor Gregory XVI was apparently resolutely opposed to any form of democracy.) However, this was not a matter of Catholic doctrine -as indeed the Church at the time had no doctrine on the matter. So this was a matter of open speculation at the time.
Indeed, Cardinal Barnaba Chiaramonti had declared in a 1797 Christmas allocution that "[t]he democratic form of government is not...repugnant to the Gospel. On the contrary it exacts all the sublime virtues which are learned only in the school of Jesus Christ." This man was a few years later to become Pope Pius VII (r. 1800-1823) and he never retracted this view. And while Leo XII, Gregory XVI, and Pius IX were not predisposed to being favourable towards democracy (to put it mildly), one should not view this as anything more than what it was: the condemnation of extreme views of democracy and liberty. From there, moderate views would develop and would receive the sanction of the popes.
However, one should note that though democracy was recognized as not intrinsically opposed to the Christian faith, at the same time prior to Leo XIII there was no magisterial teaching on how the teaching reconciled. Nonetheless, those who held out that there was were not necessarily opposed to the mind of the Church even if they were in the minority.{3}
Were these Catholics not loyal Catholics?
Depends.
Are we not to think of these people, regardless of the fact that we can now agree with some of their views, as heroes?
Certainly we can provided that they did not hold and defend a thesis that was condemned by the Magisterium. (Or if they held such a thesis, they submitted to the judgment of the Magisterium and either abandoned the condemned thesis or revised it to not fall under condemnation.){4}
2) The expert on ewtn.com for Eastern Catholics, Anthony Dragani, has said that Eastern Catholics don't follow the Thomas Aquinas as much as philosophers like St. Maximos the Confessor and St. Gregory Palamas.
Correct.
Well, does not that go against the Church's teachings that Aquinas is to have primacy of place in the Church (Humani Generis talks is strong on that I know).
Well, the predominant rite in the Church is the Latin rite and Aquinas' primacy of place amongst the Latins is well known. (And certainly someone who thinks with the Church cannot go wrong with Aquinas' principles and methodology.) However, the Oriental approach to theology differs from Latin scholasticism and also predates it. Further still, the concepts it embodies while complementing the western more cerebral approach at the same time operate from different points of reference.
A subject that I have wanted to write on for a long time is the distinctive ways in which westerners and easterners approach the areas of theology, liturgy, and other areas. However, though I have Ukrainian Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox roots on my mothers side of the family -and despite reading what I can get my hands on viz Oriental outlooks theologically, etc- I have come to the conclusion that I cannot do the Oriental view the justice it deserves seeing as I am much more western in my approach to the subjects.{5} One thing is sure, tapping into my eastern roots sure made Vatican II a lot easier to understand - to say nothing of the pontificates of the post Pius XII popes. (Particularly John Paul II.)
Of course, before VII there was too much restriction in Catholic theology.
Indeed. Even accounting for the exaggerations of some pseudo-"progressivists" it is still an unavoidable conclusion that certain partisans of a particular school of theology tried to make their speculations a matter of Catholic doctrine. Even the originally prepared schemas for Vatican II did this - essentially make the bishops of the Council rubberstamp the theology of the neo-scholastics. Thankfully, the Holy Spirit was present and those schemas were thrown out.
I agree with you that people like Congar and de Lubac were orthodox theologians, but they merely disagreed with the common interpretations on Aquinas.
:)
But to my knowledge, they never said that Aquinas should not have primacy of place in Catholic thought.
This is true. Indeed any Thomist worth their salt has to ground their theology in Aquinas. (Even Karl Rahner tried to do this however half-baked the result.)
So the Eastern Catholics seem to be "out of line" here.
They are not. The Oriental mind does not for the most part approach theology scholastically. This has its weaknesses but also its strengths. Besides, we also have Pope John Paul II's teaching in Fides et Ratio that [t]he Church has no philosophy of her own nor does she canonize any one particular philosophy in preference to others. The footnote for this comment reads as follows:
Cf. Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Humani Generis (12 August 1950)
And of course a careful reading of Humani Generis will bear this out - as the encyclical recognizes the principles of "adapting ecclesiastical teaching and methods to modern conditions and requirements, through the introduction of some new explanations" (HG §12) as well as the understanding that "the terminology employed in the schools and even that used by the Teaching Authority of the Church itself is capable of being perfected and polished; and we know also that the Church itself has not always used the same terms in the same way" (HG §16). The problem therefore is not in other philosophical or theological approaches in and of themselves but instead using such approaches to undermine Church doctrine and ecclesiastical authority. That was the predominant criticism of Humani Generis along with certain erroneous opinions that were being circulated in the name of novel theological outlooks.
Also, you might want to see this link.
The debate on Thomas Aquinas and Catholic philosophy is relevant to this question of mine (btw, I agreed with the Thomist in the argument.)
As do I. Frankly, this is one of those open theological subjects that I choose to remain deliberately agnostic about.
Notes:
{1} This classification also applies to those who deny a teaching that though not revealed -or known to be revealed- is required for upholding a revealed dogma of the faith.
{2} Something more than compensated for by Newman's healthy and eminently traditional notion of obedience to ecclesiastical authority. It is also worth noting that Newman defended papal infallibility long before Vatican I. His view was that it should not be promulgated as a dogma of faith because of the implications such a strong statement involves. Hence, those who claim that Newman "opposed" the teaching itself and later "caved in" (ala Reformed apologist James White's assertions) only underscore their own ignorance on this matter and do not merit being taken seriously.
{3} Indeed Gregory XVI himself recognized the value of American style democracy with his famous statement that "in no other nation do I feel more like the Pope than in the United States." It is not that Gregory himself travelled there of course (as he did not) but that the United States government did not impede his apostolic letters and other prescriptions for governing the Church in America as other nations historically had done.
However, as the currents for democracy manifested themselves in the European theatre were of a ruthless and unrestrained form of liberty - one indeed that wanted all forms of restraint removed. As Pope Gregory XVI himself noted "[w]hen all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin" (Mirari Vos §14 circa 1832).
Such a false notion of liberty of conscience and religion could never be sanctioned by the popes. (Indeed Pope Gregory XVI himself condemned it in the aforementioned Encyclical Letter and Pope Pius IX reiterated it in Quanta Cura.)
{4} In other words, provided that their theories did not contradict the condemnations of the popes on extreme liberalism and its constituent elements -such as unfettered "liberty of conscience and religion"- then they can be seen as visionaries in a way yes.
{5} Originally I thought I could write it and have consultants with the eastern outlook critique it and suggest adjustments but that approach would in my view still not cover the subjects as they should be covered. Hopefully Pete Vere can persuade a Ukrainian Catholic theologian friend of his to collaborate with me on this project as a cowriter. (And possibly get going on it in early 2004.)
Hi there Shawn
Hi Gregory:
I have two questions. If you have the time, I hope you'd answer them.
I apologize that a previously promised response has not been gotten to yet. (My time for these things is not as extensive as it may appear at times.)
1) You and others on the LidlessEye Inquisition quote at times pre-conciliar authorities on the obligation of Catholics to follow the mind of the Church on issues.
Correct.
Your argument is that trads need to try to be in union with the Pope's views and ideas even when they are not expressed in binding documents.
They need to follow the Pope not only on matters of faith and morals but also with regards to the discipline and government of the Church as well as the guidance of the Church. Pope Bl. Pius IX was clear on this in his Encyclical Letter Quanta Cura condemning certain errors:
[We cannot] pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that "without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals." But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church." [Pope Pius IX: Encyclical Letter Quanta Cura §5 (c. 1864)]
In short, those who act as Pope Pius IX outline are properly understood to be "proximate to heresy" as that is what those who controvert a dogma of the faith in reality without willfully doubting or denying it in the abstract.{1} And there are three areas where obedience is required: faith/morals (teaching or "feeding"), discipline/government (directives or "ruling"), and the agenda of the Church as it pertains to contemporary issues and how to approach them ("guidance"). These are the areas where obedience is required as a matter of Catholic dogma. True Traditionalists give assent in these areas.
Father Hardon's Catholic Dictionary talks about this under the heading "Mind of the Church". My question is, there are some ideas that pre-conciliar popes had that you would not support (in fact, the present pope and hierarchy seem to disagree with them).
Sure. There are areas which the magisterium has loosed that were previously bound -and which I would not support. However, if I knew what I know and lived back when such areas were bound, I would strive to give religious submission of mind and will. At the very least I would render reverent silence and not publish anything that contradicted what the Magisterium set forth. It would not be easy but I already do this with elements of current practice or allowance that I do not personally care for so it is not as if I would have to learn how to do this.
Issues like greater freedom for theologians to speculate, and when the establishment of religion in a state would be justified, come to mind.
Yes those areas come to mind for me too but at the same time a lot of the laxity that came out of post Vatican II was a direct reaction to the ridiculously restrictive theological climate that was predominant in the two hundred years prior to Vatican II. (Particularly the first half of the twentieth century.) It was if you will not an effect lacking a cause.
Well, what about those Catholics in the past who supports what are present Church now appears to believe?
I would avoid the usage of the word "believe" in that context as that denotes dogma. It would be better to say "holds" or "teaches" - these may sound like minor quibbles but I assure you, there are principles of interpretation that need to be followed. (One of which is correct terminology designating dogmas from other teachings or practices.)
They were against the "mind of the Church" at that time.
Only if they were directly opposed to either a teaching of the Church or against the direction that the pope had established that the Church was to follow. On areas where there was no clear directive, people are free to defend their own opinions.
For example, the English Catholic Lord Acton had views on political liberty that seem to be consistent with the present Church's understand, but not with the pre-conciliar understand.
The "pre-conciliar understanding" in this area were not as refined as they would later become. Further still, many who like to posit about the supposedly "perspicuous pre-Vatican II magisterium" have no shortage of errors of their own in properly understanding the latter. (To say nothing about the Magisterium since Vatican II which they also do not well understand.)
In fact, I think I read somewhere that there were cardinals who rebuked Lord Acton.
Possibly. Lord Acton much like Cardinal Newman was an inopportunist with regards to the definition of papal infallibility. However, after it was promulgated, Newman submitted to it albeit he does not appear to have properly understood the range of the teaching.{2} Nonetheless, he accepted it whereas Acton appears to have not done so if pushed to make a stance on the matter. (Probably due in no small part to his association with Dollinger.)
And Lord Acton was not the only one. What about the Catholics who supported democracy before Leo XIII? They were against the mind of the Church also (the church wanted the old monarchies to be revived).
It is quite possible that the Church wanted the old monarchies revived because at the very least they would have an idea of whom they were facing. There were many democratic models being circulated at the time and the Church I believe came to see democracy as synonymous with the model of the French Revolution. Certainly after the events of 1848 this is how Pius IX came to see the matter. (His predecessor Gregory XVI was apparently resolutely opposed to any form of democracy.) However, this was not a matter of Catholic doctrine -as indeed the Church at the time had no doctrine on the matter. So this was a matter of open speculation at the time.
Indeed, Cardinal Barnaba Chiaramonti had declared in a 1797 Christmas allocution that "[t]he democratic form of government is not...repugnant to the Gospel. On the contrary it exacts all the sublime virtues which are learned only in the school of Jesus Christ." This man was a few years later to become Pope Pius VII (r. 1800-1823) and he never retracted this view. And while Leo XII, Gregory XVI, and Pius IX were not predisposed to being favourable towards democracy (to put it mildly), one should not view this as anything more than what it was: the condemnation of extreme views of democracy and liberty. From there, moderate views would develop and would receive the sanction of the popes.
However, one should note that though democracy was recognized as not intrinsically opposed to the Christian faith, at the same time prior to Leo XIII there was no magisterial teaching on how the teaching reconciled. Nonetheless, those who held out that there was were not necessarily opposed to the mind of the Church even if they were in the minority.{3}
Were these Catholics not loyal Catholics?
Depends.
Are we not to think of these people, regardless of the fact that we can now agree with some of their views, as heroes?
Certainly we can provided that they did not hold and defend a thesis that was condemned by the Magisterium. (Or if they held such a thesis, they submitted to the judgment of the Magisterium and either abandoned the condemned thesis or revised it to not fall under condemnation.){4}
2) The expert on ewtn.com for Eastern Catholics, Anthony Dragani, has said that Eastern Catholics don't follow the Thomas Aquinas as much as philosophers like St. Maximos the Confessor and St. Gregory Palamas.
Correct.
Well, does not that go against the Church's teachings that Aquinas is to have primacy of place in the Church (Humani Generis talks is strong on that I know).
Well, the predominant rite in the Church is the Latin rite and Aquinas' primacy of place amongst the Latins is well known. (And certainly someone who thinks with the Church cannot go wrong with Aquinas' principles and methodology.) However, the Oriental approach to theology differs from Latin scholasticism and also predates it. Further still, the concepts it embodies while complementing the western more cerebral approach at the same time operate from different points of reference.
A subject that I have wanted to write on for a long time is the distinctive ways in which westerners and easterners approach the areas of theology, liturgy, and other areas. However, though I have Ukrainian Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox roots on my mothers side of the family -and despite reading what I can get my hands on viz Oriental outlooks theologically, etc- I have come to the conclusion that I cannot do the Oriental view the justice it deserves seeing as I am much more western in my approach to the subjects.{5} One thing is sure, tapping into my eastern roots sure made Vatican II a lot easier to understand - to say nothing of the pontificates of the post Pius XII popes. (Particularly John Paul II.)
Of course, before VII there was too much restriction in Catholic theology.
Indeed. Even accounting for the exaggerations of some pseudo-"progressivists" it is still an unavoidable conclusion that certain partisans of a particular school of theology tried to make their speculations a matter of Catholic doctrine. Even the originally prepared schemas for Vatican II did this - essentially make the bishops of the Council rubberstamp the theology of the neo-scholastics. Thankfully, the Holy Spirit was present and those schemas were thrown out.
I agree with you that people like Congar and de Lubac were orthodox theologians, but they merely disagreed with the common interpretations on Aquinas.
:)
But to my knowledge, they never said that Aquinas should not have primacy of place in Catholic thought.
This is true. Indeed any Thomist worth their salt has to ground their theology in Aquinas. (Even Karl Rahner tried to do this however half-baked the result.)
So the Eastern Catholics seem to be "out of line" here.
They are not. The Oriental mind does not for the most part approach theology scholastically. This has its weaknesses but also its strengths. Besides, we also have Pope John Paul II's teaching in Fides et Ratio that [t]he Church has no philosophy of her own nor does she canonize any one particular philosophy in preference to others. The footnote for this comment reads as follows:
Cf. Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Humani Generis (12 August 1950)
And of course a careful reading of Humani Generis will bear this out - as the encyclical recognizes the principles of "adapting ecclesiastical teaching and methods to modern conditions and requirements, through the introduction of some new explanations" (HG §12) as well as the understanding that "the terminology employed in the schools and even that used by the Teaching Authority of the Church itself is capable of being perfected and polished; and we know also that the Church itself has not always used the same terms in the same way" (HG §16). The problem therefore is not in other philosophical or theological approaches in and of themselves but instead using such approaches to undermine Church doctrine and ecclesiastical authority. That was the predominant criticism of Humani Generis along with certain erroneous opinions that were being circulated in the name of novel theological outlooks.
Also, you might want to see this link.
The debate on Thomas Aquinas and Catholic philosophy is relevant to this question of mine (btw, I agreed with the Thomist in the argument.)
As do I. Frankly, this is one of those open theological subjects that I choose to remain deliberately agnostic about.
Notes:
{1} This classification also applies to those who deny a teaching that though not revealed -or known to be revealed- is required for upholding a revealed dogma of the faith.
{2} Something more than compensated for by Newman's healthy and eminently traditional notion of obedience to ecclesiastical authority. It is also worth noting that Newman defended papal infallibility long before Vatican I. His view was that it should not be promulgated as a dogma of faith because of the implications such a strong statement involves. Hence, those who claim that Newman "opposed" the teaching itself and later "caved in" (ala Reformed apologist James White's assertions) only underscore their own ignorance on this matter and do not merit being taken seriously.
{3} Indeed Gregory XVI himself recognized the value of American style democracy with his famous statement that "in no other nation do I feel more like the Pope than in the United States." It is not that Gregory himself travelled there of course (as he did not) but that the United States government did not impede his apostolic letters and other prescriptions for governing the Church in America as other nations historically had done.
However, as the currents for democracy manifested themselves in the European theatre were of a ruthless and unrestrained form of liberty - one indeed that wanted all forms of restraint removed. As Pope Gregory XVI himself noted "[w]hen all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin" (Mirari Vos §14 circa 1832).
Such a false notion of liberty of conscience and religion could never be sanctioned by the popes. (Indeed Pope Gregory XVI himself condemned it in the aforementioned Encyclical Letter and Pope Pius IX reiterated it in Quanta Cura.)
{4} In other words, provided that their theories did not contradict the condemnations of the popes on extreme liberalism and its constituent elements -such as unfettered "liberty of conscience and religion"- then they can be seen as visionaries in a way yes.
{5} Originally I thought I could write it and have consultants with the eastern outlook critique it and suggest adjustments but that approach would in my view still not cover the subjects as they should be covered. Hopefully Pete Vere can persuade a Ukrainian Catholic theologian friend of his to collaborate with me on this project as a cowriter. (And possibly get going on it in early 2004.)
On the Supreme Magisterium:
I remember reading from Paul VI that Vatican 2 taught in the form of a Supreme Ordinary Magisterium. What exactly is SOM?
As I have come to understand it, the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium is the ordinary magisterium exercised at its highest level. This forms part of the solemn magisterium and is the highest level of ordinary magisterium. As this involves the universal church, the term is synonymous with the ordinary and universal magisterium.{1}
I was reading the Pastores Gregis (the new apostolic exhortation) and JPII talks about how when bishops are united in an ecumenical council, they are teaching from their supreme authority. I am guessing this is infallible or at least binding. Is that what SOM means?
Yes.
Oh yeah...as I have mentioned, I started reading Pastores Gregis. I think Ratzinger's thoughts has influenced him. For example:
"The universal Church is not the sum of the particular Churches, or a federation of the latter, or even the result of their communion as such, since, in the expression of the early Fathers and the liturgy, in her essential mystery the Church precedes creation itself. In the light of this teaching, we can add that the relationship of mutual interiority existing between the universal Church and each particular Church, whereby the particular Churches are ''formed in the likeness of the universal Church, and in and from the particular Churches there comes into being the one and only Catholic Church'', is reproduced in the relationship between the College of Bishops in its entirety and each Bishop as an individual. For this reason, ''the College of Bishops is not to be understood as the aggregate of the Bishops who govern the particular Churches, nor as the result of their communion; rather, as an essential element of the universal Church, it is a reality which precedes the office of being the head of a particular Church''. (PG, 8)
And of course it is also possible that JP II influenced Ratzinger. I have said it before and I will say it again: Ratzinger is brilliant but Wojtyla is of the kind of brilliance that only comes around a few times a century. (To name a few examples: Newman, Bellarmine, Cajetan, Aquinas, Albertus Magnus, Anselm, Leo the Great, and Augustine.) However, it seems that we can interpret the Apostolic Exhortation in the parts you quoted as the Supreme Pontiff weighing in on the arguments on the universal church propounded by Ratzinger and Kasper and taking the side of Ratzinger. According to Pope Pius XII of venerable memory "if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians" (Humani Generis §20).
Therefore, although I do not have the text itself to verify my presumption here, it would strongly appear to this observer that the debate between two highly accredited theologians (Ratzinger and Kasper) has been settled by the Supreme Pontiff - his prerogatives as a theologian in this case having much less weight than the divine authority of his Petrine function. Time will tell if Cardinal Kasper accepts this with religious submission or not. (As indeed he should.)
Note:
{1} See my weblog entry Rerum Novarum Responds to Adam Kolasinski for more detail on this point.
I remember reading from Paul VI that Vatican 2 taught in the form of a Supreme Ordinary Magisterium. What exactly is SOM?
As I have come to understand it, the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium is the ordinary magisterium exercised at its highest level. This forms part of the solemn magisterium and is the highest level of ordinary magisterium. As this involves the universal church, the term is synonymous with the ordinary and universal magisterium.{1}
I was reading the Pastores Gregis (the new apostolic exhortation) and JPII talks about how when bishops are united in an ecumenical council, they are teaching from their supreme authority. I am guessing this is infallible or at least binding. Is that what SOM means?
Yes.
Oh yeah...as I have mentioned, I started reading Pastores Gregis. I think Ratzinger's thoughts has influenced him. For example:
"The universal Church is not the sum of the particular Churches, or a federation of the latter, or even the result of their communion as such, since, in the expression of the early Fathers and the liturgy, in her essential mystery the Church precedes creation itself. In the light of this teaching, we can add that the relationship of mutual interiority existing between the universal Church and each particular Church, whereby the particular Churches are ''formed in the likeness of the universal Church, and in and from the particular Churches there comes into being the one and only Catholic Church'', is reproduced in the relationship between the College of Bishops in its entirety and each Bishop as an individual. For this reason, ''the College of Bishops is not to be understood as the aggregate of the Bishops who govern the particular Churches, nor as the result of their communion; rather, as an essential element of the universal Church, it is a reality which precedes the office of being the head of a particular Church''. (PG, 8)
And of course it is also possible that JP II influenced Ratzinger. I have said it before and I will say it again: Ratzinger is brilliant but Wojtyla is of the kind of brilliance that only comes around a few times a century. (To name a few examples: Newman, Bellarmine, Cajetan, Aquinas, Albertus Magnus, Anselm, Leo the Great, and Augustine.) However, it seems that we can interpret the Apostolic Exhortation in the parts you quoted as the Supreme Pontiff weighing in on the arguments on the universal church propounded by Ratzinger and Kasper and taking the side of Ratzinger. According to Pope Pius XII of venerable memory "if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians" (Humani Generis §20).
Therefore, although I do not have the text itself to verify my presumption here, it would strongly appear to this observer that the debate between two highly accredited theologians (Ratzinger and Kasper) has been settled by the Supreme Pontiff - his prerogatives as a theologian in this case having much less weight than the divine authority of his Petrine function. Time will tell if Cardinal Kasper accepts this with religious submission or not. (As indeed he should.)
Note:
{1} See my weblog entry Rerum Novarum Responds to Adam Kolasinski for more detail on this point.
A Clarification on the Dogmatic/Pastoral Distinction:
A post I made to the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG earlier this month elicited an interesting email from an old discussion list associate. The original post can be read HERE. In responding to the email, my words will be the ones in regular font with any sources in darkblue.
Hi Shawn,
Hello XXXXXX:
It has been many moons since we corresponded. (About a year and a half if I am not mistaken.)
I'm interested in a clarification on your dogmatic/pastoral remarks, as seen on the Inquisition blog.
While the link was posted there, the comments were actually made on another weblog. I use the same basic template for all three, hence that there was confusion on this is not surprising. (Albeit I do specify which weblog a post is on if I am posting it via another weblog.)
While you attack "traditionalists,"
I do not attack anyone who is authentically Traditional XXXXXX. Indeed I have always maintained a distinction between true Traditionalism and false pseudo-'traditionalism.' And as a general rule, I go the extra mile for the former and do not mince words with the latter. (However even this rule admits of certain exceptions.)
isn't that same distinction [between pastoral and dogmatic] made be Paul VI, as well as numerous conciliar officials?
The distinction is made but not in the same way that the radtrads make it. Anyone can throw around a term but if they do not understand what it is intended to convey, what use is that in a discussion of ideas and issues???
In fact, wasn't it that distinction which allowed a more pastoral, less dogmatic textual presentation in the conciliar documents themselves?
Yes but the term "pastoral" is not able to be separated from dogmatics as those who raise the shibboleth of the "pastoral council" like to presume. Words mean things and again, if the terms are not properly appropriated, it is difficult to have a productive discussion with anyone.
I'm not sure what consequence you're trying to derive.
Basically the intention is to point out quite clearly that the attempted dichotomy between "dogmatic" and "pastoral" -whereby only the former is seen as binding- is not a viable approach for a faithful Catholic who understands traditional terminology and Church history to be taking. To do so is to use the terms in a manner different than they have been understood in theology for a long time. (And therefore such usages should not be presumed defacto as correct particularly since there is little if any evidence that will support such an assertion.)
I have heard that term being bandied about as a red herring for longer than I can remember by people whose understanding of theology continually shows itself to be woefully lacking. It is almost as bad with the 'trads' as the subject of infallibility in general is with not only them but with Catholics in general.{1}
To claim that the entirety of the Vatican II text is intrinisically infallible is manifestly absurd.
That would be tantamount to verbal inspiration and I make no such claims either for Vatican II or for any other magisterial text. No text is verbally inspired except for the Sacred Scriptures. However, there is the fact that an ecumenical council (which representing the universal church in its most solemn of expression) cannot err in its teaching of doctrine without unravelling the entire notion of Church infallibility at its source. And no amount of false dichotomization can escape this fact the common sophisms paraded about on this issue notwithstanding.
Indeed this is a subject that I have gone over more times than I can recall on message boards, in weblog posts, and even in discussion list exchanges with seasoned Catholic evangelists. This is even the case with some of the most influential names in apologetics today sometimes in need of being taken to task on this matter. See this link for one such example.
Too much error has been allowed to be reiterated uncritically for too long. I for one want nothing to do with it and if anything want to see that tide shifted.
Let me be very clear on this: I do not care who is propagating the error, if I see it, I will call people on it. Too much damage is done when those who should know better pass these errors onto others. And after years of patiently setting the record straight on the matter in various mediums, I have to admit that my patience on the matter is used up. Thus the challenge for those who want to utilize these terms: either define them and do so using traditional concepts or cease to use them as a source of argumentation.
But of course for so-called "traditionalists" who are at war with the popes and the last ecumenical council, for them to do this is for them to lose half of their canned arguments.{2} This means that they have to start over if they are of good-will.{3} And this means that they will actually have to *think* about these subjects. If nothing else, this forced change of direction should in the long run benefit them and bring them around to an acceptable paradigm for Catholics to hold.
I can understand your reaction to people who are judgmental and such, but to claim that the complete texts of a council are infallible? That seems to me as silly as claiming the entirity of Ineffabilis Deus is infallible.
Well, without seeing the text, I can nonetheless safely speculate that there is more in Ineffabilis Deus that is definitive than just the solemn definition. But that is a subject for another time perhaps. I would recommend reading the sections of the writing which that post (on dogmatic/pastoral) was excerpted from to better understand what I was saying. Here they are:
Vatican II and its Authority (Part I)
Vatican II and its Authority (Part II)
You will see that everything I state is properly quantified viz the authority of the Council and the different theological qualifications of the various documents in those sections. However, the quote which starts off the first part of the thread above from Fr. Brian W. Harrison summarizes the crux of the entire issue:
Roma locuta est, causa finita est. There must be a demonstrable coherence and consistency between what the Roman Pontiffs teach firmly and definitively in one period of Church history and what they teach with equal force in any other age. I find it hard to see how any "cause" could be "finished" by Rome - that is, how any doctrinal dispute could be considered definitively settled by her - if Rome herself were to flatly contradict, in a forum as august and solemn as an Ecumenical Council, even one doctrine which she had previously proposed as certainly true by either her ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium. Such a contradiction would be, quite simply, suicidal for the authority of the See of Peter, and thus for the credibility of the Roman Catholic religion as such.
I hold that there are no contradictions between what was taught by the Second Vatican Council and what was enunciated in previous teachings of the magisterium -either ordinary or extraordinary. I have spent years exposing and confuting facile radtrad proof texts which attempt to prove that there is such a contradiction much as I have with Protestants who assert that there is with the pre-Vatican II magisterium. (And as I also have with atheists or ignorant liberals do with the Sacred Scriptures.) And I do not believe these in most cases are difficult to demonstrate - though as with anything there are "hard cases." I am sympathetic to those I sense are of good faith who struggle with these areas; however, I have *no* sympathy for those who claim to be "The True Believers"™ -be they "traditionalist Catholic" (falsely-so-called), "Truly Reformed", or any other affiliation of people who quite clearly are anything but what they claim to be.
Scripture study, theology, philosophy, history, and other areas of study are not simplistic despite what many try to claim. This does not mean that they are subjects confined to the ivory tower of course. However if the individual does not approach each of these with proper respect -and an understanding that the mysteries transcend and are not subject to them and their whims- then they are in the state of never attaining to the knowledge of the truth despite their attempts at learning (cf. ii Tim. iii,7).
With the self-styled 'traditionalist' whose methodology in all cases is eerily similar to the other objectors{4} I noted above- and I point this out quite frequently- I have little sympathy unless I sense that there is a genuine humility involved. Sadly enough, this is not something I encounter too frequently. And the parallels here is something that should jar the self-styled "traditionalist" types to realize what company they are keeping in their attempts to justify disobedience from the ecclesial magisterium.
Obviously, anything pastoral will involve teaching doctrine, which necessarily implies dogma. What else is there to teach? Duh. But that's a no brainer.
You would be surprised how often people cannot grasp the obvious XXXXXX.
You seem to stake out incendiary-sounding positions, kind of slaying the sacred cow, and then really mean less than you're saying.
I would say that I stake out positions and substantiate them from primary sources. I do not blindly accept conventional wisdom (CW) on these or any other matters as so often CW is flagrantly erroneous. And with the subject of infallibility, I have yet to find more than a handful of Catholics who properly understand the Church's teaching on the subject. (There are even errors on this subject in a couple of Catholic Encyclopedia articles.) I have a much easier time with people who are willing to admit the truth about the matter{5} rather than try to construct artificial fictions which do not withstand scrutiny.
The real point is that there is no doctrinal definitions, canons, etc. in Vatican II.
This is true; however there is more to this issue than one would casually presume. The lack of dogmatic definitions or canons only means that there are no definitions of faith. Two points come immediately to mind and they are these:
1) Infallibility is not the criterion for the truth or irreformability of a given teaching.
2) Infallibility is not confined solely to definitions of faith.
I base my main thesis on magisterial statements and also the most authoritative of commentaries on the subject. (The latter is a source that is not well known among English speaking people.) It has been reiterated in many different incarnations over the years but the above two links give probably the best and most precise treatment of it from my writings.{6}
[Vatican II] may be a great teacher, but it's not defining anything.
I never claim that it was. But since the magisterium can teach definitively in acts which amount to a non-defining declaration, this is an important element that you are appearing to not properly understand. I have explained that concept many times as well - most recently at this link.
It says things a little more loosely, a little more scripturally and pastristically, and that's great.
I have certainly come to believe that it is. It allows people who are not students of scholasticism to understand what is being said. Further still, it ties the Church's patrimony into the Scripture and various expressions of the Great Tradition. (All of which helps those who do not give a rip about scholastic formularies but who have an interest in either the Scriptures or the Great Tradition to see how we approach particular subjects.)
But to read it expecting scholastic precision, and to use this to apply the odium theologicum, seems to be falling into the same error as rad-trads who read the council, see something ambiguous, and immediately assume its heresy.
Thoughts?
Though Vatican II does use scholastic terms in spots,{7} I have nonetheless never claimed to see scholastic precision in Vatican II. But one does not require scholastic precision to understand what is being said.
Also, using that canon from Trent to say the Novus Ordo is a "object of piety," what is that, the tropological interpretation of the canon? It certainly isn't the literal one.
I do not recall that subject being mentioned in the weblog entry you refer to. That was actually part of a Wanderer essay I wrote a couple of years ago with Pete Vere. (I believe he referred to it as an "office of piety" in the text.)
My original draft of the essay was about two and a half times longer than what was run in the periodical. Hence, Pete had to do a lot of editing and some parts had to be significantly abridged. (And in some cases small segues had to be added to tie it all together.) However, as the piece bears my name -and as I approved of the final draft before Pete sent it to the Wanderer- it may help to explain why that expression was used in the essay.
The Council of Trent as an Ecumenical Council represented the universal church. As a result, in defining dogma it would be defining dogmas that had eternal relevance to them. (That is the very nature of a dogma after all.) For that is what Trent did when it innovated the manner whereby an Ecumenical Council utilized the canon format.{8}
As with all dogmas, the teachings pertaining to the mass from the Council of Trent are properly seen as applicable to any approved form of the Mass as all forms of the Mass duly approved teach the same Catholic truths on the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Eucharist, etc. That does not mean that each is applied in the same manner of course. But the Church's dogmatic teachings on the mass did not change with Vatican II. Nor did they change with the promulgation of Missale Romanum by Pope Paul VI in 1969.
What changed viz the mass was the application of the doctrines in the realm of the ceremonies and practices which are joined to dogma. And it is also true that some things dogmatically defined by Trent which pertained to the celebration of the Roman Missal in previous usages do not apply to the predominant way that the new Roman Missal is celebrated.{9} However, all approved rites of mass are properly viewed as "offices of piety" as the divine liturgy cannot do anything but inspire piety for those who get past the ceremonies and focus on the mysteries that they convey. None of this is difficult to comprehend when the right distinctions are made.
If you want to extend those canons for all time, you'd have to assume that all the other facts hinted at in those Trent canons are universally valid, like a silent canon of the Mass.
You are not reading the canon correctly my friend.
But we don't have that today, so either those canons are historically relevant for their time, and not ours, or the true church must have a silent canon of the Mass. That latter is absurd.
Or you did not read the canon correctly and are positing an unnecessary dichotomy. I agree with you that the Church does not have to have a silent canon of the mass but I also do not see where Trent decreed that a silent canon was necessary to begin with. The silent canon was a custom of the west only. Furthermore, the canon of the mass was not always said silently even in the west.
What Trent was concerned about was defending the usages then current from attack by Protestants who denied several truths about the mass including (i) that it was a propitiatory sacrifice (ii) that it was offered by a mediating priest (iii) that it was offered for the living and the dead (iv) that the bread and wine were converted into the Body and Blood of Christ via transubstantiation.{10} These and other truths were defined by the Council of Trent. And along with all other canons, they apply in principle to any form of the mass duly approved by the ecclesial magisterium.
I presume when you say "silent canon of the mass" that you are referring to the Council of Trent Session XXII, Canon IX. This is a subject I have covered in the same work as the two links above. Here is the excerpt:
Moving on to other related subjects, we come to the subject of the audible anaphora, a subject that the Council of Trent dealt with in the following canon:
CANON IX.--If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.
The key elements of the condemnation are in bolded print above. In short, there is nothing forbidding the celebration of Mass in the vulgar tongue from the Council of Trent. (The point of the canon was to condemn those who condemned the pronunciation of the words of consecration in a low tone of voice or those who claimed it was necessary to celebrate the mass in the vernacular.) One can claim that it is preferable to pronounce the consecration words louder or that it is more fitting to use the vernacular tongue to celebrate the mass and not be condemned by the Council of Trent. [I. Shawn McElhinney: A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' Part IV (c. 2003, 2000)]
And I stand by that position.
So incline away from rad-tradom my friend, and more plausibly read the Tridentine decrees. :)
I would suggest that I have my friend. Nonetheless, it is good to make your acquaintance again and hopefully this response will supply some food for thought.
Notes:
{1} Not a subject to get me going on btw.
{2} Arguments that are very weak but due to mindless repetition take on the illusion of truth in their purveyors.
{3} Of course those who lack humility will continue in a stubborn fundamentalist hermeneutic to assert and defend their failed theses. But at the very least this is a good sign to shake the dust from our shoes and move onto those who are not blinded by their egos (cf. Matt x,14; Mark vi,11; Luke ix,5).
{4} This is not to say that I lack sympathy for non-Catholics by the way. Generally speaking, I am very sympathetic to their situations but also recognize that they do not understand the manner whereby Catholics are supposed to approach subjects. However, when one claims to be "The True Believers"™ they carry an extra burden with me to justify such claims. And need I mention that they can practically never succeed in justifying such assertions???
{5} And that truth is this: infallibility is not properly understood in a juridical sense. Instead is an organic principle intrinsic to the universal church.
{6} As that writing was originally intended for examination by a theological censor - a project that I had to put on hold for various reasons too numerous to detail here in brief.
{7} The most noteable example is explaining the mystery of the Church and how the one Church of Christ on earth subsists (Lat. subsistare) in the Catholic Church. Those who translate this as "exists" or "continues to exist" have no understanding whatsoever of what the Council was conveying.
{8} Prior to Trent, the canons of an ecumenical council were of a disciplinary nature in almost all cases. Trent in this sense was innovating by utilizing the canons with anathemas format for solemn definitions as distinct from its teachings which were not of the same theological qualification. (And dealing with matters of discipline and reform with specific "Decrees of Reformation.")
{9} This does not mean that the dogmas promulgated by Trent are no longer true, only that in practical application some of them do not have the same significance as they did before. Again a key distinction that is often overlooked or viewed incorrectly.
{10} It is also worth noting that Lateran IV and Trent did not teach that transubstantiation was the only way of viewing the eucharistic mystery, only that the term and its underlying understanding were "proper" or "appropriate." This does not rule out other terms being used provided that they convey the same sense.
A post I made to the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG earlier this month elicited an interesting email from an old discussion list associate. The original post can be read HERE. In responding to the email, my words will be the ones in regular font with any sources in darkblue.
Hi Shawn,
Hello XXXXXX:
It has been many moons since we corresponded. (About a year and a half if I am not mistaken.)
I'm interested in a clarification on your dogmatic/pastoral remarks, as seen on the Inquisition blog.
While the link was posted there, the comments were actually made on another weblog. I use the same basic template for all three, hence that there was confusion on this is not surprising. (Albeit I do specify which weblog a post is on if I am posting it via another weblog.)
While you attack "traditionalists,"
I do not attack anyone who is authentically Traditional XXXXXX. Indeed I have always maintained a distinction between true Traditionalism and false pseudo-'traditionalism.' And as a general rule, I go the extra mile for the former and do not mince words with the latter. (However even this rule admits of certain exceptions.)
isn't that same distinction [between pastoral and dogmatic] made be Paul VI, as well as numerous conciliar officials?
The distinction is made but not in the same way that the radtrads make it. Anyone can throw around a term but if they do not understand what it is intended to convey, what use is that in a discussion of ideas and issues???
In fact, wasn't it that distinction which allowed a more pastoral, less dogmatic textual presentation in the conciliar documents themselves?
Yes but the term "pastoral" is not able to be separated from dogmatics as those who raise the shibboleth of the "pastoral council" like to presume. Words mean things and again, if the terms are not properly appropriated, it is difficult to have a productive discussion with anyone.
I'm not sure what consequence you're trying to derive.
Basically the intention is to point out quite clearly that the attempted dichotomy between "dogmatic" and "pastoral" -whereby only the former is seen as binding- is not a viable approach for a faithful Catholic who understands traditional terminology and Church history to be taking. To do so is to use the terms in a manner different than they have been understood in theology for a long time. (And therefore such usages should not be presumed defacto as correct particularly since there is little if any evidence that will support such an assertion.)
I have heard that term being bandied about as a red herring for longer than I can remember by people whose understanding of theology continually shows itself to be woefully lacking. It is almost as bad with the 'trads' as the subject of infallibility in general is with not only them but with Catholics in general.{1}
To claim that the entirety of the Vatican II text is intrinisically infallible is manifestly absurd.
That would be tantamount to verbal inspiration and I make no such claims either for Vatican II or for any other magisterial text. No text is verbally inspired except for the Sacred Scriptures. However, there is the fact that an ecumenical council (which representing the universal church in its most solemn of expression) cannot err in its teaching of doctrine without unravelling the entire notion of Church infallibility at its source. And no amount of false dichotomization can escape this fact the common sophisms paraded about on this issue notwithstanding.
Indeed this is a subject that I have gone over more times than I can recall on message boards, in weblog posts, and even in discussion list exchanges with seasoned Catholic evangelists. This is even the case with some of the most influential names in apologetics today sometimes in need of being taken to task on this matter. See this link for one such example.
Too much error has been allowed to be reiterated uncritically for too long. I for one want nothing to do with it and if anything want to see that tide shifted.
Let me be very clear on this: I do not care who is propagating the error, if I see it, I will call people on it. Too much damage is done when those who should know better pass these errors onto others. And after years of patiently setting the record straight on the matter in various mediums, I have to admit that my patience on the matter is used up. Thus the challenge for those who want to utilize these terms: either define them and do so using traditional concepts or cease to use them as a source of argumentation.
But of course for so-called "traditionalists" who are at war with the popes and the last ecumenical council, for them to do this is for them to lose half of their canned arguments.{2} This means that they have to start over if they are of good-will.{3} And this means that they will actually have to *think* about these subjects. If nothing else, this forced change of direction should in the long run benefit them and bring them around to an acceptable paradigm for Catholics to hold.
I can understand your reaction to people who are judgmental and such, but to claim that the complete texts of a council are infallible? That seems to me as silly as claiming the entirity of Ineffabilis Deus is infallible.
Well, without seeing the text, I can nonetheless safely speculate that there is more in Ineffabilis Deus that is definitive than just the solemn definition. But that is a subject for another time perhaps. I would recommend reading the sections of the writing which that post (on dogmatic/pastoral) was excerpted from to better understand what I was saying. Here they are:
Vatican II and its Authority (Part I)
Vatican II and its Authority (Part II)
You will see that everything I state is properly quantified viz the authority of the Council and the different theological qualifications of the various documents in those sections. However, the quote which starts off the first part of the thread above from Fr. Brian W. Harrison summarizes the crux of the entire issue:
Roma locuta est, causa finita est. There must be a demonstrable coherence and consistency between what the Roman Pontiffs teach firmly and definitively in one period of Church history and what they teach with equal force in any other age. I find it hard to see how any "cause" could be "finished" by Rome - that is, how any doctrinal dispute could be considered definitively settled by her - if Rome herself were to flatly contradict, in a forum as august and solemn as an Ecumenical Council, even one doctrine which she had previously proposed as certainly true by either her ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium. Such a contradiction would be, quite simply, suicidal for the authority of the See of Peter, and thus for the credibility of the Roman Catholic religion as such.
I hold that there are no contradictions between what was taught by the Second Vatican Council and what was enunciated in previous teachings of the magisterium -either ordinary or extraordinary. I have spent years exposing and confuting facile radtrad proof texts which attempt to prove that there is such a contradiction much as I have with Protestants who assert that there is with the pre-Vatican II magisterium. (And as I also have with atheists or ignorant liberals do with the Sacred Scriptures.) And I do not believe these in most cases are difficult to demonstrate - though as with anything there are "hard cases." I am sympathetic to those I sense are of good faith who struggle with these areas; however, I have *no* sympathy for those who claim to be "The True Believers"™ -be they "traditionalist Catholic" (falsely-so-called), "Truly Reformed", or any other affiliation of people who quite clearly are anything but what they claim to be.
Scripture study, theology, philosophy, history, and other areas of study are not simplistic despite what many try to claim. This does not mean that they are subjects confined to the ivory tower of course. However if the individual does not approach each of these with proper respect -and an understanding that the mysteries transcend and are not subject to them and their whims- then they are in the state of never attaining to the knowledge of the truth despite their attempts at learning (cf. ii Tim. iii,7).
With the self-styled 'traditionalist' whose methodology in all cases is eerily similar to the other objectors{4} I noted above- and I point this out quite frequently- I have little sympathy unless I sense that there is a genuine humility involved. Sadly enough, this is not something I encounter too frequently. And the parallels here is something that should jar the self-styled "traditionalist" types to realize what company they are keeping in their attempts to justify disobedience from the ecclesial magisterium.
Obviously, anything pastoral will involve teaching doctrine, which necessarily implies dogma. What else is there to teach? Duh. But that's a no brainer.
You would be surprised how often people cannot grasp the obvious XXXXXX.
You seem to stake out incendiary-sounding positions, kind of slaying the sacred cow, and then really mean less than you're saying.
I would say that I stake out positions and substantiate them from primary sources. I do not blindly accept conventional wisdom (CW) on these or any other matters as so often CW is flagrantly erroneous. And with the subject of infallibility, I have yet to find more than a handful of Catholics who properly understand the Church's teaching on the subject. (There are even errors on this subject in a couple of Catholic Encyclopedia articles.) I have a much easier time with people who are willing to admit the truth about the matter{5} rather than try to construct artificial fictions which do not withstand scrutiny.
The real point is that there is no doctrinal definitions, canons, etc. in Vatican II.
This is true; however there is more to this issue than one would casually presume. The lack of dogmatic definitions or canons only means that there are no definitions of faith. Two points come immediately to mind and they are these:
1) Infallibility is not the criterion for the truth or irreformability of a given teaching.
2) Infallibility is not confined solely to definitions of faith.
I base my main thesis on magisterial statements and also the most authoritative of commentaries on the subject. (The latter is a source that is not well known among English speaking people.) It has been reiterated in many different incarnations over the years but the above two links give probably the best and most precise treatment of it from my writings.{6}
[Vatican II] may be a great teacher, but it's not defining anything.
I never claim that it was. But since the magisterium can teach definitively in acts which amount to a non-defining declaration, this is an important element that you are appearing to not properly understand. I have explained that concept many times as well - most recently at this link.
It says things a little more loosely, a little more scripturally and pastristically, and that's great.
I have certainly come to believe that it is. It allows people who are not students of scholasticism to understand what is being said. Further still, it ties the Church's patrimony into the Scripture and various expressions of the Great Tradition. (All of which helps those who do not give a rip about scholastic formularies but who have an interest in either the Scriptures or the Great Tradition to see how we approach particular subjects.)
But to read it expecting scholastic precision, and to use this to apply the odium theologicum, seems to be falling into the same error as rad-trads who read the council, see something ambiguous, and immediately assume its heresy.
Thoughts?
Though Vatican II does use scholastic terms in spots,{7} I have nonetheless never claimed to see scholastic precision in Vatican II. But one does not require scholastic precision to understand what is being said.
Also, using that canon from Trent to say the Novus Ordo is a "object of piety," what is that, the tropological interpretation of the canon? It certainly isn't the literal one.
I do not recall that subject being mentioned in the weblog entry you refer to. That was actually part of a Wanderer essay I wrote a couple of years ago with Pete Vere. (I believe he referred to it as an "office of piety" in the text.)
My original draft of the essay was about two and a half times longer than what was run in the periodical. Hence, Pete had to do a lot of editing and some parts had to be significantly abridged. (And in some cases small segues had to be added to tie it all together.) However, as the piece bears my name -and as I approved of the final draft before Pete sent it to the Wanderer- it may help to explain why that expression was used in the essay.
The Council of Trent as an Ecumenical Council represented the universal church. As a result, in defining dogma it would be defining dogmas that had eternal relevance to them. (That is the very nature of a dogma after all.) For that is what Trent did when it innovated the manner whereby an Ecumenical Council utilized the canon format.{8}
As with all dogmas, the teachings pertaining to the mass from the Council of Trent are properly seen as applicable to any approved form of the Mass as all forms of the Mass duly approved teach the same Catholic truths on the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Eucharist, etc. That does not mean that each is applied in the same manner of course. But the Church's dogmatic teachings on the mass did not change with Vatican II. Nor did they change with the promulgation of Missale Romanum by Pope Paul VI in 1969.
What changed viz the mass was the application of the doctrines in the realm of the ceremonies and practices which are joined to dogma. And it is also true that some things dogmatically defined by Trent which pertained to the celebration of the Roman Missal in previous usages do not apply to the predominant way that the new Roman Missal is celebrated.{9} However, all approved rites of mass are properly viewed as "offices of piety" as the divine liturgy cannot do anything but inspire piety for those who get past the ceremonies and focus on the mysteries that they convey. None of this is difficult to comprehend when the right distinctions are made.
If you want to extend those canons for all time, you'd have to assume that all the other facts hinted at in those Trent canons are universally valid, like a silent canon of the Mass.
You are not reading the canon correctly my friend.
But we don't have that today, so either those canons are historically relevant for their time, and not ours, or the true church must have a silent canon of the Mass. That latter is absurd.
Or you did not read the canon correctly and are positing an unnecessary dichotomy. I agree with you that the Church does not have to have a silent canon of the mass but I also do not see where Trent decreed that a silent canon was necessary to begin with. The silent canon was a custom of the west only. Furthermore, the canon of the mass was not always said silently even in the west.
What Trent was concerned about was defending the usages then current from attack by Protestants who denied several truths about the mass including (i) that it was a propitiatory sacrifice (ii) that it was offered by a mediating priest (iii) that it was offered for the living and the dead (iv) that the bread and wine were converted into the Body and Blood of Christ via transubstantiation.{10} These and other truths were defined by the Council of Trent. And along with all other canons, they apply in principle to any form of the mass duly approved by the ecclesial magisterium.
I presume when you say "silent canon of the mass" that you are referring to the Council of Trent Session XXII, Canon IX. This is a subject I have covered in the same work as the two links above. Here is the excerpt:
Moving on to other related subjects, we come to the subject of the audible anaphora, a subject that the Council of Trent dealt with in the following canon:
CANON IX.--If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.
The key elements of the condemnation are in bolded print above. In short, there is nothing forbidding the celebration of Mass in the vulgar tongue from the Council of Trent. (The point of the canon was to condemn those who condemned the pronunciation of the words of consecration in a low tone of voice or those who claimed it was necessary to celebrate the mass in the vernacular.) One can claim that it is preferable to pronounce the consecration words louder or that it is more fitting to use the vernacular tongue to celebrate the mass and not be condemned by the Council of Trent. [I. Shawn McElhinney: A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' Part IV (c. 2003, 2000)]
And I stand by that position.
So incline away from rad-tradom my friend, and more plausibly read the Tridentine decrees. :)
I would suggest that I have my friend. Nonetheless, it is good to make your acquaintance again and hopefully this response will supply some food for thought.
Notes:
{1} Not a subject to get me going on btw.
{2} Arguments that are very weak but due to mindless repetition take on the illusion of truth in their purveyors.
{3} Of course those who lack humility will continue in a stubborn fundamentalist hermeneutic to assert and defend their failed theses. But at the very least this is a good sign to shake the dust from our shoes and move onto those who are not blinded by their egos (cf. Matt x,14; Mark vi,11; Luke ix,5).
{4} This is not to say that I lack sympathy for non-Catholics by the way. Generally speaking, I am very sympathetic to their situations but also recognize that they do not understand the manner whereby Catholics are supposed to approach subjects. However, when one claims to be "The True Believers"™ they carry an extra burden with me to justify such claims. And need I mention that they can practically never succeed in justifying such assertions???
{5} And that truth is this: infallibility is not properly understood in a juridical sense. Instead is an organic principle intrinsic to the universal church.
{6} As that writing was originally intended for examination by a theological censor - a project that I had to put on hold for various reasons too numerous to detail here in brief.
{7} The most noteable example is explaining the mystery of the Church and how the one Church of Christ on earth subsists (Lat. subsistare) in the Catholic Church. Those who translate this as "exists" or "continues to exist" have no understanding whatsoever of what the Council was conveying.
{8} Prior to Trent, the canons of an ecumenical council were of a disciplinary nature in almost all cases. Trent in this sense was innovating by utilizing the canons with anathemas format for solemn definitions as distinct from its teachings which were not of the same theological qualification. (And dealing with matters of discipline and reform with specific "Decrees of Reformation.")
{9} This does not mean that the dogmas promulgated by Trent are no longer true, only that in practical application some of them do not have the same significance as they did before. Again a key distinction that is often overlooked or viewed incorrectly.
{10} It is also worth noting that Lateran IV and Trent did not teach that transubstantiation was the only way of viewing the eucharistic mystery, only that the term and its underlying understanding were "proper" or "appropriate." This does not rule out other terms being used provided that they convey the same sense.
Friday, October 17, 2003
"Cohiba Ergo Sum" Dept.
I do not recommend the Disturber of the Peace BLOG enough by my own admission. To some extent this was because the weblog went into a period of infrequent updates; however the Curmudgeon has since early September been updating the weblog at least a few times a week. (Especially since the start of October.) Nonetheless, we recommend reading in particular the last five posts to the weblog from the one posted today down to the "New Neo-Stalinist" post.
I do not recommend the Disturber of the Peace BLOG enough by my own admission. To some extent this was because the weblog went into a period of infrequent updates; however the Curmudgeon has since early September been updating the weblog at least a few times a week. (Especially since the start of October.) Nonetheless, we recommend reading in particular the last five posts to the weblog from the one posted today down to the "New Neo-Stalinist" post.
Wednesday, October 15, 2003
Periodically I have been posting links to the songs either written by or performed by Johnny Cash. Thus far all those posted have been original compositions. Tonight's song The Long Black Veil will break that trend up a bit as this song was one Johnny performed but did not write himself.
I originally came across it on The Band's 1968 debut album Music From Big Pink which I have on (shudder) LP. (I learned how to play the song on my acoustic guitar from their recording.) It is a very haunting ballad and one definitely well suited for Johnny's vocal style. He recorded the tune in December of 1964.
The Long Black Veil
(M. Wilkens/D. Dill)
Ten years ago, on a cold dark night
Someone was killed, 'neath the town hall light
There were few at the scene, but they all did agree
That the man who ran, looked a lot like me
The judge said son, what is your alibi
If you were somewhere else, then you won't have to die
I spoke not a word, thou it meant my life
For I'd been in the arms of my best friend's wife
She walks these hills in a long black veil
She visits my grave when the night winds wail
Nobody knows, nobody sees
Nobody knows but me
Oh, the scaffold is high and eternity's near
She stood in the crowd and shed not a tear
But sometimes at night, when the north wind blows
In a long black veil, she cries ov're my bones
She walks these hills in a long black veil
She visits my grave when the night winds wail
Nobody knows, nobody sees
Nobody knows but me
I originally came across it on The Band's 1968 debut album Music From Big Pink which I have on (shudder) LP. (I learned how to play the song on my acoustic guitar from their recording.) It is a very haunting ballad and one definitely well suited for Johnny's vocal style. He recorded the tune in December of 1964.
The Long Black Veil
(M. Wilkens/D. Dill)
Ten years ago, on a cold dark night
Someone was killed, 'neath the town hall light
There were few at the scene, but they all did agree
That the man who ran, looked a lot like me
The judge said son, what is your alibi
If you were somewhere else, then you won't have to die
I spoke not a word, thou it meant my life
For I'd been in the arms of my best friend's wife
She walks these hills in a long black veil
She visits my grave when the night winds wail
Nobody knows, nobody sees
Nobody knows but me
Oh, the scaffold is high and eternity's near
She stood in the crowd and shed not a tear
But sometimes at night, when the north wind blows
In a long black veil, she cries ov're my bones
She walks these hills in a long black veil
She visits my grave when the night winds wail
Nobody knows, nobody sees
Nobody knows but me
"Traditional Moral Principles" Dept. on Rights that Precede Man Made Laws:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Readers of this humble weblog are not unaware of Jeff Culbreath or his weblog El Camino Real - one of our favourites to read even when there may be the occasional disagreement in areas where faithful Catholics have freedom to do so. However, while Catholicism has diversity in theological speculation, devotions, and the like, there is the required unity in faith principle and that is what occasions this weblog entry.
I happened to be tipped off by my Reformed friend Tim Enloe who posted the link to his weblog as a show of support for Jeff. But rather than read my summary of it, here are Jeff's words from the above link:
Today began with a phone call from an anxious woman who needed printing done for an important meeting this evening. This was apparently in response to our marketing efforts last month, so I was very determined to make it happen for her in spite of the short notice. She sent the file to my graphic designer, who opened it successfully: business cards for someone specializing in the "gay and lesbian community". Great.
So I called the woman back, apologized, and explained to her that it was nothing personal but that we weren't going to print this particular job because of the message. She wasn't happy. A few minutes later the phone rings. A woman asks me to "confirm" that I refused to provide printing for some gay and lesbian event. She wanted to get the story straight for "the paper". I confirmed that it was indeed true. The phone calls continued throughout the day. Most callers told me they were "getting the word out" that my business "discriminates against gays and lesbians". One caller asked me why I was a "homophobe" and told me to "enjoy being a homophobe". Finally the "head" of some gay and lesbian organization called, again to confirm that I "discriminate against gays and lesbians."
My graphic designer sent me an e-mail telling me that she doesn't agree with my views and gave me the silent treatment all morning.
You can read the rest of the sequence at Jeff's weblog and I encourage you to do so after completing this post. First and foremost, some key principles come into play here starting with the very issue of the morality involved.
The Catholic Church has in the past thirty odd years issued several documents from its dicasteries on this subject - primarily from the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. For non-Catholics unaware of the significance of this dicastery, it is second in authority only to the pope himself - and the pope can by approving the text in special session make the document his own.
Even though not of the same authority as other papal pronouncements (i.e. constitutions, apostolic/encyclical letters, etc) the doctrine in such documents is still binding on the Catholic conscience. A recent document approved by Pope John Paul II on the subject of homosexual "unions" can be read HERE. An earlier Declaration from the CDF on Sexual Ethics approved by Pope Paul VI can be read HERE. It is these that I want to draw on in highlighting the one faith that Catholics profess as it pertains to this issue.
The aforementioned Declaration (circa 1975) specifically notes the following on homosexuality as a practice and as a condition:
At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.
A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.
In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.
In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God. {Rom 1:24-27; I Cor 6:10; I Tim 1:10}
This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of. [CDF: Declaration Persona Humana §8 (c. 1975)]
And from a recent doctrinal note on homosexual "unions":
Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts "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".
Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts "as a serious depravity... (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered". This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.
Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies "must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided". They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity. The homosexual inclination is however "objectively disordered" and homosexual practices are "sins gravely contrary to chastity". [CDF: Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons §2,4 (c. 2003)]
Now before anyone attempts to defend the notion that Jeff would be required to print the kind of material he was asked to print under the notion that it is "discriminatory" not to do so, note carefully that the statement from the CDF referred to "unjust discrimination." There is nothing whatsoever that is "just" in giving a tacit approval to the homosexual lifestyle as Jeff would be doing if he were to knowingly print materials that advertised moral practices that his faith condemns as "objectively disordered", "gravely contrary to charity", and "against the natural moral law."
Further still, there is no "right" to such advertising and any business has the right to refuse service to others on grounds other than race, religion, sex, national origin, or other categorizations protected by law as Greg Krehbiel well notes at this link. And among them the "right" to homosexual representation is not present. But even if it was, such a "right" would be illusory and another example of the tyrranical means whereby those who pervert the law to suit their own nefarious agendas so often stoop to. And Jeff would have every right to reject such a brownshirt approach which would have more in common with Orwell's 1984 than with any logical notion of what constitutes a "right" properly understood.
One of the reasons your weblog host ran the series on Claude Frederic Bastiat from September 2002-March 2003 at this weblog was because of the need to outline key terms that generally go undefined.{1} Among those is the concept frequently spoken of today of a "right."
I explained further the distinction between rights and free speech earlier this year and do not want to repeat myself on that subject for the most part. However, there are some principles that if nothing else I hope to pound into the minds of my readers and which provide a key to understanding why Jeff's stance cannot validly be criticized under the liberal shibboleth of "discrimination." They have a few points to them and I will address them in sequence at this time.
The first point that needs to be reinforced is the concept of certain rights that precede all legislation and to which the latter is dependent upon. There are three of these and they are properly understood as the three fundamental rights of man. These three rights are (i) the right of life and its defense (ii) the right to freedom of exercise of one's own faculties, and (iii) the right to production or the owning of property. To quote Claude Frederic Bastiat on these key concepts:
Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? [Claude Frederic Bastiat: The Law (c. 1850)]
Who among us will deny that Jeff's business is his property and therefore an extension of his faculties??? And as the preservation of any one of [the three fundamental rights] is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two, Jeff has every reason to rightly view this attack on his property or production as an attack on not only his property but also on his faculties and his person. (Because it is.)
As he is the father of a family, any attack on his person is an attack on those who rely on him for support: the Culbreath family. Yes my friends, this is another attack on the family when we take it down to brass tacks.
For these are not divisable rights we are talking about here. Instead, they go together as a unit and undermining one by logical extension undermines the other two. So it suffices to note here that these people are attacking the Culbreath family whether they realize it or not. And all of this because of Jeff's religious convictions that he is bound to by his conscience. The irony that is present in this situation will be dealt with later on but first another essential principle needs to be considered.
For you see, there is also the fallacy of considering something moral simply because a law sanctions it. There is a reason why Canada is going the way of Sodom and it is because activists are trying to obtain legitimacy through legal channels. This is a perversion of the law at its core. Again I quote from Claude Frederic Bastiat and in an area that undoubtedly is at the core of the situation Jeff faces -the clash between what is legal and what is moral:
No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.
The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are "just" because law makes them so. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: The Law (c. 1850)]
Though I have linked to it before, the following article from fellow Bastiat student Walter Williams on non-politically correct thinking is well worth a read as he touches on the subject of discrimination.{2} The long and short of it is that everyone discriminates with every choice they make. The question then is not whether or not discrimination is a fact of life (as it is) but when certain uses of it are viewed as laudable or blameworthy.
Whatever your view is on Jeff's religious convictions, those who value being true to conscience and of not coercing people to violate their consciences (ala the "liberty of conscience" crowd) need to stop and consider whether they are being true to their own principles.
For one cannot demand liberty for a particular faculty for themselves which they then turn around and deny to others: this stance is blatantly hypocritical. Where are these people who tout the notion of "liberty of conscience" and yet seek to deny Jeff the liberty of his conscience??? (Via some kind of forced association or "fraternity.")
This is a two way street: if one demands liberty for their own conscience, then they must extend the same to the consciences of others who do not agree with them. Thus, the homosexual activists who would appeal to not being coerced against their conscience -by enemies either real or imagined- cannot be credible in their complaints if they are hypocritically trying to coerce the consciences of those who do not agree with them.
Oh and do not try to invoke some idea of government-enforced "fraternity" while you make demands for personal "liberty" because these two are logically antonymous of one another. The lie that liberty and fraternity can in any way co-exist was refuted over one hundred and fifty years ago:
It is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: The Law (c. 1850)]
Or to again quote fellow Bastiat student Walter Williams on the matter:
[T]he true test of one's commitment to freedom of association doesn't come when he allows people to associate in ways he approves. The true test of that commitment comes when he allows people to be free to voluntarily associate in ways he deems despicable. Forced association is not freedom of association. [Walter Williams (9/4/02)]
Hopefully the above pointers will lay the axe to the notion that liberty (what liberals love to claim) and fraternity (what liberals love to try and enforce via law) can at all coexist in any fashion whatsoever. But we are not out of the woods yet because there is one more point to cover which is unavoidable in the stance Jeff is taking: is the subject of public order and whether or not Jeff's position contributes to the public order or undermines it. (And likewise if his opponents position contributes to or undermines the public order.)
The notion of "public order" is related to the "common good" and is what undergirds the Catholic understanding of true religious liberty. The Second Vatican Council defined "public order" as follows:
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. [Second Vatican Council: Declaration Dignitatis Humanae §7 (c. 1965)]
I reference DH here because as religious liberty is the most fundamental of all liberties, the principles which undergird it also apply to other liberties that a person can claim in society.
Lest anyone think I am applying my own interpretation to the above text, Pope John Paul II noted in an Allocution on DH that the right to religious freedom, like that of any other freedom, should be exercised with respect for the just requirements of public order. (Allocution of February 18, 1996)
In other words, as all freedoms must logically be exercised with respect for public order,{3} the question of whether Jeff and/or his opponents are undermining the public order with their stances is not a minor matter here.
There is ample evidence to substantiate the thesis that the promotion of homosexuality is no small detriment to the public order.{4} Therefore, those who in conscience cannot support such an undermining of society deserve to at a minimum have their consciences respected.
Such people should not be coerced against their conscience to involve themselves in situations where they are endorsing tacitly or otherwise positions they view as (i) gravely immoral (ii) contrary to their religious faith (iii) contrary to their conscience (iv) detrimental to the public order of society and (v) detrimental to the foundation stone of human civilization. (Referring to the family.)
More could be mentioned but I believe this is adequate to not only defend Jeff's position but also to shame those hypocrites who would try to claim for themselves certain freedoms that they would withhold from Jeff. (Such as freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.)
Oh and for the record, We at Rerum Novarum endorse the stance taken by Jeff Culbreath and include him and his family in our prayers. Further, we exhort our readers to support him with your prayers, your business, and also to direct others you know to his business who are in need of printing work. And, if we may be so bold to exhort our fellow members of St. Blog's who have not yet weighed in on this to please spread the word as well that prayers for Jeff and potential contacts for his business may increase among those of good will.
It is not true that the legislator has absolute power over our persons and property. The existence of persons and property preceded the existence of the legislator, and his function is only to guarantee their safety.
It is not true that the function of law is to regulate our consciences, our ideas, our wills, our education, our opinions, our work, our trade, our talents, or our pleasures. The function of law is to protect the free exercise of these rights, and to prevent any person from interfering with the free exercise of these same rights by any other person.
Since law necessarily requires the support of force, its lawful domain is only in the areas where the use of force is necessary. This is justice.
Every individual has the right to use force for lawful self- defense. It is for this reason that the collective force -- which is only the organized combination of the individual forces --may lawfully be used for the same purpose; and it cannot be used legitimately for any other purpose.
Law is solely the organization of the individual right of self-defense which existed before law was formalized. Law is justice. [Frederic Bastiat: The Law (c. 1850)]
Notes:
{1} Plus so many people are unaware of his excellent work and the wonderful antedote it supplies to the shoddy reasoning prevalent today on the law and its function in society.
{2} And highlights the absurdity of the "logic" of those who inconsistently apply that concept.
{3} One does not have to be a Catholic to note the inherent logic in this outlook.
{4} See this link for details. Though my friend John Pacheco did not win in his campaign for the legislature up in Canada, that does not mean that the principles he ran on -which mirror Jeff's principles- are invalid. Indeed they are quite valid from not only moral and religious standpoints but also from sociological and anthropological ones as well. (All of these are covered at the aforementioned link.)
[Update: I responded later on to clarify a few points raised about this entry from a couple of concerned Catholics. That clarifying thread can be read HERE. - ISM 10/30/03]
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Readers of this humble weblog are not unaware of Jeff Culbreath or his weblog El Camino Real - one of our favourites to read even when there may be the occasional disagreement in areas where faithful Catholics have freedom to do so. However, while Catholicism has diversity in theological speculation, devotions, and the like, there is the required unity in faith principle and that is what occasions this weblog entry.
I happened to be tipped off by my Reformed friend Tim Enloe who posted the link to his weblog as a show of support for Jeff. But rather than read my summary of it, here are Jeff's words from the above link:
Today began with a phone call from an anxious woman who needed printing done for an important meeting this evening. This was apparently in response to our marketing efforts last month, so I was very determined to make it happen for her in spite of the short notice. She sent the file to my graphic designer, who opened it successfully: business cards for someone specializing in the "gay and lesbian community". Great.
So I called the woman back, apologized, and explained to her that it was nothing personal but that we weren't going to print this particular job because of the message. She wasn't happy. A few minutes later the phone rings. A woman asks me to "confirm" that I refused to provide printing for some gay and lesbian event. She wanted to get the story straight for "the paper". I confirmed that it was indeed true. The phone calls continued throughout the day. Most callers told me they were "getting the word out" that my business "discriminates against gays and lesbians". One caller asked me why I was a "homophobe" and told me to "enjoy being a homophobe". Finally the "head" of some gay and lesbian organization called, again to confirm that I "discriminate against gays and lesbians."
My graphic designer sent me an e-mail telling me that she doesn't agree with my views and gave me the silent treatment all morning.
You can read the rest of the sequence at Jeff's weblog and I encourage you to do so after completing this post. First and foremost, some key principles come into play here starting with the very issue of the morality involved.
The Catholic Church has in the past thirty odd years issued several documents from its dicasteries on this subject - primarily from the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. For non-Catholics unaware of the significance of this dicastery, it is second in authority only to the pope himself - and the pope can by approving the text in special session make the document his own.
Even though not of the same authority as other papal pronouncements (i.e. constitutions, apostolic/encyclical letters, etc) the doctrine in such documents is still binding on the Catholic conscience. A recent document approved by Pope John Paul II on the subject of homosexual "unions" can be read HERE. An earlier Declaration from the CDF on Sexual Ethics approved by Pope Paul VI can be read HERE. It is these that I want to draw on in highlighting the one faith that Catholics profess as it pertains to this issue.
The aforementioned Declaration (circa 1975) specifically notes the following on homosexuality as a practice and as a condition:
At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.
A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.
In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.
In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God. {Rom 1:24-27; I Cor 6:10; I Tim 1:10}
This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of. [CDF: Declaration Persona Humana §8 (c. 1975)]
And from a recent doctrinal note on homosexual "unions":
Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts "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".
Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts "as a serious depravity... (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered". This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.
Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies "must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided". They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity. The homosexual inclination is however "objectively disordered" and homosexual practices are "sins gravely contrary to chastity". [CDF: Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons §2,4 (c. 2003)]
Now before anyone attempts to defend the notion that Jeff would be required to print the kind of material he was asked to print under the notion that it is "discriminatory" not to do so, note carefully that the statement from the CDF referred to "unjust discrimination." There is nothing whatsoever that is "just" in giving a tacit approval to the homosexual lifestyle as Jeff would be doing if he were to knowingly print materials that advertised moral practices that his faith condemns as "objectively disordered", "gravely contrary to charity", and "against the natural moral law."
Further still, there is no "right" to such advertising and any business has the right to refuse service to others on grounds other than race, religion, sex, national origin, or other categorizations protected by law as Greg Krehbiel well notes at this link. And among them the "right" to homosexual representation is not present. But even if it was, such a "right" would be illusory and another example of the tyrranical means whereby those who pervert the law to suit their own nefarious agendas so often stoop to. And Jeff would have every right to reject such a brownshirt approach which would have more in common with Orwell's 1984 than with any logical notion of what constitutes a "right" properly understood.
One of the reasons your weblog host ran the series on Claude Frederic Bastiat from September 2002-March 2003 at this weblog was because of the need to outline key terms that generally go undefined.{1} Among those is the concept frequently spoken of today of a "right."
I explained further the distinction between rights and free speech earlier this year and do not want to repeat myself on that subject for the most part. However, there are some principles that if nothing else I hope to pound into the minds of my readers and which provide a key to understanding why Jeff's stance cannot validly be criticized under the liberal shibboleth of "discrimination." They have a few points to them and I will address them in sequence at this time.
The first point that needs to be reinforced is the concept of certain rights that precede all legislation and to which the latter is dependent upon. There are three of these and they are properly understood as the three fundamental rights of man. These three rights are (i) the right of life and its defense (ii) the right to freedom of exercise of one's own faculties, and (iii) the right to production or the owning of property. To quote Claude Frederic Bastiat on these key concepts:
Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? [Claude Frederic Bastiat: The Law (c. 1850)]
Who among us will deny that Jeff's business is his property and therefore an extension of his faculties??? And as the preservation of any one of [the three fundamental rights] is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two, Jeff has every reason to rightly view this attack on his property or production as an attack on not only his property but also on his faculties and his person. (Because it is.)
As he is the father of a family, any attack on his person is an attack on those who rely on him for support: the Culbreath family. Yes my friends, this is another attack on the family when we take it down to brass tacks.
For these are not divisable rights we are talking about here. Instead, they go together as a unit and undermining one by logical extension undermines the other two. So it suffices to note here that these people are attacking the Culbreath family whether they realize it or not. And all of this because of Jeff's religious convictions that he is bound to by his conscience. The irony that is present in this situation will be dealt with later on but first another essential principle needs to be considered.
For you see, there is also the fallacy of considering something moral simply because a law sanctions it. There is a reason why Canada is going the way of Sodom and it is because activists are trying to obtain legitimacy through legal channels. This is a perversion of the law at its core. Again I quote from Claude Frederic Bastiat and in an area that undoubtedly is at the core of the situation Jeff faces -the clash between what is legal and what is moral:
No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.
The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are "just" because law makes them so. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: The Law (c. 1850)]
Though I have linked to it before, the following article from fellow Bastiat student Walter Williams on non-politically correct thinking is well worth a read as he touches on the subject of discrimination.{2} The long and short of it is that everyone discriminates with every choice they make. The question then is not whether or not discrimination is a fact of life (as it is) but when certain uses of it are viewed as laudable or blameworthy.
Whatever your view is on Jeff's religious convictions, those who value being true to conscience and of not coercing people to violate their consciences (ala the "liberty of conscience" crowd) need to stop and consider whether they are being true to their own principles.
For one cannot demand liberty for a particular faculty for themselves which they then turn around and deny to others: this stance is blatantly hypocritical. Where are these people who tout the notion of "liberty of conscience" and yet seek to deny Jeff the liberty of his conscience??? (Via some kind of forced association or "fraternity.")
This is a two way street: if one demands liberty for their own conscience, then they must extend the same to the consciences of others who do not agree with them. Thus, the homosexual activists who would appeal to not being coerced against their conscience -by enemies either real or imagined- cannot be credible in their complaints if they are hypocritically trying to coerce the consciences of those who do not agree with them.
Oh and do not try to invoke some idea of government-enforced "fraternity" while you make demands for personal "liberty" because these two are logically antonymous of one another. The lie that liberty and fraternity can in any way co-exist was refuted over one hundred and fifty years ago:
It is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: The Law (c. 1850)]
Or to again quote fellow Bastiat student Walter Williams on the matter:
[T]he true test of one's commitment to freedom of association doesn't come when he allows people to associate in ways he approves. The true test of that commitment comes when he allows people to be free to voluntarily associate in ways he deems despicable. Forced association is not freedom of association. [Walter Williams (9/4/02)]
Hopefully the above pointers will lay the axe to the notion that liberty (what liberals love to claim) and fraternity (what liberals love to try and enforce via law) can at all coexist in any fashion whatsoever. But we are not out of the woods yet because there is one more point to cover which is unavoidable in the stance Jeff is taking: is the subject of public order and whether or not Jeff's position contributes to the public order or undermines it. (And likewise if his opponents position contributes to or undermines the public order.)
The notion of "public order" is related to the "common good" and is what undergirds the Catholic understanding of true religious liberty. The Second Vatican Council defined "public order" as follows:
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. [Second Vatican Council: Declaration Dignitatis Humanae §7 (c. 1965)]
I reference DH here because as religious liberty is the most fundamental of all liberties, the principles which undergird it also apply to other liberties that a person can claim in society.
Lest anyone think I am applying my own interpretation to the above text, Pope John Paul II noted in an Allocution on DH that the right to religious freedom, like that of any other freedom, should be exercised with respect for the just requirements of public order. (Allocution of February 18, 1996)
In other words, as all freedoms must logically be exercised with respect for public order,{3} the question of whether Jeff and/or his opponents are undermining the public order with their stances is not a minor matter here.
There is ample evidence to substantiate the thesis that the promotion of homosexuality is no small detriment to the public order.{4} Therefore, those who in conscience cannot support such an undermining of society deserve to at a minimum have their consciences respected.
Such people should not be coerced against their conscience to involve themselves in situations where they are endorsing tacitly or otherwise positions they view as (i) gravely immoral (ii) contrary to their religious faith (iii) contrary to their conscience (iv) detrimental to the public order of society and (v) detrimental to the foundation stone of human civilization. (Referring to the family.)
More could be mentioned but I believe this is adequate to not only defend Jeff's position but also to shame those hypocrites who would try to claim for themselves certain freedoms that they would withhold from Jeff. (Such as freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.)
Oh and for the record, We at Rerum Novarum endorse the stance taken by Jeff Culbreath and include him and his family in our prayers. Further, we exhort our readers to support him with your prayers, your business, and also to direct others you know to his business who are in need of printing work. And, if we may be so bold to exhort our fellow members of St. Blog's who have not yet weighed in on this to please spread the word as well that prayers for Jeff and potential contacts for his business may increase among those of good will.
It is not true that the legislator has absolute power over our persons and property. The existence of persons and property preceded the existence of the legislator, and his function is only to guarantee their safety.
It is not true that the function of law is to regulate our consciences, our ideas, our wills, our education, our opinions, our work, our trade, our talents, or our pleasures. The function of law is to protect the free exercise of these rights, and to prevent any person from interfering with the free exercise of these same rights by any other person.
Since law necessarily requires the support of force, its lawful domain is only in the areas where the use of force is necessary. This is justice.
Every individual has the right to use force for lawful self- defense. It is for this reason that the collective force -- which is only the organized combination of the individual forces --may lawfully be used for the same purpose; and it cannot be used legitimately for any other purpose.
Law is solely the organization of the individual right of self-defense which existed before law was formalized. Law is justice. [Frederic Bastiat: The Law (c. 1850)]
Notes:
{1} Plus so many people are unaware of his excellent work and the wonderful antedote it supplies to the shoddy reasoning prevalent today on the law and its function in society.
{2} And highlights the absurdity of the "logic" of those who inconsistently apply that concept.
{3} One does not have to be a Catholic to note the inherent logic in this outlook.
{4} See this link for details. Though my friend John Pacheco did not win in his campaign for the legislature up in Canada, that does not mean that the principles he ran on -which mirror Jeff's principles- are invalid. Indeed they are quite valid from not only moral and religious standpoints but also from sociological and anthropological ones as well. (All of these are covered at the aforementioned link.)
[Update: I responded later on to clarify a few points raised about this entry from a couple of concerned Catholics. That clarifying thread can be read HERE. - ISM 10/30/03]
Tuesday, October 14, 2003
Today is the birthday of my aunt Sharon (lapsed Catholic), an friend named Sharon (who attends an SSPX chapel with her husband and family), and also John Milner. Please pray for the first two and for the repose of the soul of the latter.
Points to Ponder:
Only in theocracy is a man free from men, for he serves not men but God. Therein lies the secret of that child-like obedience, so incomprehensible to the outsider, which the Catholic gives to his Church, an obedience whereby he freely and cheerfully submits his own little notions and wishes to the will of Christ expressed in the action of authority; an obedience whereby his own small and limited self is enlarged to the measure of the great self of the Church. That is no corpse-like obedience or slave mentality, but a profoundly religious act, an absolute devotion to the Will of Christ which rules the Church, a service of God. And so this obedience is not cowardly and weak, but strong and ready for sacrifice, manly and brave even in the presence of kings. [Karl Adam: The Spirit of Catholicism Ch. II (c. 1920)]
Only in theocracy is a man free from men, for he serves not men but God. Therein lies the secret of that child-like obedience, so incomprehensible to the outsider, which the Catholic gives to his Church, an obedience whereby he freely and cheerfully submits his own little notions and wishes to the will of Christ expressed in the action of authority; an obedience whereby his own small and limited self is enlarged to the measure of the great self of the Church. That is no corpse-like obedience or slave mentality, but a profoundly religious act, an absolute devotion to the Will of Christ which rules the Church, a service of God. And so this obedience is not cowardly and weak, but strong and ready for sacrifice, manly and brave even in the presence of kings. [Karl Adam: The Spirit of Catholicism Ch. II (c. 1920)]
Monday, October 13, 2003
I wanted to recommend to my readers to check out Tim Enloe's Societas Christiana BLOG for some excellent entries from a Reformed perspective. Now obviously I will not agree with Tim on some issues{1} however I am not for that reason about to refer to him as an "uneasy ally" ala my good friend The Secret One. For surely someone who wants to see a Christendom restored to where faith is seen as the central and animating feature of society -however their view differs in micro details from ours- is on the same page as those who want to restore what is traditionally referred to as the "Social Kingship of Christ." These goals are not as mutually exclusive as was once presumed.
For what can (or should) contribute to the restoration of Christian unity more effectively than an alliance to defend those elements of society which require defending if society is to even exist at all??? This does not mean that there is no room for theological disputation of course. However, such should always seek to unite and not divide whenever this is possible. After all, there will be enough divisions in outlooks without deliberately contributing to greater fragmentation.
Far too often do people who try to defend triumphalism bring forward the statement that Our Lord said "he who is not with me is against me" (Matt. xii,30; Luke xi,23). However, they ignore the fact that Our Lord also said "he that is not against us is for us" (Mark ix,40; Luke ix,50) and He said this at the very moment that the Apostles were attempting to exclude others from the pale who "did not walk with us." In short, there is truth that those not with Christ are against Him; however, it is the heighth of arrogance to presume that someone who does not look like us or who does not think like us is automatically beyond the pale. These are times of ecumenical jihad my friends and it behooves all of us to presume that those not against us are for us in macro principles if not in micro outlines.
Note:
{1} One example is on the subject of papal primacy - my last response on which can be read HERE.
For what can (or should) contribute to the restoration of Christian unity more effectively than an alliance to defend those elements of society which require defending if society is to even exist at all??? This does not mean that there is no room for theological disputation of course. However, such should always seek to unite and not divide whenever this is possible. After all, there will be enough divisions in outlooks without deliberately contributing to greater fragmentation.
Far too often do people who try to defend triumphalism bring forward the statement that Our Lord said "he who is not with me is against me" (Matt. xii,30; Luke xi,23). However, they ignore the fact that Our Lord also said "he that is not against us is for us" (Mark ix,40; Luke ix,50) and He said this at the very moment that the Apostles were attempting to exclude others from the pale who "did not walk with us." In short, there is truth that those not with Christ are against Him; however, it is the heighth of arrogance to presume that someone who does not look like us or who does not think like us is automatically beyond the pale. These are times of ecumenical jihad my friends and it behooves all of us to presume that those not against us are for us in macro principles if not in micro outlines.
Note:
{1} One example is on the subject of papal primacy - my last response on which can be read HERE.
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
Thomas Storck takes a very ressourcement{1} oriented look at the phenomenons of the 1960's counter-culture and the establishment they claimed to be fighting in a piece titled Change and Return which can be read at this link. Prepare yourself for a well-reasoned defense of the notion that some of the ideals of the 1960's "counter-culture" may well be of greater vintage (and also more intrinsically Catholic) than either the proponents or their opponents would casually presume.
Also well worth reading at the same link is Storck's piece Aging Hippies or Old Western Men? I particularly recommend this one if you have an interest in the old world or medieval period. I intended to link to the latter piece about seven odd months ago but ended up forgetting about it. However, as it is at the same link as the first piece, you now get two for the price of nothing except a bit of time to read them (of course).
Note:
{1} For an exposition by your humble servant on the subject of ressourcement outlooks, see the weblog entry titled The Definition of a Conservative. (Posted to the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG a few months ago after over two years of mostly subconscious reflection.)
Also well worth reading at the same link is Storck's piece Aging Hippies or Old Western Men? I particularly recommend this one if you have an interest in the old world or medieval period. I intended to link to the latter piece about seven odd months ago but ended up forgetting about it. However, as it is at the same link as the first piece, you now get two for the price of nothing except a bit of time to read them (of course).
Note:
{1} For an exposition by your humble servant on the subject of ressourcement outlooks, see the weblog entry titled The Definition of a Conservative. (Posted to the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG a few months ago after over two years of mostly subconscious reflection.)
Tuesday, October 07, 2003
Today's Johnny Cash song was recorded in 1971. I was originally going to do these in chronological order but the lyrics to this song mesh well with the previous Points to Ponder installment where Stephen mentions the concept of justice.
Man in Black:
Well, you wonder why I always dress in black,
Why you never see bright colors on my back,
And why does my appearance seem to have a somber tone.
Well, there's a reason for the things that I have on.
I wear the black for the poor and the beaten down,
Livin' in the hopeless, hungry side of town,
I wear it for the prisoner who has long paid for his crime,
But is there because he's a victim of the times.
I wear the black for those who never read,
Or listened to the words that Jesus said,
About the road to happiness through love and charity,
Why, you'd think He's talking straight to you and me.
Well, we're doin' mighty fine, I do suppose,
In our streak of lightnin' cars and fancy clothes,
But just so we're reminded of the ones who are held back,
Up front there ought 'a be a Man In Black.
I wear it for the sick and lonely old,
For the reckless ones whose bad trip left them cold,
I wear the black in mournin' for the lives that could have been,
Each week we lose a hundred fine young men.
And, I wear it for the thousands who have died,
Believen' that the Lord was on their side,
I wear it for another hundred thousand who have died,
Believen' that we all were on their side.
Well, there's things that never will be right I know,
And things need changin' everywhere you go,
But 'til we start to make a move to make a few things right,
You'll never see me wear a suit of white.
Ah, I'd love to wear a rainbow every day,
And tell the world that everything's OK,
But I'll try to carry off a little darkness on my back,
Till things are brighter, I'm the Man In Black.
Man in Black:
Well, you wonder why I always dress in black,
Why you never see bright colors on my back,
And why does my appearance seem to have a somber tone.
Well, there's a reason for the things that I have on.
I wear the black for the poor and the beaten down,
Livin' in the hopeless, hungry side of town,
I wear it for the prisoner who has long paid for his crime,
But is there because he's a victim of the times.
I wear the black for those who never read,
Or listened to the words that Jesus said,
About the road to happiness through love and charity,
Why, you'd think He's talking straight to you and me.
Well, we're doin' mighty fine, I do suppose,
In our streak of lightnin' cars and fancy clothes,
But just so we're reminded of the ones who are held back,
Up front there ought 'a be a Man In Black.
I wear it for the sick and lonely old,
For the reckless ones whose bad trip left them cold,
I wear the black in mournin' for the lives that could have been,
Each week we lose a hundred fine young men.
And, I wear it for the thousands who have died,
Believen' that the Lord was on their side,
I wear it for another hundred thousand who have died,
Believen' that we all were on their side.
Well, there's things that never will be right I know,
And things need changin' everywhere you go,
But 'til we start to make a move to make a few things right,
You'll never see me wear a suit of white.
Ah, I'd love to wear a rainbow every day,
And tell the world that everything's OK,
But I'll try to carry off a little darkness on my back,
Till things are brighter, I'm the Man In Black.
Points to Ponder:
(On Liturgy and its Fruits)
When any view the Mass obsessively as the be-all and end-all of the Catholic faith---i.e., as an end in itself--- rather than as the means to Christ's and the Spirit's spiritual fruits (faith and good works), they are bound to be off-kilter spiritually. Rather than see Jesus Christ present in the Eucharist they will be scanning the rite for problems, irritants everywhere, for elements that do not please them. In this way the Christian faith devolves into self-centeredness.
The fruits of the Spirit (1 Cor 13; Gal 5:22,23) and the praxis of the beatitudes (Matt 5-7), i.e., the imitation of Christ, are the test as to whether ours is a Self religion or a Him religion. The Mass (whatever the rite) is the means to this grace. When the Liturgy is approached for the Eucharist alone then we see and experience the liturgical rite as the window, par excellance, to Him, leading to orthopraxis.
What is orthopraxis? Some object to the word as of recent origin. As someone wrote recently: practically speaking, orthopraxis simply means right practice, just as orthodoxy means right belief. It should be obvious that the lexicon of Christianity has constantly evolved and is constantly evolving around fixed points defined by the magisterium, first from pagan denotations (theo, deus, Christ, ecclesia, Phylakas Angelos, homoousion, substance, etc) and, later, from different schools and movements within Christianity itself. It is better to help shape the language which has already become a part of the lexicon of the theology of the day than to defensively wish it hadn't arrived.
The concept of right practice is very biblical, of course, for "faith without works is dead," Sts. Paul and James teach, and as the prophets continually emphasized (Isaiah 1:11, 16-17; Amo 5:21-24; Hsa 6:6 ; Mk 12:33) . Our sacrifices and rites without justice are repugnant to YHWH. Traditionalists and maybe a few conservatives have much to gain from this word. And liberals must not make it a substitute for right belief, but an expression of it.
So the Mass and orthodoxy exist for right practice, good works, the fruits of the Spirit and the teachings of Jesus as found preeminently in the Beatitudes. This is the measure of whether we are approaching liturgy appropriately and as Catholics. If we only find irritants in a rite---gross abuses aside--- there is something wrong with our spiritual vision. We see the what only and not the Who and the why. The problem is with us, not with the Church's rites. [Stephen Hand: TCR Letters and Musings]
(On Liturgy and its Fruits)
When any view the Mass obsessively as the be-all and end-all of the Catholic faith---i.e., as an end in itself--- rather than as the means to Christ's and the Spirit's spiritual fruits (faith and good works), they are bound to be off-kilter spiritually. Rather than see Jesus Christ present in the Eucharist they will be scanning the rite for problems, irritants everywhere, for elements that do not please them. In this way the Christian faith devolves into self-centeredness.
The fruits of the Spirit (1 Cor 13; Gal 5:22,23) and the praxis of the beatitudes (Matt 5-7), i.e., the imitation of Christ, are the test as to whether ours is a Self religion or a Him religion. The Mass (whatever the rite) is the means to this grace. When the Liturgy is approached for the Eucharist alone then we see and experience the liturgical rite as the window, par excellance, to Him, leading to orthopraxis.
What is orthopraxis? Some object to the word as of recent origin. As someone wrote recently: practically speaking, orthopraxis simply means right practice, just as orthodoxy means right belief. It should be obvious that the lexicon of Christianity has constantly evolved and is constantly evolving around fixed points defined by the magisterium, first from pagan denotations (theo, deus, Christ, ecclesia, Phylakas Angelos, homoousion, substance, etc) and, later, from different schools and movements within Christianity itself. It is better to help shape the language which has already become a part of the lexicon of the theology of the day than to defensively wish it hadn't arrived.
The concept of right practice is very biblical, of course, for "faith without works is dead," Sts. Paul and James teach, and as the prophets continually emphasized (Isaiah 1:11, 16-17; Amo 5:21-24; Hsa 6:6 ; Mk 12:33) . Our sacrifices and rites without justice are repugnant to YHWH. Traditionalists and maybe a few conservatives have much to gain from this word. And liberals must not make it a substitute for right belief, but an expression of it.
So the Mass and orthodoxy exist for right practice, good works, the fruits of the Spirit and the teachings of Jesus as found preeminently in the Beatitudes. This is the measure of whether we are approaching liturgy appropriately and as Catholics. If we only find irritants in a rite---gross abuses aside--- there is something wrong with our spiritual vision. We see the what only and not the Who and the why. The problem is with us, not with the Church's rites. [Stephen Hand: TCR Letters and Musings]
Sunday, October 05, 2003
Today's Johnny Cash lyrics are from a song he recorded on July 1, 1957...
Give My Love To Rose
I found him by the railroad track this morning
I could see that he was nearly dead
I knelt down beside him and I listened
Just to hear the words the dying fellow said
He said they let me out of prison down in Frisco
For ten long years I've paid for what I've done
I was trying to get back to Louisiana
To see my Rose and get to know my son
Give my love to Rose please won't you mister
Take her all my money, tell her to buy some pretty clothes
Tell my boy his daddy's so proud of him
And don't forget to give my love to Rose
Tell them I said thanks for waiting for me
Tell my boy to help his mom at home
Tell my Rose to try to find another
For it ain't right that she should live alone
Mister here's a bag with all my money
It won't last them long the way it goes
God bless you for finding me this morning
And don't forget to give my love to Rose
Give my love to Rose please won't you mister
Take her all my money, tell her to buy some pretty clothes
Tell my boy his daddy's so proud of him
And don't forget to give my love to Rose
Give My Love To Rose
I found him by the railroad track this morning
I could see that he was nearly dead
I knelt down beside him and I listened
Just to hear the words the dying fellow said
He said they let me out of prison down in Frisco
For ten long years I've paid for what I've done
I was trying to get back to Louisiana
To see my Rose and get to know my son
Give my love to Rose please won't you mister
Take her all my money, tell her to buy some pretty clothes
Tell my boy his daddy's so proud of him
And don't forget to give my love to Rose
Tell them I said thanks for waiting for me
Tell my boy to help his mom at home
Tell my Rose to try to find another
For it ain't right that she should live alone
Mister here's a bag with all my money
It won't last them long the way it goes
God bless you for finding me this morning
And don't forget to give my love to Rose
Give my love to Rose please won't you mister
Take her all my money, tell her to buy some pretty clothes
Tell my boy his daddy's so proud of him
And don't forget to give my love to Rose
Ruminations of Apolonio
(A Rerum Novarum Quadruple Slam)
A sampling of musings from a modern Catholic evangelist who quite possibly has the purest philosophical approach around. The first link is on morality in general - a sample of which reads as follows:
Thoughts
I just interviewed a couple of my classmates on the issue of morality. I asked, "What is morality?" All of their answers were relatavistic. One person answered, "Morality is a set of guidelines and rules you set for you to follow." This is what most believe. And I was scared of it. It seems as if an abolition of man is possible. If it is, then man is not man anymore, but a machine or an animal. We simply have not exterminated morality in practice, but in theory. It seems to me that men act as if they are "men without chests". But why? Wasn't September the 11th enough to convince us that there is such a thing as evil? We sometimes need to experience things in order to be convinced something is true. For More Go Here
I hate to say it but at times my pessimism is comparable to Apolonio's is at the above link. (I wonder how Apolonio would score on the Myers-Briggs profile but I digress.)
Thoughts on Sex
...What is love? Most people think it's a sort of emotion. It is not. Love is a matter of the will. Love is giving one's self for another; making a person's good your responsibility. It is a self-giving act. It is also a rational act, though above reason, it is not contrary to it. Wouldn't a person think before he gets married? It is not blind as people think it is. Lust is blind, not love. As Chesterton says, Love is not blind' that is the last thing it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind." Love does not bind your emotions to another, but it binds yourself. The more a person loves, the more responsibility he gets. For More Go Here
I believe it was Frank Sheed that once said that modern man as a rule never thinks about sex. Apparently he was not referring to Apolonio who quite clearly has :)
Thoughts on Beauty: My First Attempt
...A beautiful object reveals itself to the intellect. The more it reveals itself, the more beautiful it is. The intellect then is delighted in knowing the object. It satisfies our desires and produces love. Love then produces an ecstasy. This is why when we have listened to a beautiful music, it seems as if we have transcended ourselves. Every experience of beauty, Hans Urs Von Balthasar said, points to infinity. For More Go Here
I would argue that beauty is only in some things of a purely objective nature. Most of the time there is an undergirding subjective factor to it which needs to be faced squarely. But that is perhaps something that could be discussed another time. Finally, we have existential approaches to evangelization:
Evangelization:My Existential Approach
...There are different kinds of approaches to evangelization. It depends on the person or the people whom you are spreading the faith about. However, my first and basic step is to start from man. This is a popular starting point today and some probably disagree with it. However, I believe it is the best start that fits for the modern world. Some might call it the "existential approach". For More Go Here
In five words: Maurice Blondel, call your office ;-)
(A Rerum Novarum Quadruple Slam)
A sampling of musings from a modern Catholic evangelist who quite possibly has the purest philosophical approach around. The first link is on morality in general - a sample of which reads as follows:
Thoughts
I just interviewed a couple of my classmates on the issue of morality. I asked, "What is morality?" All of their answers were relatavistic. One person answered, "Morality is a set of guidelines and rules you set for you to follow." This is what most believe. And I was scared of it. It seems as if an abolition of man is possible. If it is, then man is not man anymore, but a machine or an animal. We simply have not exterminated morality in practice, but in theory. It seems to me that men act as if they are "men without chests". But why? Wasn't September the 11th enough to convince us that there is such a thing as evil? We sometimes need to experience things in order to be convinced something is true. For More Go Here
I hate to say it but at times my pessimism is comparable to Apolonio's is at the above link. (I wonder how Apolonio would score on the Myers-Briggs profile but I digress.)
Thoughts on Sex
...What is love? Most people think it's a sort of emotion. It is not. Love is a matter of the will. Love is giving one's self for another; making a person's good your responsibility. It is a self-giving act. It is also a rational act, though above reason, it is not contrary to it. Wouldn't a person think before he gets married? It is not blind as people think it is. Lust is blind, not love. As Chesterton says, Love is not blind' that is the last thing it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind." Love does not bind your emotions to another, but it binds yourself. The more a person loves, the more responsibility he gets. For More Go Here
I believe it was Frank Sheed that once said that modern man as a rule never thinks about sex. Apparently he was not referring to Apolonio who quite clearly has :)
Thoughts on Beauty: My First Attempt
...A beautiful object reveals itself to the intellect. The more it reveals itself, the more beautiful it is. The intellect then is delighted in knowing the object. It satisfies our desires and produces love. Love then produces an ecstasy. This is why when we have listened to a beautiful music, it seems as if we have transcended ourselves. Every experience of beauty, Hans Urs Von Balthasar said, points to infinity. For More Go Here
I would argue that beauty is only in some things of a purely objective nature. Most of the time there is an undergirding subjective factor to it which needs to be faced squarely. But that is perhaps something that could be discussed another time. Finally, we have existential approaches to evangelization:
Evangelization:My Existential Approach
...There are different kinds of approaches to evangelization. It depends on the person or the people whom you are spreading the faith about. However, my first and basic step is to start from man. This is a popular starting point today and some probably disagree with it. However, I believe it is the best start that fits for the modern world. Some might call it the "existential approach". For More Go Here
In five words: Maurice Blondel, call your office ;-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)