Prologue to "Points to Ponder" Series on Melkite Patriarch Maximos IV Saigh:

[Update: I am adding below the footnote the various sections as they blog to this weblog -having already been entered into the threads days in advance of their actual posting. -ISM (2/10/04 6:30 pm)]

For the next five or six few days, the points to ponder segments of this weblog will be from the same person: the very influential Melkite Patriarch Maximos IV Saigh. This man was a titan at the Second Vatican Council and wielded an authority that far exceeded he and the Oriental Catholic's numbers. Determined to make the Council break out of its Counter-reformation mindset -and habitual Latin tendencies- he made many suggestions in his interventions that were eventually adopted by the Council Fathers and to which the Holy Father gave his concurrence.

As most ahistorical self-styled "traditionalists" view these kinds of proposals as "modernist-influenced"{1}, shining a light on a little known but influential Council Father who headed the Oriental Church's participation at the Council may help some of my readers see the forest for the trees on these issues. They will be listed in order. However, not everything is a speech as much as a particular demand. For example, Patriarch Maximos demanded that the arrangements of Ferrara-Florence whereby the Patriarches are properly recognized as having greater authority than Cardinals be re-established. He made this known at the Second Session and from that point onward it was.

Likewise, in the first session he criticized the absurd legalisms of the curial schemas -particularly the ones in the schemas on the Church and on ecumenism- and expressed hope that the Council would correct these many deficiencies later on. As Council historians know, all the curial schemas were thrown out in the first session and the Council started anew with the second session. But enough on these points now as I want to get to the first points to ponder segment of this series without further delay.

Notes:

{1} And of course most pseudo-"progressivists" promote only the parts of them that they happen to like -while ignoring those which they do not like.

The second installment can be read HERE.

The third installment can be read HERE.

The fourth installment can be read HERE.

Lord Blackadder


What smashing Blackadder character are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

Recently Updated Weblogs:

The Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG

The Lidless Eye Inquisition BLOG

Michael Savage's Review of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ.

"Pope John Paul II" Dept.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

John S. Grabowski back in the mid 1990's wrote an article for the Homiletic and Pastoral Review which on the whole is quite good. His article was titled Evangelium Vitae and Humanae Vitae: A tale of two encyclicals. That article can be read HERE.

The basis of the article is the theory that Pope John Paul II has had as a hallmark of his approach to teaching moving from the language of natural law to more explicitly biblical categories{1} across the broad spectrum of moral subjects.{2} As this article touches primarily on the subject of contraception, let us briefly review the recent history of the Church's handling of this subject starting with Leo XIII and moving through to the present day.

As I noted earlier, Pope Leo XIII was pope at the time when the world's population began exploding due to overcoming the death rate in many areas. As people did not know how to handle this situation, it was not uncommon for them to resort to using contraceptive methods to deal with it. (Even in some cases abortion.) The manner whereby the Holy See handled this is interesting considering the approach that many self-styled "traditionalists" who like to throw around the "2000 years of history" moniker over every mid 1950's approach that they happen to like.{3}

Let us consider how the Church's handling of this issue changed in just a hundred and twenty odd years of time at least three times starting with Pope Leo XIII's pontificate circa 1880.

Despite what we noted above, Pope Leo XIII issued an encyclical letter on Christian marriage (Arcanum) which never once mentioned artificial contraception at all. Those readers who think it was because the Vatican was not aware of these goings-on reveal that they do not really know their history well. The Vatican was well aware of it. Indeed the Vatican despite these occurrences, resolutely did not want confessors asking married penitents about their birth control practices. They viewed this as "disturbing the faithful" and that such a broad frontal assault on this error would only make matters worse. They therefore sought more indirect approaches to the problem.

The Holy Office in this time period issued a couple of instructions on the manner of handling this subject. The men who instructed confessors on how to handle penitents (including St. John Vianney the Cure of Ars) reiterated this approach in their catechesis. As I noted above, the reason for this was that the Vatican wanted to approach this from the standpoint of respecting the consciences of the penitents and working through indirect means to form that conscience. This is often how the Church operates in situations of difficulty.{4} And that was how the Church approached the subject of contraception up to 1930.

Prior to 1930, all Christian churches and ecclesial communities rejected artificial contraception as evil so the only approach used was one of exhorting people to chastity in essence (and trying to influence those who resorted to birth control in indirect ways to properly form their consciences). Because of the unified stand of Christendom with Judaism and Islam on this subject, there was plenty of cultural reinforcement on the matter. All of that changed in 1930 with the Anglican Lambeth Conference when the Anglicans became the first Christian community to allow contraception. That opened the floodgate.

The Church was now going to have to approach this subject differently as a result. Pope Pius XI decided to ground the Church's teaching on arguments from natural law. Hence he issued the Encyclical Letter Casti Connubi on the last day of 1930 and took this approach to the subject. That was a stronger base of defense against artificial contraception than had been previously utilized. Pope Pius XI and his successors began appealing to natural law on this and various other subjects. Up until about 1960, this argument was still viewed as sound but then it quickly started to unravel. The reason: the birth control pill which for various reasons undermined the foundation of the "natural law" appeal in defending the Church's teaching on this subject. At that point, every other moral subject which in the decades prior to Vatican II had been grounded on "natural law" theory began to unravel as well. All of this to some extent is dealt with in the article above.

Grabowski covers the Church's changes in approach to this subject from 1930 to 1996 in his article. (They have not changed since then.) Except for the fact that he completely misses the boat on the subject of infallibility and its various applications (which is par for the course these days unfortunately),{5} the article is an interesting and informative read.

The only thing I would note here is that the origination of taking a personalist approach to the subject in papal teaching did not originate with Pope John Paul II. Pope Paul VI planted the seeds for it in his Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae. (Influenced I am sure by his advisor Cardinal Karol Wojtyla{6} on the matter.) Other than that minor oversight, it is a good and recommended read for a better understanding of how the current pope approaches all moral issues.

Notes:

{1} I say that natural law is "implicit" because it is based on St. Paul's teaching in Romans i,18ff as a logical extension of this reasoning.

{2} And he sustains this theory with several corroborates theses I might add -though not all of them are of the same effectiveness or weight.

{3} Though I must note that some who do this are not using this kind of approach to the subject to be provocative but in an honest desire to understand. One such example of this is Jeff Culbreath from El Camino Real whom readers of this humble weblog know is among our favourite blogosphere personages.

{4} Indeed Pope John Paul II's handling of the non Christians at Assisi was by the same approach: an explicit appeal to the conscience of his hearers and seeking to indirectly form that conscience through prayer (in accordance with conscience) and targeted catechesis approaches. (Such as utilizing a Pauline recapitulation of the entire theme of peace in Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace.) This is why I find the shrieks of "novelty" by detractors rather amusing: they so clearly do not understand that the application to this subject is new but the methodology being undertaken is not.

{5} Grabowski's fundamental flaw here is that he does not realize that one means of handing on a teaching definitively is by reiteration. He touches on this briefly and then dismisses the argument as non-applicable. This is unfortunate because any informed theologian knows that it is the reiteration of this teaching (not the arguments used to support it) that is its grounds for definitive character.

Grabowski also does not seem to realize that a teaching does not have to be de fide to be infallible and thus compel definitive assent. Other than those points, the article is a very good and informative piece.

{6} Currently reigning as Pope John Paul II.

The Alternative to War

From PLO Terrorist to Lover of Zion

The above links are courtesy of Little Green Footballs.

We at Rerum Novarum take great pleasure to announce that Our good friend Dave Armstrong is now part of the blogosphere officially. His weblog will be added to the margin of links in the coming days but in the interim, you can view it HERE. Let Us be the first to say "welcome to St. Blogs Dave." We look forward to future blog discussions on...well...whatever either of us wants to muse on.

Further Reflections and a Clarification:
(Viz. the Joint Statements of Rerum Novarum and SecretAgentMan's Dossier)

During the past couple of weeks, We at Rerum Novarum in conjunction with the Dossier had occasion to comment jointly on the lamentable acrimony which had sprung up between two of our favorite Christian commentators on the Internet. We also made a short clarifying blog some days later, imploring our friends not to take the original commentary as a casus belli. We sincerely believe, and continue to believe, the truth of what we pointed out in the original commentary (a/k/a "Appeal to the Warring Houses of Montague and Capulet") and in the fairness and aptness of what we wrote in it.

However, on reflection one point should be made that has not, as yet, been made. We spent a good deal of time writing about why we believe the Capulet and Montague cannot get along with one another. We spent little, if any, time explaining our broader perspective that their lapses are -- while having unique aspects in their specific case -- still examples of failings which commonly plague men involved in passionate discourse. Not to put too fine a point on it, their faults have not caused them to do anything which has no examples of their own in our experiences.

Each of us has encountered individuals with whom, for some reason which seems inexplicable to us, civil discourse is extremely difficult if not impossible, even though our interlocutors seemed to get along fine with virtually everyone we and they know. This is not the time or place to expound on those affairs; having already judged our two friends, it is not meet that we should be the first to issue a judgment on ourselves. Others, if there is need, should be respectfully permitted the first opportunity to examine our misdeeds, just as we have taken on ourselves first opportunity to examine the misdeeds of our two friends.

It is enough that we say clearly that we do not believe our friends are guilty in areas where we ourselves are blameless, and note that our original commentary drew upon our experiences as well as on more abstract sources. We note this publicly in the event that there was any confusion on this matter to thereby dissipate it henceforth in perpetuity.

"Hap-py Birth-day Ron-ald-us Mag-nus" Dept.

At this time I want to refer you back to what I posted a year ago today on this subject: a tribute, parts of a speech that is more relevant today than it was forty years ago when Reagan delivered it, etc. There is also a bit of an "I told you so" to my good friend Lane Core Jr. who was at the time going along with the commentators who were trying to claim that Bush was the second coming of Reagan. I had nipped that theory in the bud earlier that year but Bush himself has confuted that theory better than anything I said on the matter. (Not to diminish my own arguments on the matter.) I have to ask you Lane, do you still want to make that claim??? Inquiring minds want to know.

Have a happy birthday President Reagan and may you see upon your death -which is probably not long from now- the countenance of the Lamb of God saying to you "well done good and faithful servant" for the tremendous work you did in upholding the banner of authentic liberty in one of the periods of history where it was in serious danger of being snuffed out. Your successors have not measured up to you but you established a benchmark of sorts to aim for in rolling back the forces of tyranny. Thank you for that and for your influence on my own intellectual formation.

Weblog Writings Update:

I just heard from 'Matt1618' the other day -whose site hosts so many of the web writings of your humble servant. He informed me that the advertisements no longer pop up at his site anymore; ergo those who had problems with the ads before should not have problems in that area anymore. This is something that Matt has been trying to get done for over six months or more -due for the most part to the increasingly unCatholic ads that were appearing in banners at the top of the articles.

I do not not know how he finally did it (being a computer sub-competent person as I am) but nonetheless it is done and that problem is no longer a problem now. He suggested that if you go to an article and see an ad to clear your cache. Then try again and the ads should be absent.

On the Pope, Moral Principles, the UN, and Stephen Hand:
(A Dialogue)

My words in this exchange will be in regular font with all sources in darkblue font. My previous words in purple font. All other words will be from the one who sent me this email -their sources in the same font but italicized.

Hi XXXXX:

I will probably blog a version of this to Rerum Novarum because (i) I do not like to as a rule muse without the weblog and (ii) this exchange does allow me to clarify some points on these matters. However, your name will be omitted for confidentiality sake.

Well, that may be true but the US is frankly hypocritical in its stand on Iraq in light of the moral degeneracy that we allow. If I was a Muslim living in the Middle East and I saw what the United States was exporting to my people, I would probably join Al Queda too. The idea that the Muslims are rejecting westernization" in the realm of technology and the like is bunk. They are rejecting the immorality element being exported to them. They do not want their daughters to become sluts and their wives to become paramours.

Shawn, I am actually surprised that you would use this argument. Following the line of reasoning you posit here about if you were a Muslim living in the Middle East you would probably join Al Qaeda, due to the immorality the US exports, you would have to say that if you were a Catholic living in the US, you would probably join SSPX or some other schismatic or heretical group because of all the sexual abuse scandals and the refusal of the bishops to really do something substantive about it. You would also have to say, viz. the same line of reasoning, that the Church is being hypocritical preaching chastity while all this is going on.

To take your points in sequence:

1) I was in fact affiliated with the SSPX for about fifteen years -and some of it was due to what you note above about the weakness of the bishops in addressing abuses in their dioceses. However, every movement has its extremists.

Al Queda just happens to be the extremists of the Muslim contingent. And to some Muslims undoubtedly, they are a means in their minds to achieving an end of western corruption in their societies. Remember, the dictum that "the end does not justify the means" is part of Catholic moral principles, not Muslim moral principles. Hence, I can say that if I was a Muslim I could act as I noted there and probably would. But as a Catholic I cannot.

The same is the case with the death penalty: if I was not a Catholic I would be railing for hangings at high noon every day. But as I am, I do not do these things.

2) If I took your stand I would have to weigh in against America for the monumental abuses to the Constitution that happen daily. As per the faith, GK Chesterton noted once that "Christianity is not tried and found wanting, it was not tried" and that is the problem with the scandals you refer to as well as the problems on the political landscape that you see. The root problem in both cases is the same.

You and I know damned well that Al Qaeda's beef with us has nothing to do with moral degeneracy we allow or our exportation of it. Al Qaeda attracts some of the worst moral reprobates, not only in terms of their penchant for violence, but also in their sexual proclivities, to its ranks.

So does the ultra-ultra-fringe of the radtrads. Did you know there are cults on the fringes of "traditionalism" that actually exempt their leaders from the moral code of Catholicism by a "special dispensation from God" or a "special dispensation of the Blessed Virgin"??? This is par for the course with the ultra-ultra fringes of any movement and Al Queda is the ultra-ultra fringe of militant Islam.

We now know that some of the 9/11 hijackers were in nudie bars getting drunk...just days before the attacks. I guess you can say that they were just warming up for the 72 virgins in paradise.

I never said that there was a lacuna of hypocrisy amongst the ultra-ultra fringe of militant Islam.

Actually, the rejection of westernization in the realm of technology on the part of radical Muslims DOES have some credibility when you consider the rather squalored conditions the Taliban forced the Afghani people to live in.

True.

Furthermore, they don't have to worry about us turning their daughters into sluts and and wives into paramours. They already beat us to it. Look at the way women are treated in Muslim cultures. If men being able to have harems is not turning their daughters into sluts and wives into paramours, nothing is.

Well, you are essentially casting aspersions on the Old Testament Patriarchs for doing the same thing then. Since Abraham, Jacob, David, and others are saints in our tradition. Yet all of them had multiple wives -in David's case about five hundred of them. If merely having many wives means that one is turning them into paramours then God sanctioned David doing this. (See 2 Samuel xii,7-8.) I would revise your argument for that reason my friend.

To add insult to injury, the women are forced to dress completely veiled to give the whole thing an appearance of modesty (Now granted, one is tempted to want to give Hiilary Clinton and Patricia Ireland a one-way ticket to Saudi Arabia for a little attitude adjustment and that Monica Lewinsky would look more attractive in a burhka than a thong, but that's beside the point.)

I concur with both points there :)

America, despite its serious moral problems, doesn't have the drop on the Islamic Middle East in the immorality department.

We promote artificial contraception, abortion, and euthanasia as sacraments. Need I say more???

Furthermore, I think the US, again, despite its own grave faults, is morally superior to the naysaying anti-war European types.

See my previous comments.

Ever been to Europe?

Not yet.

When I was in Italy a few years ago, I couldn't believe how pornographic their billboard signs were. They make ours look like paragons of modesty (and ours are in no way modest, of course). And when liberals like Alan Colmes say that Europe is more enlightened than America regarding sexual attitudes, you know we have the drop on them in the chastity department, and, of course America is not a chaste country, by any stretch of the imagination, unfortunately.

Remember though, we are the leaders of the free world whether we like it or not. Therefore, we have a greater responsibility in this area than the rest of the world since in many ways they follow our lead. Claude Frederic Bastiat said in the 1840's that if freedom dies in America that it would die all over the world. And freedom -authentic freedom I mean- is dying in this country my friend.

Wanna know what I think the radical Islam's main beef with the US is? You might find this laughable, but I think radical Islam sees the US as the economic and political epicenter of Judeo-Christianity. And that's the issue right there. Why else would they constantly saddle us with the pro-Israel Crusader moniker.

This is a factor too. It is a complex mosaic not done justice to with the kind of simplistic theories propounded by many people -even so-called "intellectual elites."

Don't get me wrong, I do not in any way wish to downplay the seriousness of America's moral plight viz. the war on terror. But it must understood in its proper perspective. We didn't get attacked nor are we still being threatened because of our export of immorality.

We were attacked because (i) we have been leading the world in promoting decadence and (ii) we failed for a long time to show backbone in the face of much smaller assaults on us. The terrorists know that if they can make us grovel that the rest of the world will follow suit.

But our ability to defeat terrorism is going to depend, in large part, on our moral health. Remember the words of Alexis de Toucqeville "America will be great only as long it is good." (Gee, the French were actually good for something other than being a diplomatic pain in the ass at one time.) A morally lax people will not endure the sacrifices that this war on terror will require.

True. Have you read my weblog series on Claude Frederic Bastiat yet??? He essentially concurred with his collegue de Toucqeville in that area but took it further in proposing what was needed to maintain authentic freedom in society. He did this at the heighth of the Revolution of 1848 in France and virtually no one listened. If they had, the world would be a lot better place today than it is.

I have based numerous related arguments on these theories including my defense of the three fundamental rights of man, ideas for differentiating between legitimate rights and legitimate freespeech from the various counterfeits, and even my ideas for rider reform have a foundation in these theories. It would be impossible to list all the areas where this has applied over the years in my arguments though I have a fairly complete list of explicit references from this weblog in its first fourteen months in the archives somewhere. Since then, the number of posts in this area has increased since it is 2004 and I am preparing for the election early. (To try and have some influence on the election even if only in a minor way.)

The 2000 race was a photofinish literally and I do not expect 2004 to be much different. It could have been a pretty convincing win but Bush is shooting his re-election bid in the head over and over because of a serious bout of the rovehaze. Only if the Democratic nominee really screws up in some way will it avoid being a close race at this point. But more importantly than who is president is who we elect to congress.

The entire House and one third of the Senate is up for re-election. I would love to see at least one significant congressman endorse my rider reform proposal as one step in the right direction to fixing the problems in this country -as it would put a heavy check on backdoor porkbarrel dealing. But I digress.

In short, there are a lot of ways to deal with what is wrong in this country and the moral angle is one of them (and it is important of course). But as laws are the last vestage of the unruly, I fear we need to have the laws reinforced first. Moral turnarounds generally take a while barring some significant Divine intervention. But if we can at least shore up and inculcate into people's minds the difference between the law properly utilized and the law perverted, that will be a strong foundation for rebuilding society's shattered moral compass.{1}

During the American Revolution, the colonialists never doubted that they would be victorious over the British. You know why? It sure wasn't because they believed that they were better trained or better equipped. It was because they believed that they were MORALLY SUPERIOR to the British Army, which they were. They discovered by fighting along side them during the French and Indian War and by observing those troops stationed in the new World that they (the British) were moral reprobates. They got drunk, chased women, and even committed murder.

True.

The moral sensitivity of our military has unfortunately become much like that of the Lobster Bellies, sans the murder. I had a first hand exposure to this (and I admit shamefully that I engaged in it, again sans the murder) during my eight years in the Navy. So, noone can tell me that the Church's teaching on sexual morality is just mythical speculation of a bunch of cranky celibates locked in the Vatican. I know through bitter experience that the Church is dead on in the area of sexuality.

So did I though not in the same way as you. (As I never served in the military.)

And since the military plays, arguably, the most important role in the war on terror, this is a cause of grave concern. Along with their unwillingness to build up our military in terms of personnel, the seeming lack of alarm at the rampant social engineering going on is a grave defect in this Administration's military policy. And I say that as one who has a great respect for Don Rumsfeld. Some of political and ecclesiastical leaders can take a few lessons from him on how to handle the media.

I agree with you that Rumsfeld is one of the jewels of Bush's cabinet.

Yes but the Vatican's main point of emphasis is the realm of morals and the US has no cause for throwing any stones in that area despite the pretensions of Bush and company.

Well, I would have to say that the refusal to honor one's word viz. resolutions and gravytraining the sufferings of the Iraqi people are serious moral issues. And the silence of Vatican diplomats on those two issues inflicts a serious wound to the Vatican's credibility in being a moral force on the geopolitical scene. I would also have to say that the US has acted more responsibly in the Iraq situation than Cdl. Martino and company. Heck, even the NCCB's statement on the Iraq war showed a greater sense of responsibility than that of many Vatican officials. And admitting that the NCCB acted more responsibly than the Vatican is something I don't even like to entertain as a thought, much openly acknowledge. But remember what I said about calling them as I see them.

I happen to have predicted the Vatican's position on this before it was made known by Zenit. This is at bottom a case of the pope taking the same approach of consistency that he does with capital punishment. See this link for details:

[Stephen] tries to be very careful in light of his own Integrist past on these matters. Plus, he is I believe a pacifist which is (of course) fine. I have respect for conscientious objectors such as [Stephen] while having *no* respect for the Moveon.org crowd. The difference between the two is the difference between legitimate difference of opinion and sedition.

I can understand being careful not to openly criticize the Vatican. One of the reasons why I have requested that these e-mails stay private for the time being is that I am a little gunshy when it comes to criticizing the Vatican myself.

I blogged this one (but not all of it) because I believe your view on this is one that a fair amount of people have. I also removed your name from the text so confidentiality would be assured.

I have no problem with someone taking issue with the war, although I supported it.

As did I. My stance there has not wavered -though admittedly I am less pleased with the whole process than I was a year ago.{2}

But there is no excuse for the cheapshotish way [Stephen] went about expressing his difference of opinion viz. the piece in question.

I looked at the entry you mention and though I do not concur with more than maybe half of it, I only saw two points which I would take issue with from the standpoint of viable opinions. The issue about Bush and serving in Vietnam was one of them. The other was this one:

The U.S. would be more credible if it acted to rid itself of its own---the world's largest--- stockpile of nuclear and biological weapons (we are, afterall, the only nation on earth which has invented, sold and used such weapons against whole civilian populations, including the most Catholic city in Japan) and when it intervenes against its own interests (oil or otherwise) on behalf of disinterested righteousness.

The fact that Japan and Germany were trying to come up with these weapons and we simply did so first -and the fact that a million US soldiers would probably have died in a land invasion of Japan- are enough to deal with the complaint about our bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As far as chemical weapons go, (i) we never used them -at least not since the Geneva protocols after WWI and (ii) our possession of them during WWII prevented Hitler from using them. This is a documented fact and is not even debatable. That is some of the value of deterrance.

Does this mean that we should still have them??? This is hard to say since if terrorists get their hands on chemical weapons, we without them are stuck with either conventional or nuclear options to oppose them and no middle ground. I prefer to have that middle ground option myself. This is not Manifest Destiny on my part, merely a recognition of what Bastiat noted a hundred and fifty years ago: if freedom dies in America it will die everywhere else.

If that eminent French economist and statesman -and probably the greatest exponent of authentic freedom in history-{3} recognized this fact back then, we should be asking ourselves (i) why we do not recognize it now and (ii) why we are so docile in the face of the freedoms we have lost and those we are in the process of losing as I write this.

In summary, those two points aside, I have no problems with Stephen's editorial from the standpoint of legitimate differences of opinion. If you want to write a Guest Editorial on it for Rerum Novarum, I have no objections and will gladly post it for you. However, I will offer Stephen equal time to respond to it.

Notes:

{1} Along with these aims would be supplying proper definitions for such nebulously utilized terms such as "rights" and "freespeech" and confuting the idea that something becomes moral or immoral by virtue of a law being passed that sanctions or forbids it.

{2} In light of recent questions about the accuracy of Powell and company's comments at the time, I was wise to restrict my position at the time to exclude those comments. Thus, unlike a lot of partisans on this issue (i.e this one) I have not fallen on my face and had to do an about face.

{3} Oh and yes, he was Catholic too.

For the most part, this is accurate...


What Common Breed of Dog Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

According to The Secret One, Fr. Bryce Sibley has proposed Oscars for St. Blogs. They have taken it seems the name of "Sibley's." We at Rerum Novarum feel that nominations in at least two categories are in order -see this link for details.

An Election Update:
(With a Little Analysis at No Extra Charge)

[Note: I have updated this post to reflect all the primaries and caucuses. -ISM 6:40pm]

For those who did not hear about it yet, John F-word Kerry cleaned up in the February 2nd primaries. Here are the tallies as of last night courtesy of Drudge:


AZ Kerry 43, Clark 27, Dean 14.
MO Kerry 51, Edwards 25, Dean 9
SC Edwards 45, Kerry 30, Sharpton 10, Clark 7
OK Clark 30, Edwards 30, Kerry 27
DE Kerry 43, Clark 27, Lieberman 11, Edwards 11, Dean 10, Clark 9
NM Kerry 37, Clark 22, Dean 19, Edwards 10
ND Kerry 51, Clark 24, Dean 12, Edwards 10

Let us see:

---Kerry won over Clark in Arizona by sixteen points with Dean in third twenty-nine points back. (And Lieberman and Edwards tied in fourth at thirty-three points back.)

---Kerry won over Edwards in Missouri by twenty-six points with Dean in third forty-two points back.

---Kerry won over Clark in Delaware by sixteen points with Lieberman and Edwards tying for third at thirty-two points back. (Dean placed fourth at thirty-three points back and Clark in fifth at thirty-four points back.)

---Kerry won over Clark in North Dakota by twenty-seven points with Dean in third thirty-nine points back. (And Edwards in fourth forty-one points back.)

---Kerry won over Clark in New Mexico by fifteen points with Dean in third at eighteen points back. (And Edwards in fourth twenty-seven points back.)

However, it was not all good news for Senator Kerry.

---Clark won over Edwards by a squeaker in Oklahoma with Kerry in third three points back. (And Joe Lieberman in fourth at twenty-three points back.)

---Edwards won over Kerry in South Carolina by fifteen points with Reverend Al Sharpton in third thirty-five points back. (And Clark in fourth at thirty-eight points back.)

John Edwards has established himself as a contender,{1} Wesley Clark is the new dark horse candidate, Joe Lieberman has withdrawn from the race,{2} and the Deanitania has received more missle blasts below the waterline and is sinking. Meanwhile the crowd dances on and the band continues to play and the Deanings are ever optimistic. At least for now.

Since Edwards is from South Carolina, one would expect after his placings in Iowa and New Hampshire to win this state or place darn respectably.{3} So it is difficult to see anyone as a real threat to Kerry yet.

In the case of Edwards, he will have to win a few more times to be a real challenger and Clark needs to actually win in more than a tossup to even remain viable after the next round. (Though four second place showings helps in this area.) Nonetheless, we can say with certainty at this point that (i) it is now down to four candidates{4} (ii) Kerry has a commanding lead and (iii) right now it appears that Dean is the "weakest link" of the bunch. Who would have thought this to be the case a month ago my friends??? No one but then again, I have said many times that a month is a long time in politics. A year by comparison is an eternity.

Having noted that, I remind you all that (i) Kerry could still lose the nomination and (ii) Bush could still lose the White House.{5} There is lots of time left and virtually anything could happen between now and November. But I digress.

Notes:

{1} The last thing we need is a trial lawyer for president unless the Secret One decides to run. (Or even one of the other lawyers at St. Blogs such as Dale Price or The Mighty One.) If Edwards were to win, tort reform so badly needed in this country -including the abolition of class action lawsuits- would never happen.

I only say that he is a contender here because of previous strong placings in Iowa and New Hampshire. (And because Edwards almost won Oklahoma over Clark.) He and Clark won a primary each but Clark earns dark horse status by virtue of four second place showings. Edwards by contrast did well in previous primaries and caucuses, won one primary, almost won a second one, and placed second at two others. He is the new contender and Clark the new dark horse. Dean is now fourth in this grouping in a race of four real candidates now that Lieberman has dropped out.

{2} I blew my prediction of Dean winning New Hampshire and though I will not add this to my predictions list -as that list is set in stone of course- guess who now becomes the ultimate VP candidate??? If you said Joe Lieberman you are right. These people are too wacko to go with Hillary or someone like that and Lieberman would give a balance that all of these people need. You heard it here first if it happens.

{3} The reason: he is from South Carolina. I mean even Walter Mondulldale won his home state in the 1984 election. He also won Washington DC. Of course he lost by almost twenty points in the popular vote and a 525-13 nuking by President Reagan too.

{4} It is rather amusing to your weblog host (for a variety of reasons) that the Reverend Al Sharpton beat Dean in South Carolina.

{5} Particularly if he does not shake off the rovehaze and start governing as the man he ran as during the election in 2000.

Today is the one year anniversary of the 2003 Space Shuttle explosition. I want to draw your attention at this time to the tribute to them I posted last year and exhort you to pause for a few moments today and pray for the eternal repose of their souls.

The Aggiornamento of Rerum Novarum:
(Via Ressourcement)

I will probably add a few more bits in the coming days as I just realized that some links since the last update were not added that I intended to add.{1} Nonetheless, here is what was added when I updated this weblog back on Friday (listed by category):

General Political/Social Subjects

Some Key Evidence of Democratic Demagogery and Self-Destruction (Aka "Reductionum ad Hitlerum" Dept.) [>>>]

Is the United States Government a Democracy or a Republic??? [>>>]

Musings on the State of the Union Address [>>>]

A Rider Reform Proposal [>>>]

On the "Pro Life or Bust" Approach to Politics (An Envoy Encore Message Box Post) [>>>]

More on the "Pro Life or Bust" Approach to Politics and the Political Situation in General (More Envoy Encore Message Box Posts) [>>>]

On President Bush's Mars Policy (With Ronnie Van Zant) [>>>]

The Fundamental Flaws of Roe vs. Wade and its Supporters [>>>]


Political Election Issues

On President Bush, the Upcoming Primaries, the Upcoming Election, and Standing on Principles [>>>]

"Engrave the Tombstone" Dept. (Musings on the Democratic Primary Race) [>>>]

Musings on the Iowa Caucus [>>>]


Political Miscellany

On Church/State Conflicts of the Present in Light of the Past, Political Ideologies, Etc. (With Kevin Tierney) [>>>]

More on Political Theories, Etc. (With Kevin Tierney) [>>>]


On 'Traditionalism' Falsely So-Called

Dialogue On Liturgy [>>>]

On Archbishop Lefebvre, the Indult Liturgy, Etc. [>>>]

The post on Lefebvre was not categorized here because the person I was responding to is a pseudo-'traditionalist.' (Though that I kept their name anonymous would mitigate against that assumption.) Instead it was posted here for the subject matter only. However, as this post also touches on legitimate apostolates as well, there is less of a dichotomy in this entry than is common for an entry of this kind of classification.


On 'Traditionalism' Properly So-Called

Miscellaneous Musings on the Kiss of Peace [>>>]

On the Liturgy and Liturgical Reform [>>>]


On Controverted Subjects

As this category is quite large now, I am going to have to add some subdivisions and recategorize some of these links. However, that is for either the next update or another one down the road at this time.

More on the Canon of Scripture [>>>]

More Dialogues With Tim Enloe (Recapitulation of Previous Discussion Themes and Some Additional Points in Brief --Parts I-II) [>>>]

Responding to Some Declarations of Brian Tierney (Parts I-III) [>>>]

On Limbo, Nature, Grace, and Related Tidbits [>>>]

Dialogue on the Death Penalty Redux (With Greg Mockeridge) [>>>]

On Apologetics Arguments and the Papacy (Rerum Novarum Responds to Societas Christiana) [>>>]

An Appeal to the Warring Houses of Montague and Capulet: A Joint Declaration (With SecretAgentMan's Dossier) [>>>]

A Clarification Viz. Certain Points of Our Previous "Joint Declaration" (With SecretAgentMan's Dossier) [>>>]

On Pascendi and Pondering Proscribed and Permissible Philosophical Paradigms (With Apolonio Latar III) [>>>]


Spiritual Instruction

Spiritual Instruction on Charity [>>>]


Other Approved Sites or Links of Interest

I reclassified my "predictions for 2003" to this category from general political subjects and added the following links:

Puerto Vallarta Special Reports (Parts I-II) [>>>]

Predictions for 2004 [>>>]

Various Quizzes of the Past Year Plus [>>>]

George W. Bush "Conspiracy Generator" [>>>]

Deanings: The Game [>>>]

And for those who have not had their "medieval pomp" fix for the day, you will now be accomodated in that area...

Wherefore, in light of the aforementioned additional links which will be subsequently added later on to complete this update -and which will in no way derogate from what is enjoined above, by the authority vested in me as Sovereign Thane and Lord High Executioner of Rerum Novarum, I declare that the above links are hereunder added to the scroll motu proprio and furthermore decree that they are to be recognized herewith as stable and valid as they are herewith set forth in perpetuity all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Note:

{1} Basically nothing between mid December and my return from Puerto Vallarta was included except the two blogs from Puerto Vallarta. I will post those links I intend to add here for anyone who is interested:

Under the General Political/Social Musings category, I will be adding the following link:

Briefly on Colonel Muammar Khaddafi's Situation

Under the Traditionalism' Properly So-Called category, I will be adding this link from early November -which I accidentally overlooked not only in this update but the previous one too:

On the Liturgical Movement (A Society of St. John Mini-Series; Prologue by I. Shawn McElhinney)

Under the Controverted Subjects category, I will be adding the following links:

On the Meaning of Life (Dialogue With Albert Cipriani)

More on the Papacy and Ideas (Societas Christiana vs. Rerum Novarum)

These will be inserted into the respective categories they belong in their chronological order. I may also do that category subdivisions of the "controverted subjects" thread at that time too if I have time to do so.

On David Kay and His Testimony:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

As I noted earlier I was planning on commenting on the David Kay subject; however it seems to me that this link says it all rather economically. Mr. Kay does not believe there were stockpiles of WMD's in Iraq. However, it seems that the media wants to focus on the word "stockpiles" and not on the rest of what Mr. Kay had to say on the matter including the following.

Mr. Kay also:

--Does believe that the problem lay in misinformed intelligence sources.

--Does favour an independent inquiry into the intelligence failures.

--Does believe that weapons could nonetheless still be found.

--Does believe that the hunt for weapons should continue.

--Does believe that much evidence had been lost in the immediate aftermath of the war because of the looting and chaos.

--Does believe that some Iraqis probably took advantage of the instability to destroy any evidence of weapons programmes.

--Does not believe that US intelligence had been distorted by government pressure in the run-up to last year's US-led war.

In short, Mr. Kay:

--Does not believe that the Bush Administration lied in spite of liberal buffoons and Deanings assertions to the contrary.

But watch only the first point of the above list be emphasized by those who hate (as opposed to simply dislike or disagree with) President Bush. And watch the assertion that "Bush lied" or someone else in his administration lied. Recall what I noted earlier, about solipsism.{1} That applies in spades with these kinds of people and do not ever forget it.

Note:

{1} I may have to amend the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG to add the definition of that term since it is so applicable in many ways to a lot of agenda driven partisans.

On Archbishop Lefebvre, the Indult Liturgy, Etc.

Dear Shawn,

Again, many thanks for the sites, which have been so helpful in answering many of my concerns.

You are welcome.

Would you be kind enough to consider one more question?

Sure.

The most common view of Archbishop Lefebrve in "traditionalist" and Trad circles is that he single-handedly, with the exception of a handful of independent priests, saved the Tridentine Mass from extinction by his defiance of the Vatican mandates re: the Mass and his Society.

Yes, I used to hear that all the time. (Not to mention read it in SSPX-friendly publications.)

His actions are not seen as disobedience for all those various reasons, which I don't need to repeat for you.

Thank you for sparing me the thousand and first reiteration of that well-beaten subject.

Therefore, if one attends the either the Society Masses or the Indult, you owe the ability to do so to the late Archbp., who is above criticism. (Though not necessarily the SSPX, in their later actions.)

Prior to 1976, Archbishop Lefebvre was heading a movement within the Church with the blessing of the Church authorities. In 1970, he and a few bishops petitioned Pope Paul VI for Indults to celebrate the older liturgy. Pope Paul VI had already made provisions for the private celebration of the Tridentine liturgy for elderly priests who either (i) were unable to learn the new celebratory form of the Roman Missal or (ii) who were able to but wanted to celebrate the older liturgy in their private daily masses.

Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Heenan requested an Indult to celebrate the older liturgy in greater freedom than the limited rescripts of the provisions previously made by the Pope and he approved of them. However, it is important to note that the liturgy at Econe was not celebrated in a uniform manner either at the time or probably even now.{1}

From 1976-1988 the Archbishop cultivated an overtly schismatic mentality and a material schism. However, despite the irregular situation there was no manifested intention to break with the See of Peter. That changed in 1988 when the Vatican gave him a clear line not to cross if he wanted to retain communion with the Church. By choosing to cross that line, he made explicit and formal a previously implicit and material schism.{2} That is the long and short of it really. Your email however involves the end of this situation mainly the widened Indult provision created as a result of the Archbishop's schism.

You ask if this means that those of the Indult owe some debt to His Grace for the Tridentine liturgy being preserved???{3} I suppose one could make this argument but then again, this kind of argument can be extended a lot more than most people would presume. For by the same rationale we probably owe Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli some degree of thanks for the Council of Trent's doctrinal formulations.

So... suppose you really like the TLM and find it a spiritual good, and are grateful for the Indult, which lets you attend it in good conscience.

Ok.

But, in spite of that, you have reservations about taking advantage of a good derived out of disobedience.

I think I see where you are going with this. But every good I can think of is to some extent derived from a previous disobedience or error. I mean, would we have the canon of Scripture if not for forgeries which reached such epic proportions that settling the extent of the canon was viewed as necessary??? Would we have the definition of the Trinity without the heresies of Arius and a couple other heresarches in the fourth and subsequent centuries???

Would we have any of the teaching of any of the Ecumenical Councils or any of the dogmatic judgments of the popes without those who erred prompting such judgments being handed down??? We could also carry this into more recent times as well and ask if the Roman Catechism have been compiled if not for the problems of the sixteenth century viz the handing on of doctrine???

Would we have the benefit today of Pope St. Pius X's crusade to lower the age of communion reception and promote frequent communion reception if not for the rigorous Jansenist heresy -the remaining remnants of which he was clearly opposing??? Would we have the crown jewel of the Catechism of the Catholic Church without the previous period of catechesis problems??? The answer I believe to all of these questions is "no."

Please note though, in pointing these out to you I am not in any way condoning the disobedience or error involved in bringing about these situations of course.{4} However, I believe those utilizing the Ecclesia Dei widened Indult (which came about as a direct response to Archbishop Lefebvre's schism) need to view its existence much as the other examples I noted.

FWIW, the argument vs. this is that Church history is full of similar situations of apparent disobedience, which turned out for the good, but I've never heard anyone come up with a specific example.

I just noted several of them.

I'm not expressing this well, I can tell - I guess the question is: what is the answer to those who claim that any criticism of the Archbp. is ingratitude b/c without him there would be no TLM to attend at all?

The proper response to these kinds of assertions is that no goal -however laudable it may be- justifies the crime of fomenting schism in the Church. The end does not and cannot justify the means if there is to be any viable way of checking immorality.

It would seem, on one hand, that disapproval of the Archbp.'s methods would commit you to the N.O., but what about the Indult? Is it a question of how one goes about acheiving one's aspirations?

Yes. One can use many means to achieve the same end. Not all means are of the same value however.

Our e-mail is out at the moment, so could you post this to the blog? I can't be the only person who's wondered about this...

Your wish is granted. Hopefully this brief response will be of assistance.

Notes:

{1} I explain part of this HERE.

{2} For those who are interested, I go over these subjects in my treatise HERE and HERE. Please note in advance though that none of what is covered in these two urls applies to the Indult apostolates or most of their supporters.

{3} There were movements besides Lefebvre's in this equation as well including The Latin Mass Society and many others. One could see their influence behind the Holy Father's 1984 Indult which was later obrogated by the Ecclesia Dei development which came about as a result of Lefebvre's failure to maintain his communion with the Church.

{4} I am not violating the axiom that "the end does not justify the means" here by any means.

On Pascendi and Pondering Proscribed and Permissible Philosophical Paradigms:
(0600 Post-Chai Interactions with Apolonio Latar III)

You will have to pardon your humble servant at Rerum Novarum if these thoughts are not as sharp as is my norm since my mental tube amps are still in the "warming up" stage. I have had my first chai for the day so in that respect I am on better ground than other early morning musings that were posted to this weblog.{1} But then again in other respects the playing field is evened for reasons noted at the first footnote.

In this response, Apolonio's words will be in a kind of dark pink-red and his sources italicized. My words will be in regular font with my sources in dark blue. Without further ado, let us get to it.

Hello all,

Hi Apolonio:

I am having a dialogue/debate with a person on modernism. And we are going to analyze Pascendi.

I hope you have gotten the person you are dialoguing with to define the term "modernism" in advance. Otherwise you and them could go all over the map unnecessarily and the dialogue will suffer for it.

Therefore, I offer the following definition to you for your dialogue:

Modernism is described in the encyclical Pascendi (Sept. 7, 1907) of Pope Pius X as "a synthesis of all heresies."...Its foundation is in agnosticism (the teaching that God can in no way be the object of certain knowledge), and in Immanence (q.v., the teaching that foundation of faith must be sought in an internal sense which arises from man's need of God). From these principles, allied with various evolutionary doctrines, Modernism sets out to demolish dogmas (which it calls variable symbols), sacraments (which it reduces to faith-nourishing signs), the authenticity and genuineness of the Scriptures, the Church, and ecclesiastical authority and discipline. It would reduce Christ to human dimensions and make inspiration a common gift of mankind. [Donald Attwater: Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary Tenth Edition, pg. 347 (c. 1941)]

That should provide a good reference point so that the term "modernism" is not applied where it is not warranted. (As so often happens in these kinds of discussions.)

Here is my first analysis:

Pius X says that the modernist "includes within himself a manifold personality; he is a philosopher, a believer, a theologian, an historian, a critic, an apologist, a reformer. ( #5)" Again, the "philosopher" is what I will analyze.

Ok.

First, the historical context. There were many philosophers who denied the intellectual aspect of Christianity. Philosophers like Ficthe for example, says that the basis of faith is to be found "in the moral consciousness." Morality, for him, "can be constituted only by means of its end, not by means of logical process."[1]

This would seem a violation of the principle that the end does not justify the means to me. It is also a form of immanentist philosophy.

He also says, "Where is the philosopher now to look for the necessary source of his faith which he presupposes? In a supposed necessity, to argue from the existence of a constitution of the world of sense to a reasonable author of the same? By no means, for he knows too well that reasonable philosophy cannot so argue...Starting from the world of sense there is no possible way of arriving at the conception of a moral ordering of the world." [2]

This smacks of either nominalist or conceptualist approaches.{2}

Another philosopher was Albrecht Ritschl who believed that faith create the object rather than the object creating the faith.

This sounds like conceptualism to me.

So religion for him "has to do with our consciousness of value and is a faith in the reality of the objects to which that consciousness introduces us. All religious affirmations, therefore, are judgments of value." [3] Therefore according to him, religion, doctrines, and God are considered as "values" instead of reality. As one can see, the thought of Immanuel Kant is present in Ritschl since he believed that God is a "value judgment" rather than existential.

This is vital immanence because it makes the existence of God something that originates solely from within rather than from without.

These philosophers separated reason from faith and excluded the traditional proofs for the existence of God.

Correct.

For example, we have Henri Bergson who said, "It is one thing for the mind to conceive the idea of being, but it is quite another thing for the mind to ascertain the objective existence of that being. It is **only** through experience that the objective existence of such a being can be determined, hence the intellectual approach to God is futile." [4]

The word "only" that you highlight kills this theory since it confines objective existence to something from within. This is a form of the epistemological phenomenon of solipsism whereby the self knows nothing but its own states and their constituent modifications if you will. This is a core philosophical flaw of modern day liberal political views.{3}

We also have Alfred Loisy who believed that the mind cannot attain the knowledge of the Transcendent. Frederick Copleston explained Loisy's philosophy: "...his remarks belief in God he can be said to assume that the human mind cannot attain knowledge of the Transcendent. God is really the Unknowable of Spencer, that which transcends the reash of what Kant described as theoretical knowledge. We think of God in terms of symbols, and from a practical point of view we are warranted in acting as though there were a personal divine will having a claim on human will. But in the moral and religious sphere we cannot prove the absolute truth of any belief. In this sphere of truth, as related to man's good, is as subject to mutable revealed truths."[5]

This kind of teaching goes under modernism.

That is two hundred proof modernism Apolonio.

As Pius X said:

"Modernists place the foundation of religious philosophy in that doctrine which is commonly called Agnosticism. According to this teaching human reason is confined entirely within the field of phenomena, that is to say, to things that appear, and in the manner in which they appear: it has neither the right nor the power to overstep these limits. Hence it is incapable of lifting itself up to God, and of recognizing His existence, even by means of visible things. From this it is inferred that God can never be the direct object of science, and that, as regards history, He must not be considered as an historical subject. Given these premises, everyone will at once perceive what becomes of Natural Theology, of the motives of credibility, of external revelation. The modernists simply sweep them entirely aside; they include them in Intellectualism, which they denounce as a system which is ridiculous and long since defunct." [6]

We can now see how Pius's statements make sense in light of its context.

Indeed. Your analysis thus far is good.

Referring to the statement that "human reason is confined entirely within the field of phenomena" and "incapable of lifting itself up to God", one can see for example, Loisy's philosophy being equivalent as that of what Pius has defined as modernism. One can also see how Pius was condemning the philosophy which tried to get rid of natural theology, or the traditional proofs for the existence of God.

Indeed.

Pius goes on:

"But when natural theology has been destroyed, and the road to revelation closed by the rejection of the arguments of credibility, and all external revelation absolutely denied, it is clear that this explanation will be sought in vain outside of man himself. It must, therefore, be looked for in man; and since religion is a form of life, the explanation must certainly be found in the life of man. In this way is formulated the principle of religious immanence."

Pardon the brief interjection but this is essentially why I am critical of nominalism and conceptualism. However, at this point you need to make a key distinction between various forms of immanence. I go over this in my web essay Distinctions of Outlook where I point out (among other problems) Fr. Chad Ripperger's confusion of vital immanence as proscribed by Pope Pius X and a methodology of immanence which is not blameworthy.{4} In short, this is a distinction with a difference.

"Moreover, the first actuation, so to speak, of every vital phenomenon -- and religion, as noted above, belongs to this category-- is due to a certain need or impulsion; but speaking more particularly of life, it has its origin in a movement of the heart, which movement is called a sense. Therefore, as God is the object of religion, we must conclude that faith, which is the basis and foundation of all religion, must consist in a certain interior sense, originating in a need of the divine. This need of the divine, which is experienced only in special and favorable circumstances. cannot of itself appertain to the domain of consciousness, but is first latent beneath consciousness, or, to borrow a term from modern philosophy, in the subconsciousness, where also its root lies hidden and undetected." [7]

A lot of people misunderstand what Pius is condemning here.

Indeed, it is a very subtle argument being made.

He is not condemning the assertion that we can know God from our need of God. What he is condemning is a pure religious experience for the existence of God and excluding the traditional arguments for it.

Correct. He is condemning fideistic approaches to religion.

Copleston says:

"In general, the modernist tended to assume that modern philosophy had shown that the human mind cannot transcend the sphere of consciousness. In one sense of course this is a truism, in so far, that is to say, as it meanst that we cannot be conscious of anything without being conscious of it or think of anything without thinking it. But immanentism was understood as excluding any proof of God's existence by, for example, a causal argument. What is given in man is a need for the divine which, rising into consciousness, takes the form of a religious feeling or sense which is equivalent to faith." [8]

What is condemned by Pius X is the nonintellectual approach to God.

Precisely. But the above quote appears to condemn all forms of immanentism. I would along with defining the term modernism also distinguish between various types of immanentist philosophies. It would be erroneous to lump them all under the same umbrella of condemnation as not a few people who discuss these matters tend to do.

Fulton J. Sheen summarizes the difference of the nonintellectual and the intellectual approach to God:

"Religious experience may be understood to mean one of two things. It may be a nonintellectual approach to God in which feeling is primary. It may be an intellectual approach in which there is a confused intellectual reasoning process which is primary; an affective or emotional response; and a reflex intellectual state. If by religious experience is meant the former, then religious experience is an invalid approach to God, if the latter, then religious experience is a legitimate approach to God." [9]

I enjoy your frequent recourse to Sheen's work :)

An example of an intellectual approach to God would be that man desires for the perfect. He will never be satisfied until he reaches that perfection. If he cannot find it in the finite world, then the reason must be that he is made for another, which is life with God, life with the Divine. This argument however, does not mean I can absolutely know God exists, but only in a general way. This is what is usually meant when Christians say "the knowledge of God is implanted in all" as John Damascene had said. This approach is also Thomistic.

Indeed. You can also approach this from a kind of relative immanentism by starting with the following questions:

---Is man sufficient for himself???

---Or (if not) is he aware of his insufficiency in such a way as to realize his need of some help from without???

From there you can approach immanentist methodology without going off the rails as the vital immanence proscribed by Pope Pius X of venerable memory inexorably does.

Aquinas said:

"To know that God exists in a general and confused way is implanted in us by nature, inasmuch as God is man's beatitude. For man naturally desires happiness, and what is naturally desired by man must be naturally known to him. This, however, is not to know absolutely that God exists; just as to know that someone is approaching is not the same as to know that Peter is approaching, even though it is Peter who is approaching; for many there are who imagine that man's perfect good which is happiness, consists in riches, and others in pleasures, and others in something else." [10]

This is precisely the kind of relative immanentist approach I am talking about. Maurice Blondel and Henri de Lubac sought to confront atheism through this kind of methodology.

I think this is a good start. What do you think?

I agree. If you can get an agreed definition of "modernism" down and distinguish between the proscribed and the permissible forms of immanentist philosophy that will help in making progress in your dialogue.

Notes:

{1} For example, I have mused on Dignitatis Humanae before my morning chai. However, as I have discussed that subject and its constituent elements so frequently over the years, I am able to make the distinctions needed even when groggy. By contrast, subjects such as the ones Apolonio is covering are ones I have not discussed as often and therefore I lack a kind of habitual argumentation in my favour on this subject. (For that reason, I have to be more alert to discuss it lest I mess up the distinctions required.)

{2} Neither Nominalism nor Conceptualism will actually succeed in formulating a solid philosophical paradigm on these matters -as they result intrinsically to a defacto subjectifying of the concept of faith.

{3} This is why certain kinds of people of the extremist liberal mindset such as the Deanings cannot be reasoned with. You can throw all the facts in the world at them and reason until your gray hairs fall out but they will not budge because so much of what you would say does not pertain to them personally.

{4} And to which many of the so-called "New Theologians" utilized.


Apolonio's Notes:

[1] Philosophy of Religion: The Impact of Modern Knowledge on Religion by Fulton J. Sheen, New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1948, pg.42
[2] ibid.
[3] ibid., pg. 44
[4] Two Sources of Morality and Religion, Henry Holt & Company, 1935, pg. 270
[5] A History of Philosophy Volume IX: Modern Philosophy, From the French Revolution to Sartre, Camus, and Levi-Strauss, Image Books, 1994, New York, pg. 247
[6] Pascendi, 6
[7] ibid., 7
[8] Copleston, pg. 247
[9] Sheen, pg. 237
[10] ST, I, q. 1, a. 2, reply to obj. 1

Points to Ponder:
(On the Declaration of Independence)

Most people if asked about the Declaration of Independence know part of the preamble about the rights which are held to be "self-evident." But often not considered were the various accusations brought against the Crown by the colonists. Let us focus on some of them right now

--He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

--He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

--He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

--For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

--For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

Consider in light of the today's government situation if these are not viable complaints for us to make today against the very kind of unconstitutional federal leviathan we see today. (And which the Founding Fathers sought so manfully to avoid.)

The Fundamental Flaws of Roe vs. Wade and its Supporters:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Prefatory Note: The text below is a slightly more refined and extended version of what was posted to this discussion thread. I realized in retrospect that I was responding to someone who does not support Roe v Wade. Nonetheless, this post retains its value in arguing against standard faulty constitutional presumptions that exist among those of that mindset. -ISM 1/29/04 10:25 am]

The Constitution isnot ambiguous on abortion; it is silent.

And when there is silence there is not presumed freedom of inquiry.

Most people do not know that Alexander Hamilton was opposed to the Bill of Rights because he saw it as a way of limiting freedom. See this link for details.

As far as what the Constitution does and does not say, anyone who would interpret the Constitution apart from The Federalist Papers which shaped its construction or the Declaration of Independence which enunciated the fundamental rights that the following Constitution{1} would outline is engaging in a heinous violation of the most basic of general norms of interpretation.

For (i) the Declaration of Independence affirms the right to life which is anathema to a so-called "right" to abortion and (ii) the Framers to a man held that abortion was murder. Therefore, (iii) to claim that the Framers would enshrine a so-called "right" which flies in the face of what they held as true makes a mockery of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

I can predict the usual shibboleths of the abortion rhetoric about women and minorities and voting. However, those dogs do not hunt because (i) the Framers did not see these as possessing the required capacity for intelligent voting and (ii) the Framers did not explicitly forbid them in the Constitution of such -though with the slaves it was tacitly noted in Article One Section Two when apportioning in accordance with the census numbers.

However, (iii) the Constitution on these points was amended later on -with the ambiguity on these matters being clarified by Constitutional amendments.

In short, the attempt to opine for abortion in light of the previous situations with slaves and women is a facile one that cannot withstand logical scrutiny.

The right to vote is still denied to those who are not free citizens in this country. The Thirteenth Amendment, ratified in 1865, forbid slavery and involuntary servitude except for those duly convicted of a crime. The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly granted the right to vote to males who were former slaves and those formerly in various states of servitude. The Nineteenth Amendment explicitly codifying that sex would no longer be seen as an incapacitating factor in voting was ratified in 1920.

This is how Americans are supposed to settle these kinds of issues: either adhere to the Constitution or amend it. Which brings me to the following challenge for abortion supporters.

If abortion supporters can show me the Constitutional Amendment that ratifies the right to an abortion, then they will have at least a somewhat viable argument in their favour.{2} Until then, no one with a normal intact functioning brain needs to take the Roe v. Wade "invisible pink unicorn" assertion of a "right to privacy in the first amendment" absurdity even remotely seriously.

Instead such people -far from defending or preserving the Constitution actually are termites who are undermining the fundamental laws of this nation. They therefore are not inaptly referred to as seditionists.{3} And that is the bottom line really.

Notes:

{1} To say nothing about the Articles of Confederation which came after the Declaration in 1776 and which were the governing template of the United States for thirteen years. (Before being obrogated by the present Constitution in 1789.)

{2} Of course then I will launch into my defense of the three fundamental rights of man which confutes such a pseudo-"right" so be warned in advance.

{3} To the extent that they are formally or actively involved in promoting abortion "rights" of course.

My Views on President Bush's Mars Project:
(Courtesy of Ronnie Van Zant RIP)

Have you ever lived down in the ghetto?
Have you ever felt the cold wind blow?
If you don’t know what I mean,
Won’t you stand up and scream?
’Cause there’s things goin’ on that you don’t know.

Too many lives they’ve spent across the ocean.
Too much money been spent upon the moon.
Well, until they make it right
I hope they never sleep at night
They better make some changes
And do it soon.

They’re gonna ruin the air we breathe
Lord have mercy.
They’re gonna ruin us all, by and by.
I’m telling you all beware
'Cause I don’t think they really care
I think they just sit up there
And just get high.

As it is not Vietnam as when the above song was penned, I do not have the same view of the Iraq war; however I am becoming worried that it will become a political tool in this election beyond normal "politics." I hope I am wrong but I am not too optimistic about it.

More Miscellaneous Mutterings:
(On the "Pro Life or Bust" Approach to Politics and the Political Situation in General)

"My Kingdom For a Third Party" Revisited

On the "Right Wing-Left Wing" Conventional "Wisdom"

Miscellaneous Mutterings:
(On the "Pro Life or Bust" Approach to Politics)

LINK.

Please pardon the spelling glitches as the Envoy Encore message boxes do not allow for corrections unfortunately.

Notification of Upcoming Topic of Discussion:

The resignation of David Kay and the situation surrounding what he said about WMD's seems to present another example of the McElhinney Media Dictum at work. Right now it seems appropriate to let the usual suspects on both sides play the "so and so lied" cards but worry not: We at Rerum Novarum will be weighing the points carefully and possibly pronouncing on the matter before Saturday. The uncertainty as to when Uncle Mel's funeral will be makes it difficult to set a certain date on the matter at this time unfortunately.

Points to Ponder:

You say grace before meals
All right.
But I say grace before the play and the opera
And grace before the pantomine,
And grace before I open a book,
And grace before sketching, painting,
Swimming, fencing, boxing, playing, dancing;
And grace before I dip the pen in the ink.
[GK Chesterton]

Mel Denny Update:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

I went down with my mother and my Uncle Bob to see their Uncle (my great-uncle) Mel today at the assisted living facility in Puyallup, Washington. (The one I sent out the urgent appeal for yesterday two days ago.) We were there briefly -about ten minutes as he was sleeping- and I noticed that he had gotten very skinny. From there we went to my second cousin Mark Denny's place. (Great aunt Hattie's place is next door to his.) We saw Mark and his wife Patti and their kids briefly as they and my mother's cousin Yvonne and her children Paul and Polly (my cousins) went to the facility to spend time with Uncle Mel.

We hung out at the houses for a bit while they were there about three hours. Upon returning, it mentioned to us that they had told Uncle Mel it was okay to go. At that point it seemed to be a matter of a week or so indeed I was told that he was figiting with his fingers and hair which means that the person is less than two weeks for this world. (Trust me, I have become unfortunately knowledgeable about these things the past three plus years.) Nonetheless, Mark got out some King Salmon that Uncle Mel and he had caught last year in a fishing trip to Alaska. Patty begin slicing the salmon and Mark began mixing a batter with beer and other ingredients and dipping them into the batter in preparation for the deep frier. (He also broke out the Black Velvet.) Elk sausage and various cheeses were prepared (I sliced the cheeses actually) and the salmon was coming out of the deep fryer tasting quite excellent. The evening was shaping up quite nicely in fact.

Mark and I were on our second round of Black Velvet and Mark was prepping some oysters for the grill when the phone rang at 7pm. Mark was on the phone briefly and I saw him place his hand on the fridge and his head dropped. At that point I knew...Uncle Mel had died...

That blew the bottom out of the boat in a matter of speaking. Mark could barely talk and was fighting back emotions. Yvonne and my cousins and Patty were in tears. Aunt Hattie was in shock and went to the restroom but she broke down after coming back. It became clear at that point that I and my mother and uncle needed to get out of there so we hugged everyone and departed. We will be seeing them in a few days again of course but right now they need to grieve.

I felt a sinking in my stomach when I realized the news in reading Mark's body English. But sad to say, while I am sad I am completely numb to this kind of thing now. In less than four years (three years ten months actually) there have been over a dozen deaths of family and family friends{1} counting this one. (And this will be the seventh or eighth funeral or memorial service I have been to in that span.)

I told Mark before leaving when giving him a hug{2} that it was okay to grieve. I think it helps for a guy to hear that from another guy in these situations - I know it helped me when my friend Jack told me the same thing at a family gathering two days after the day my father passed away.{3} To the others I simply noted that they needed time to grieve but felt with Mark that I needed to tell him specifically. Nonetheless, there will be a funeral in a few days -the second one I have attended in two weeks- and again, if I could exhort you to pray for the eternal repose of the soul of Melvin Denny, it would be appreciated. For those who emailed me about having done so already, thankyou.

Today is the feast of St. Paul -the Apostle of the Gentiles. Maybe there is some symbolism to the fact that Uncle Mel died today. I see this one as a tough case. He was a good man but he was not religious. Nonetheless, I do believe that God judges Fatherly so there is reason for hope.{4}

The need to muse a bit in solitude is presenting itself so I have broken out the chocolate tequila and will be cutting a Churchill from my humidor shortly. But I did not want to forget to note these things here to thank those who have offered prayers already and exhort for more prayers for Uncle Mel if possible.

Notes:

{1} Fourteen of them were people to varying degrees close to me and nine of those were right at the root and matrix of close family relations. But even those who were not so close had an effect for various reasons too complex to explain here.

{2} Something I do not think I have ever done before -but if ever it seemed appropriate to do, this was the time.

{3} I thought earlier that year when the final nails had been driven into the coffin of a very close relationship that I could not feel any worse than I felt at that time. (This was my relationship with a lady I at one time believed was destined to be my wife -see the dedication to my essay on Christian Unity from 2001 for more information.) Well, that was a walk in the park compared to the day my father died -probably because I knew at the end that in the fallout of that relationship I was lying to myself for a while about it.

Dad's passing was the blackest day of my life by far because it was unexpected at the time and because the roots there were deeper there than with the aforementioned lady. (Often since that time I have discovered in previously unnoticed ways the depth to which they go but I digress.)

{4} Though as I noted already, the six months prior to his stroke he was actually praying with Aunt Hattie -something that in nearly sixty years of marriage had never happened. I cannot help but see some hand of Providence there in light of the circumstances antecedent to and subsequent to that occurrence.

I found another quiz in the archives serendipitously so I added it to the earlier quiz recapitulation thread. More quizzes later on if I am so inclined but at the moment I am happy to have broken the ultra-seriousness of the blog atmosphere a bit here.

Oh and for purists who are shocked at all the quizzes all of a sudden, I have done the occasional quiz here and there as long as I have had a weblog so it is hardly the novelty you might think. And for the record, I *did* sandwich between some of the quiz threads some political absurdity, a "Points to Ponder" segment, and a spiritual instruction on charity so do not feel that I went completely kukoo there.

I am Hannibal

Cool and dangerous Hannibal is a soldier for life. He was a well respected colonel in Vietnam who was forced to hide in the underground after being charged for a crime he didn't commit. The leader of the A-Team, Hannibal is a crafty tactician and as he always said "I love it when a plan comes together."

Which A-Team member are you???

If I were a Star Wars character, I would be:
Han Solo.

Take the " Which Star Wars Character Am I?" Quiz by Always Two There Are

I had to make a few HTML corrections so the entry would post.{1} But the picture now shows itself so I note these things only for others who take the test and cannot figure out why the thing will not post right for them. But I digress.

As I have always had an affinity for Han Solo by my own admission, this test only confirms that intuition to a degree. But according to the Star Wars Personality Test I have a different personality then that of Han Solo. See this link for details...

Note:

{1} I deleted all the table coding, the verdana font coding, and all respective closing links to said codes. I also posted the main picture url and not the one in the coding sequence and removed both the div=center codes as well. Doing all of this meant that I had to add a paaragraph breaking HTML code into the main post at each paragraph division for proper separation. Ergo, those who seek to alter code as I did...be warned!!!