Meditations on The Dark Night of the Soul:
(Aka "the Rerum Novarum 2004 Lenten Spiritual Instruction")
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. To start from the beginning of this series, please go HERE. As things have been rather hectic around here, I apologize for being late in running the installment that was scheduled for Friday today.
CHAPTER VIII
Wherein is expounded the first line of the first stanza, and a beginning is made of the explanation of this dark night.
THIS night, which, as we say, is contemplation, produces in spiritual persons two kinds of darkness or purgation, corresponding to the two parts of man's nature--namely, the sensual and the spiritual. And thus the one night or purgation will be sensual, wherein the soul is purged according to sense, which is subdued to the spirit; and the other is a night or purgation which is spiritual, wherein the soul is purged and stripped according to the spirit, and subdued and made ready for the union of love with God.
The night of sense is common and comes to many: these are the beginners; and of this night we shall speak first. The night of the spirit is the portion of very few, and these are they that are already practised and proficient, of whom we shall treat hereafter.
The first purgation or night is bitter and terrible to sense, as we shall now show. The second bears no comparison with it, for it is horrible and awful to the spirit, as we shall show presently. Since the night of sense is first in order and comes first, we shall first of all say something about it briefly, since more is written of it, as of a thing that is more common; and we shall pass on to treat more fully of the spiritual night, since very little has been said of this, either in speech or in writing, and very little is known of it, even by experience.
Since, then, the conduct of these beginners upon the way of God is ignoble, and has much to do with their love of self and their own inclinations, as has been explained above, God desires to lead them farther. He seeks to bring them out of that ignoble kind of love to a higher degree of love for Him, to free them from the ignoble exercises of sense and meditation (wherewith, as we have said, they go seeking God so unworthily and in so many ways that are unbefitting), and to lead them to a kind of spiritual exercise wherein they can commune with Him more abundantly and are freed more completely from imperfections.
For they have now had practice for some time in the way of virtue and have persevered in meditation and prayer, whereby, through the sweetness and pleasure that they have found therein, they have lost their love of the things of the world and have gained some degree of spiritual strength in God; this has enabled them to some extent to refrain from creature desires, so that for God's sake they are now able to suffer a light burden and a little aridity without turning back to a time which they found more pleasant.
When they are going about these spiritual exercises with the greatest delight and pleasure, and when they believe that the sun of Divine favour is shining most brightly upon them, God turns all this light of theirs into darkness, and shuts against them the door and the source of the sweet spiritual water which they were tasting in God whensoever and for as long as they desired. (For, as they were weak and tender, there was no door closed to them, as Saint John says in the Apocalypse, iii, 8).
And thus He leaves them so completely in the dark that they know not whither to go with their sensible imagination and meditation; for they cannot advance a step in meditation, as they were wont to do afore time, their inward senses being submerged in this night, and left with such dryness that not only do they experience no pleasure and consolation in the spiritual things and good exercises wherein they were wont to find their delights and pleasures, but instead, on the contrary, they find insipidity and bitterness in the said things.
For, as I have said, God now sees that they have grown a little, and are becoming strong enough to lay aside their swaddling clothes and be taken from the gentle breast; so He sets them down from His arms and teaches them to walk on their own feet; which they feel to be very strange, for everything seems to be going wrong with them.
To recollected persons this commonly happens sooner after their beginnings than to others, inasmuch as they are freer from occasions of backsliding, and their desires turn more quickly from the things of the world, which is necessary if they are to begin to enter this blessed night of sense. Ordinarily no great time passes after their beginnings before they begin to enter this night of sense; and the great majority of them do in fact enter it, for they will generally be seen to fall into these aridities.
With regard to this way of purgation of the senses, since it is so common, we might here adduce a great number of quotations from Divine Scripture, where many passages relating to it are continually found, particularly in the Psalms and the Prophets. However, I do not wish to spend time upon these, for he who knows not how to look for them there will find the common experience of this purgation to be sufficient.
To be Continued...
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Points to Ponder:
Thirty-seven years of teaching have taught me that convincing arguments will only carry the assent of those willing to accept the conclusion drawn. Numerous are those who will never be convinced because their will stands in the way: The conclusion is not to their taste...It is sadly true that false arguments will "convince" those who welcome their conclusion. [Alice von Hildebrand]
Thirty-seven years of teaching have taught me that convincing arguments will only carry the assent of those willing to accept the conclusion drawn. Numerous are those who will never be convinced because their will stands in the way: The conclusion is not to their taste...It is sadly true that false arguments will "convince" those who welcome their conclusion. [Alice von Hildebrand]
Meditations on The Dark Night of the Soul:
(Aka "the Rerum Novarum 2004 Lenten Spiritual Instruction")
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. To start from the beginning of this series, please go HERE.
CHAPTER VII
Of imperfections with respect to spiritual envy and sloth.
WITH respect likewise to the other two vices, which are spiritual envy and sloth, these beginners fail not to have many imperfections. For, with respect to envy, many of them are wont to experience movements of displeasure at the spiritual good of others, which cause them a certain sensible grief at being outstripped upon this road, so that they would prefer not to hear others praised; for they become displeased at others' virtues and sometimes they cannot refrain from contradicting what is said in praise of them, depreciating it as far as they can; and their annoyance thereat grows because the same is not said of them, for they would fain be preferred in everything.
All this is clean contrary to charity, which, as Saint Paul says, rejoices in goodness.[1] And, if charity has any envy, it is a holy envy, comprising grief at not having the virtues of others, yet also joy because others have them, and delight when others outstrip us in the service of God, wherein we ourselves are so remiss.
With respect also to spiritual sloth, beginners are apt to be irked by the things that are most spiritual, from which they flee because these things are incompatible with sensible pleasure. For, as they are so much accustomed to sweetness in spiritual things, they are wearied by things in which they find no sweetness.
If once they failed to find in prayer the satisfaction which their taste required (and after all it is well that God should take it from them to prove them), they would prefer not to return to it: sometimes they leave it; at other times they continue it unwillingly.
And thus because of this sloth they abandon the way of perfection (which is the way of the negation of their will and pleasure for God's sake) for the pleasure and sweetness of their own will, which they aim at satisfying in this way rather than the will of God.
Though the above is quite applicable viz. the liturgy to those who received the bulk of the commentary in the section on spiritual gluttony, at the same time, it is also in some ways applicable to your weblog host too.
And many of these would have God will that which they themselves will, and are fretful at having to will that which He wills, and find it repugnant to accommodate their will to that of God. Hence it happens to them that oftentimes they think that that wherein they find not their own will and pleasure is not the will of God; and that, on the other hand, when they themselves find satisfaction, God is satisfied.
Thus they measure God by themselves and not themselves by God, acting quite contrarily to that which He Himself taught in the Gospel, saying: That he who should lose his will for His sake, the same should gain it; and he who should desire to gain it, the same should lose it.[St. Matthew xvi, 25.]
The above paragraphs outline what is is probably among the biggest indictments of false "traditionalism" there is: the spiritual dereliction of viewing what they desire as what God wants and find[ing] it repugnant to accommodate their will to that of God. This writer has in mind in particular a certain friend who refuses to accommodate his will to that of God - one who attends liturgy with an priest whose only evidence of proper faculties is what the priest himself *says* he has. The quip about being an honest man with the folowup line "if you do not believe me just ask me" comes to mind here.
These persons likewise find it irksome when they are commanded to do that wherein they take no pleasure. Because they aim at spiritual sweetness and consolation, they are too weak to have the fortitude and bear the trials of perfection. They resemble those who are softly nurtured and who run fretfully away from everything that is hard, and take offense at the Cross, wherein consist the delights of the spirit.
See my previous comments for the above paragraph and the one that follows.
The more spiritual a thing is, the more irksome they find it, for, as they seek to go about spiritual matters with complete freedom and according to the inclination of their will, it causes them great sorrow and repugnance to enter upon the narrow way, which, says Christ, is the way of life.[St. Matthew vii, 14.]
Let it suffice here to have described these imperfections, among the many to be found in the lives of those that are in this first state of beginners, so that it may be seen how greatly they need God to set them in the state of proficients. This He does by bringing them into the dark night whereof we now speak; wherein He weans them from the breasts of these sweetnesses and pleasures, gives them pure aridities and inward darkness, takes from them all these irrelevances and puerilities, and by very different means causes them to win the virtues.
For, however assiduously the beginner practises the mortification in himself of all these actions and passions of his, he can never completely succeed--very far from it--until God shall work it in him passively by means of the purgation of the said night. Of this I would fain speak in some way that may be profitable; may God, then, be pleased to give me His Divine light, because this is very needful in a night that is so dark and a matter that is so difficult to describe and to expound.
The line, then, is:
In a dark night.
To be Continued...
Note:
[1] 1 Corinthians xiii, 6. The Saint here cites the sense, not the letter, of the epistle.
(Aka "the Rerum Novarum 2004 Lenten Spiritual Instruction")
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. To start from the beginning of this series, please go HERE.
CHAPTER VII
Of imperfections with respect to spiritual envy and sloth.
WITH respect likewise to the other two vices, which are spiritual envy and sloth, these beginners fail not to have many imperfections. For, with respect to envy, many of them are wont to experience movements of displeasure at the spiritual good of others, which cause them a certain sensible grief at being outstripped upon this road, so that they would prefer not to hear others praised; for they become displeased at others' virtues and sometimes they cannot refrain from contradicting what is said in praise of them, depreciating it as far as they can; and their annoyance thereat grows because the same is not said of them, for they would fain be preferred in everything.
All this is clean contrary to charity, which, as Saint Paul says, rejoices in goodness.[1] And, if charity has any envy, it is a holy envy, comprising grief at not having the virtues of others, yet also joy because others have them, and delight when others outstrip us in the service of God, wherein we ourselves are so remiss.
With respect also to spiritual sloth, beginners are apt to be irked by the things that are most spiritual, from which they flee because these things are incompatible with sensible pleasure. For, as they are so much accustomed to sweetness in spiritual things, they are wearied by things in which they find no sweetness.
If once they failed to find in prayer the satisfaction which their taste required (and after all it is well that God should take it from them to prove them), they would prefer not to return to it: sometimes they leave it; at other times they continue it unwillingly.
And thus because of this sloth they abandon the way of perfection (which is the way of the negation of their will and pleasure for God's sake) for the pleasure and sweetness of their own will, which they aim at satisfying in this way rather than the will of God.
Though the above is quite applicable viz. the liturgy to those who received the bulk of the commentary in the section on spiritual gluttony, at the same time, it is also in some ways applicable to your weblog host too.
And many of these would have God will that which they themselves will, and are fretful at having to will that which He wills, and find it repugnant to accommodate their will to that of God. Hence it happens to them that oftentimes they think that that wherein they find not their own will and pleasure is not the will of God; and that, on the other hand, when they themselves find satisfaction, God is satisfied.
Thus they measure God by themselves and not themselves by God, acting quite contrarily to that which He Himself taught in the Gospel, saying: That he who should lose his will for His sake, the same should gain it; and he who should desire to gain it, the same should lose it.[St. Matthew xvi, 25.]
The above paragraphs outline what is is probably among the biggest indictments of false "traditionalism" there is: the spiritual dereliction of viewing what they desire as what God wants and find[ing] it repugnant to accommodate their will to that of God. This writer has in mind in particular a certain friend who refuses to accommodate his will to that of God - one who attends liturgy with an priest whose only evidence of proper faculties is what the priest himself *says* he has. The quip about being an honest man with the folowup line "if you do not believe me just ask me" comes to mind here.
These persons likewise find it irksome when they are commanded to do that wherein they take no pleasure. Because they aim at spiritual sweetness and consolation, they are too weak to have the fortitude and bear the trials of perfection. They resemble those who are softly nurtured and who run fretfully away from everything that is hard, and take offense at the Cross, wherein consist the delights of the spirit.
See my previous comments for the above paragraph and the one that follows.
The more spiritual a thing is, the more irksome they find it, for, as they seek to go about spiritual matters with complete freedom and according to the inclination of their will, it causes them great sorrow and repugnance to enter upon the narrow way, which, says Christ, is the way of life.[St. Matthew vii, 14.]
Let it suffice here to have described these imperfections, among the many to be found in the lives of those that are in this first state of beginners, so that it may be seen how greatly they need God to set them in the state of proficients. This He does by bringing them into the dark night whereof we now speak; wherein He weans them from the breasts of these sweetnesses and pleasures, gives them pure aridities and inward darkness, takes from them all these irrelevances and puerilities, and by very different means causes them to win the virtues.
For, however assiduously the beginner practises the mortification in himself of all these actions and passions of his, he can never completely succeed--very far from it--until God shall work it in him passively by means of the purgation of the said night. Of this I would fain speak in some way that may be profitable; may God, then, be pleased to give me His Divine light, because this is very needful in a night that is so dark and a matter that is so difficult to describe and to expound.
The line, then, is:
In a dark night.
To be Continued...
Note:
[1] 1 Corinthians xiii, 6. The Saint here cites the sense, not the letter, of the epistle.
Sunday, March 21, 2004
which art movement are you?
this quiz was made by Caitlin
You should know something about this, it's the Renaissance! As for style, "...artists studied the natural world, perfecting their understanding of such subjects as anatomy and perspective." (artcyclopedia.com.) They loved science-y things and labored for perfection and harmonious beauty, a goal with which you sympathize. You're probably pretty smart, too. Anal-retentive much? Famous Renaissancers (lots!): Michaelangelo, Da Vinci, Raphael, and You.
Of course they have to mention three artists who were Renaissanceers. (Ironic really since I am probably among the worst artists of all time.)
Saturday, March 20, 2004
Points to Ponder:
[C]hasing conspiracies becomes a religion of its own. It's all very interesting detective work and it gives a simplistic view of the world situation. I speak from my own experience and I know that I'm not alone here. What is worse is that continuous reading of these conspiracy books leads to hatred of races and peoples. It leads to unbalanced fears. I've witnessed the unbalance first hand. A certain person says that I exaggerate but I do not. When your own grandson is practically starved to death because certain conspiratorialists believe modern medicine is part of the great conspiracy to harm us, then, you'll stand up and take note.
People become unbalanced, xxxxxx, when they delve too much into the conspiracy books. I know from experience. The conspiratorialists get livid when they cannot convince their neighbor that Bill Clinton is out to put them into chains by using black helicopters. The proof was there to be seen by all. We were told that foreign troops on our soil would be led to the enemy by the directions located on the back of highway signs. Remember that one? The conspiratorialists are flabbergasted that their neighbor doesn't lose sleep over the international banker who is working to enslave them.
"I came out of an independent, traditional Chapel one Sunday morning. I had a short conversation with the priest and suddenly the priest said: "Those God----ed Jews!" He had read too many conspiracy books. The conspiratorialist thinks he or she has revealed the work of evil when, in truth, the evil has taken them in. They are neutralized and they work against Our Lord Jesus Christ because they give unbelievers all the reasons why they should not have anything to do with Christianity."[Anonymous]
I got this from James M. Scott IV in the comments boxes over at Lidless Eye. Apparently a former SSPXer made these comments on the Envoy Encore weblog. If someone supplies me with the name, I will delete this prefatory paragraph and credit the person accordingly. (I think I know whom it is but am not certain.) Until then, it will read simply "anonymous." And other than the sentences which directly apply to the individual (the grandson, the part about the independent chapel priest), so much of the remaining statement puts flesh on one of the skeletons from the closet of this writer's own past.
[C]hasing conspiracies becomes a religion of its own. It's all very interesting detective work and it gives a simplistic view of the world situation. I speak from my own experience and I know that I'm not alone here. What is worse is that continuous reading of these conspiracy books leads to hatred of races and peoples. It leads to unbalanced fears. I've witnessed the unbalance first hand. A certain person says that I exaggerate but I do not. When your own grandson is practically starved to death because certain conspiratorialists believe modern medicine is part of the great conspiracy to harm us, then, you'll stand up and take note.
People become unbalanced, xxxxxx, when they delve too much into the conspiracy books. I know from experience. The conspiratorialists get livid when they cannot convince their neighbor that Bill Clinton is out to put them into chains by using black helicopters. The proof was there to be seen by all. We were told that foreign troops on our soil would be led to the enemy by the directions located on the back of highway signs. Remember that one? The conspiratorialists are flabbergasted that their neighbor doesn't lose sleep over the international banker who is working to enslave them.
"I came out of an independent, traditional Chapel one Sunday morning. I had a short conversation with the priest and suddenly the priest said: "Those God----ed Jews!" He had read too many conspiracy books. The conspiratorialist thinks he or she has revealed the work of evil when, in truth, the evil has taken them in. They are neutralized and they work against Our Lord Jesus Christ because they give unbelievers all the reasons why they should not have anything to do with Christianity."[Anonymous]
I got this from James M. Scott IV in the comments boxes over at Lidless Eye. Apparently a former SSPXer made these comments on the Envoy Encore weblog. If someone supplies me with the name, I will delete this prefatory paragraph and credit the person accordingly. (I think I know whom it is but am not certain.) Until then, it will read simply "anonymous." And other than the sentences which directly apply to the individual (the grandson, the part about the independent chapel priest), so much of the remaining statement puts flesh on one of the skeletons from the closet of this writer's own past.
More on John Kerry, Spain, Terrorism, Etc.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
This is a more refined version of comments posted earlier to the message boxes at SecretAgentMan's Dossier BLOG. It also builds a bit on subjects touched on earlier in the week as well.
[A]n attack WILL sink Bush on Nov 4--my psychic prediction.
I am not sure this would be the case actually. If Leiberman was running against Bush this is possible (since he has some good national security positions). But John Kerry is a man who has voted against probably every military spending bill in the past thirty odd years. Likewise, John Kerry is very anti-American. He likes to talk about "foreign leaders" whom would prefer him to Bush. He refuses to name names so I will do so for you. They are as follows:
---Gerhard Schroeder
---Jacques Chirac
---Vladimir Putin
---Muammar Khaddafi
---Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
---Bashar al-Assad
---King Jong II
---Fidel Castro
If those are your idea of "good guys" then by all means vote for Kerry to confirm yourself in your own suicidal idiocy. As I noted earlier, Kerry is probably lying about that claim of meeting with "foreign leaders."
Yes my friends, I do not buy the "mistranslation" crap for an instant because Kerry failed to say this until he found out that the comments were not playing well with the American people as a whole. Prior to that, he was quite content to let the idea permeate the election atmosphere. Thus, I can only conclude that he is lying here and -if not- then his refusal to name names is probably because they would be on the list above.
Of course anyone aware of the kinds of contacts (not to mention contracts) that Russia, Germany, and France had with Hussein are well aware of the reasons why (i) they voted for action in Iraq and then (ii) opposed the US military actions to enforce the UN's own sanctions -one of which was recognizing the termination of the 1991 war ceasefire for what it was.{1}
The former was because they saw Resolution 1441 as an abstract idea which was not going to be implemented in reality. The latter was because they realized that Bush intended to actually implement the very same 1441 that they voted on. Nonetheless, Kerry does not want to name names because either (i) he is a liar or (ii) if he is telling the truth, the names he would name would not be to his credit. But enough on that point.
Furthermore, Kerry makes no secret about believing that we should turn over war on terror operations in the Iraq theatre -and presumably in Afghanistan as well- to the UN. This I remind you is the very same UN which is involved in its own corruption and profiteering in the Iraq oil for food program which ran in Iraq for about 11 years. My friends, if the UN cannot even run a simple humanitarian program without this kind of blatant corruption, how the hell would they competently manage a much more complex war effort???{2}
Frankly, I believe that we will benefit from watching Spain get their just desserts for their pathetic ass kissing to terrorism by voting in the terrorist appeasers socialists. They are going to only see worse days in the coming months and if Bush plays his cards right in dealing with those situations, we will not have to worry about an attack like that causing an election defeat. If anything, Bush's handling of 9-11 will likely be an ace in his hand since Spain's conservatives had nothing of the sort to fall back on.
I must note though that I understand your concerns CCCCCCC but with defense issues and national security, Bush is so superior to Kerry that we need to in the coming months emphasize those points.
It also would not hurt to emphasize the constitutional amendment idea in tandom with Kerry's weaknesses on defense. In doing this, we can with greater ease point out that those who undermine marriage are the very sort of people that these kinds of terrorists hate the most. As a 70% plus issue, it would quite likely contribute to Kerry losing in 2004. Obviously nothing is 100% but I have a hard time believing that Americans would be stupid enough to put Kerry into office after another terrorist attack of the same scope or greater than what happened on 9-11.
Oh, lest I forget to mention it, Kerry also voted to cut funding for intelligence and then gripes in his campaign stops about being "deceived" about 9-11 by Bush. He tries to have it both ways on everything. If it would help insure against the likelihood of such attacks in the future, I would be willing to see my civil liberties suspended for a week or two under certain conditions.{3} A week or two to really bust the heads of terrorist cells in this country and also -though I am probably going to get criticism for this- the terrorists at the ACLU as well.{4} There is more to terrorism than physical destruction after all. But that is all I will note on those subjects at this time.
Notes:
{1} This as my readers know was the foundation of my position on the war with Iraq. Unlike certain war supporters who -in their mania for war- fell on their face in embarrassment by focusing on the wrong points of this situation, this weblog writer chose to ignore superficialities and focus on the root and matrix issues.
For I never sought to make what was speculative (the WMD's existence) the foundation of my position, only what was incontrovertible. As a result, I can stand here today and say with a clear conscience that I have not the slightest regret of my position as enunciated at the above link.
{2} I will save giving you a detailed dossier of the UN's miserable war management trackrecord over the decades. John Kerry wanting to put us under UN command in those operations insure that it would be saimo saimo viz. nothing happening against terrorist sponsored regimes. And you can take that statement to the bank for cash my friends.
{3} Provided of course that there was a clear sunset provision in the bill and no riders contradicting said sunset provision.
{4} There is also fifth column forms of terrorism. This is the very sort that the ACLU for the past four decades plus has been involved in by seeking to defend every filthy piece of degenerate human debris they can find.
In such situations, often the losers in this are often the very kind of fairly moral people whom we need more of in this country. From there the degenerate so-called "winners" are paraded around as so-called "examples" for us to supposedly embrace.
As I see it, the difference between the two (those the ACLU opposes versus those it supports) is that of half a loaf or more with the so-called "losers" and little to none with the pseudo-"winners." Anyone with a normal intact functioning brain can figure out which sorts are a more solid foundation to lean on for building a strong cultural structure. But then again, such people would not likely be supporters of the ACLU anyway.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
This is a more refined version of comments posted earlier to the message boxes at SecretAgentMan's Dossier BLOG. It also builds a bit on subjects touched on earlier in the week as well.
[A]n attack WILL sink Bush on Nov 4--my psychic prediction.
I am not sure this would be the case actually. If Leiberman was running against Bush this is possible (since he has some good national security positions). But John Kerry is a man who has voted against probably every military spending bill in the past thirty odd years. Likewise, John Kerry is very anti-American. He likes to talk about "foreign leaders" whom would prefer him to Bush. He refuses to name names so I will do so for you. They are as follows:
---Gerhard Schroeder
---Jacques Chirac
---Vladimir Putin
---Muammar Khaddafi
---Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
---Bashar al-Assad
---King Jong II
---Fidel Castro
If those are your idea of "good guys" then by all means vote for Kerry to confirm yourself in your own suicidal idiocy. As I noted earlier, Kerry is probably lying about that claim of meeting with "foreign leaders."
Yes my friends, I do not buy the "mistranslation" crap for an instant because Kerry failed to say this until he found out that the comments were not playing well with the American people as a whole. Prior to that, he was quite content to let the idea permeate the election atmosphere. Thus, I can only conclude that he is lying here and -if not- then his refusal to name names is probably because they would be on the list above.
Of course anyone aware of the kinds of contacts (not to mention contracts) that Russia, Germany, and France had with Hussein are well aware of the reasons why (i) they voted for action in Iraq and then (ii) opposed the US military actions to enforce the UN's own sanctions -one of which was recognizing the termination of the 1991 war ceasefire for what it was.{1}
The former was because they saw Resolution 1441 as an abstract idea which was not going to be implemented in reality. The latter was because they realized that Bush intended to actually implement the very same 1441 that they voted on. Nonetheless, Kerry does not want to name names because either (i) he is a liar or (ii) if he is telling the truth, the names he would name would not be to his credit. But enough on that point.
Furthermore, Kerry makes no secret about believing that we should turn over war on terror operations in the Iraq theatre -and presumably in Afghanistan as well- to the UN. This I remind you is the very same UN which is involved in its own corruption and profiteering in the Iraq oil for food program which ran in Iraq for about 11 years. My friends, if the UN cannot even run a simple humanitarian program without this kind of blatant corruption, how the hell would they competently manage a much more complex war effort???{2}
Frankly, I believe that we will benefit from watching Spain get their just desserts for their pathetic ass kissing to terrorism by voting in the
I must note though that I understand your concerns CCCCCCC but with defense issues and national security, Bush is so superior to Kerry that we need to in the coming months emphasize those points.
It also would not hurt to emphasize the constitutional amendment idea in tandom with Kerry's weaknesses on defense. In doing this, we can with greater ease point out that those who undermine marriage are the very sort of people that these kinds of terrorists hate the most. As a 70% plus issue, it would quite likely contribute to Kerry losing in 2004. Obviously nothing is 100% but I have a hard time believing that Americans would be stupid enough to put Kerry into office after another terrorist attack of the same scope or greater than what happened on 9-11.
Oh, lest I forget to mention it, Kerry also voted to cut funding for intelligence and then gripes in his campaign stops about being "deceived" about 9-11 by Bush. He tries to have it both ways on everything. If it would help insure against the likelihood of such attacks in the future, I would be willing to see my civil liberties suspended for a week or two under certain conditions.{3} A week or two to really bust the heads of terrorist cells in this country and also -though I am probably going to get criticism for this- the terrorists at the ACLU as well.{4} There is more to terrorism than physical destruction after all. But that is all I will note on those subjects at this time.
Notes:
{1} This as my readers know was the foundation of my position on the war with Iraq. Unlike certain war supporters who -in their mania for war- fell on their face in embarrassment by focusing on the wrong points of this situation, this weblog writer chose to ignore superficialities and focus on the root and matrix issues.
For I never sought to make what was speculative (the WMD's existence) the foundation of my position, only what was incontrovertible. As a result, I can stand here today and say with a clear conscience that I have not the slightest regret of my position as enunciated at the above link.
{2} I will save giving you a detailed dossier of the UN's miserable war management trackrecord over the decades. John Kerry wanting to put us under UN command in those operations insure that it would be saimo saimo viz. nothing happening against terrorist sponsored regimes. And you can take that statement to the bank for cash my friends.
{3} Provided of course that there was a clear sunset provision in the bill and no riders contradicting said sunset provision.
{4} There is also fifth column forms of terrorism. This is the very sort that the ACLU for the past four decades plus has been involved in by seeking to defend every filthy piece of degenerate human debris they can find.
In such situations, often the losers in this are often the very kind of fairly moral people whom we need more of in this country. From there the degenerate so-called "winners" are paraded around as so-called "examples" for us to supposedly embrace.
As I see it, the difference between the two (those the ACLU opposes versus those it supports) is that of half a loaf or more with the so-called "losers" and little to none with the pseudo-"winners." Anyone with a normal intact functioning brain can figure out which sorts are a more solid foundation to lean on for building a strong cultural structure. But then again, such people would not likely be supporters of the ACLU anyway.
Friday, March 19, 2004
Meditations on The Dark Night of the Soul:
(Aka "the Rerum Novarum 2004 Lenten Spiritual Instruction")
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. To start from the beginning of this series, please go HERE.
CHAPTER VI
Of imperfections with respect to spiritual gluttony.
Though there are imperfections in all of us, the imperfections with respect to spiritual gluttony are particularly applicable to most of those who claim to be "traditionalists" and by implication "more Traditional than thou."
WITH respect to the fourth sin, which is spiritual gluttony, there is much to be said, for there is scarce one of these beginners who, however satisfactory his progress, falls not into some of the many imperfections which come to these beginners with respect to this sin, on account of the sweetness which they find at first in spiritual exercises.
There are parallels here between the spiritually gluttonous who find sweetness in spiritual exercises and those who find it in what is inappropriately referred to as "The Traditional Mass."
For many of these, lured by the sweetness and pleasure which they find in such exercises, strive more after spiritual sweetness than after spiritual purity and discretion, which is that which God regards and accepts throughout the spiritual journey.
See my previous comments.
Therefore, besides the imperfections into which the seeking for sweetness of this kind makes them fall, the gluttony which they now have makes them continually go to extremes, so that they pass beyond the limits of moderation within which the virtues are acquired and wherein they have their being.
Of course I should note that moderation is generally a problem in some ways for everyone. That does not make such deficiencies "okay" however.
For some of these persons, attracted by the pleasure which they find therein, kill themselves with penances, and others weaken themselves with fasts, by performing more than their frailty can bear, without the order or advice of any, but rather endeavouring to avoid those whom they should obey in these matters; some, indeed, dare to do these things even though the contrary has been commanded them.
The above it might be noted was the weakness that beset Fr. Martin Luther. And your weblog host in his "trad" past was not exactly innocent in that area either unfortunately.
These persons are most imperfect and unreasonable; for they set bodily penance before subjection and obedience, which is penance according to reason and discretion, and therefore a sacrifice more acceptable and pleasing to God than any other. But such one-sided penance is no more than the penance of beasts, to which they are attracted, exactly like beasts, by the desire and pleasure which they find therein.
The reference to God preferring obedience to sacrifice in the Old Testament comes to mind here (1 Samuel xv,10-26).
Inasmuch as all extremes are vicious, and as in behaving thus such persons are working their own will, they grow in vice rather than in virtue; for, to say the least, they are acquiring spiritual gluttony and pride in this way, through not walking in obedience.
Notice how often St. John of the Cross returns to the subject of obedience. This is an area that is not infrequently problematical (if not lacking altogether) in many of those who claim to be "more Traditional than thou."
And many of these the devil assails, stirring up this gluttony in them through the pleasures and desires which he increases within them, to such an extent that, since they can no longer help themselves, they either change or vary or add to that which is commanded them, as any obedience in this respect is so bitter to them.
To such an evil pass have some persons come that, simply because it is through obedience that they engage in these exercises, they lose the desire and devotion to perform them, their only desire and pleasure being to do what they themselves are inclined to do, so that it would probably be more profitable for them not to engage in these exercises at all.
You will find that many of these persons are very insistent with their spiritual masters to be granted that which they desire, extracting it from them almost by force; if they be refused it they become as peevish as children and go about in great displeasure, thinking that they are not serving God when they are not allowed to do that which they would.
For they go about clinging to their own will and pleasure, which they treat as though it came from God; and immediately their directors take it from them, and try to subject them to the will of God, they become peevish, grow faint-hearted and fall away. These persons think that their own satisfaction and pleasure are the satisfaction and service of God.
Albert (among others I could mention), did you pay close attention to what was noted in the above paragraph???
There are others, again, who, because of this gluttony, know so little of their own unworthiness and misery and have thrust so far from them the loving fear and reverence which they owe to the greatness of God, that they hesitate not to insist continually that their confessors shall allow them to communicate often. And, what is worse, they frequently dare to communicate without the leave and consent of the minister and steward of Christ, merely acting on their own opinion, and contriving to conceal the truth from him.
And for this reason, because they desire to communicate continually, they make their confessions carelessly, being more eager to eat than to eat cleanly and perfectly, although it would be healthier and holier for them had they the contrary inclination and begged their confessors not to command them to approach the altar so frequently: between these two extremes, however, the better way is that of humble resignation. But the boldness referred to is a thing that does great harm, and men may fear to be punished for such temerity.
What is noted in this next paragraph can legitimately be noted of many of those who are so strident against communion in the hand. Granted the pretext given is that not receiving this way is more "fitting"; however, I have seldom found such a proponent who when superficialities are not stripped away does not react to this issue emotionally and thus betray themselves as one who is attached to the "sensible sweetness" of reception in the manner of reception on the tongue.
Now granted, since this option is allowed them, it cannot in and of itself be seen as problematical. However, it should be noted that those who would presume to kneel to receive (if there were local customs to the contrary), would be guilty of some degree of spiritual gluttony in this area. (Insomuch as their pride and stubbornness would be prevailing over the obedience that is required of them in these situations.)
These persons, in communicating, strive with every nerve to obtain some kind of sensible sweetness and pleasure, instead of humbly doing reverence and giving praise within themselves to God. And in such wise do they devote themselves to this that, when they have received no pleasure or sweetness in the senses, they think that they have accomplished nothing at all.
How many people say things like "I do not like mass because I get nothing out of it???" or opine about a supposed "superiority" of the Tridentine rite because the latter better caters to their own spiritual gluttony??? These are the sorts who believe that absence of sweetness or pleasure of the senses during mass is the barometer by which they measure the "worth" of the mass or the "superiority/inferiority" of a particular liturgical rite.
This is to judge God very unworthily; they have not realized that the least of the benefits which come from this Most Holy Sacrament is that which concerns the senses; and that the invisible part of the grace that it bestows is much greater; for, in order that they may look at it with the eyes of faith, God oftentimes withholds from them these other consolations and sweetnesses of sense.
The same principle applies in some respects to the Revised Missal which generally speaking is lacking in "sensible sweetness" to self-styled "traditionalists."
And thus they desire to feel and taste God as though He were comprehensible by them and accessible to them, not only in this, but likewise in other spiritual practices. All this is very great imperfection and completely opposed to the nature of God, since it is Impurity in faith.
These persons have the same defect as regards the practice of prayer, for they think that all the business of prayer consists in experiencing sensible pleasure and devotion and they strive to obtain this by great effort, wearying and fatiguing their faculties and their heads; and when they have not found this pleasure they become greatly discouraged, thinking that they have accomplished nothing.
I refer back to my previous three comments here.
Through these efforts they lose true devotion and spirituality, which consist in perseverance, together with patience and humility and mistrust of themselves, that they may please God alone. For this reason, when they have once failed to find pleasure in this or some other exercise, they have great disinclination and repugnance to return to it, and at times they abandon it. They are, in fact, as we have said, like children, who are not influenced by reason, and who act, not from rational motives, but from inclination.
Such persons expend all their effort in seeking spiritual pleasure and consolation; they never tire therefore, of reading books; and they begin, now one meditation, now another, in their pursuit of this pleasure which they desire to experience in the things of God. But God, very justly, wisely and lovingly, denies it to them, for otherwise this spiritual gluttony and inordinate appetite would breed in numerable evils. It is, therefore, very fitting that they should enter into the dark night, whereof we shall speak, that they may be purged from this childishness.
These persons who are thus inclined to such pleasures have another very great imperfection, which is that they are very weak and remiss in journeying upon the hard road of the Cross; for the soul that is given to sweetness naturally has its face set against all self-denial, which is devoid of sweetness.
Again I ask you Albert (among others I could mention), are you paying close attention to what was noted in the above paragraphs???
These persons have many other imperfections which arise hence, of which in time the Lord heals them by means of temptations, aridities and other trials, all of which are part of the dark night. All these I will not treat further here, lest I become too lengthy; I will only say that spiritual temperance and sobriety lead to another and a very different temper, which is that of mortification, fear and submission in all things.
Of course the so-called "neo-catholics" in frequently resorting to the above refrain (particularly that of submission) are only echoing the sentiments of St. John of the Cross. Apparently St. John of the Cross, the Mystical Doctor par excellence, was a "neo-catholic" too!!!
It thus becomes clear that the perfection and worth of things consist not in the multitude and the pleasantness of one's actions, but in being able to deny oneself in them; this such persons must endeavour to compass, in so far as they may, until God is pleased to purify them indeed, by bringing them into the dark night, to arrive at which I am hastening on with my account of these imperfections.
The above reason (for those who have in the past inquired about it) is why I have never once utilized the Indult in my dioceses (despite pestering my local ordinary about providing one which he finally did) and quite possibly never will. To explain this in detail would be akin to opening the windows to pray in front of others rather than doing so behind closed doors (cf. Matt. vi,1;5-6); ergo that is all I will say about it.
To be Continued...
(Aka "the Rerum Novarum 2004 Lenten Spiritual Instruction")
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. To start from the beginning of this series, please go HERE.
CHAPTER VI
Of imperfections with respect to spiritual gluttony.
Though there are imperfections in all of us, the imperfections with respect to spiritual gluttony are particularly applicable to most of those who claim to be "traditionalists" and by implication "more Traditional than thou."
WITH respect to the fourth sin, which is spiritual gluttony, there is much to be said, for there is scarce one of these beginners who, however satisfactory his progress, falls not into some of the many imperfections which come to these beginners with respect to this sin, on account of the sweetness which they find at first in spiritual exercises.
There are parallels here between the spiritually gluttonous who find sweetness in spiritual exercises and those who find it in what is inappropriately referred to as "The Traditional Mass."
For many of these, lured by the sweetness and pleasure which they find in such exercises, strive more after spiritual sweetness than after spiritual purity and discretion, which is that which God regards and accepts throughout the spiritual journey.
See my previous comments.
Therefore, besides the imperfections into which the seeking for sweetness of this kind makes them fall, the gluttony which they now have makes them continually go to extremes, so that they pass beyond the limits of moderation within which the virtues are acquired and wherein they have their being.
Of course I should note that moderation is generally a problem in some ways for everyone. That does not make such deficiencies "okay" however.
For some of these persons, attracted by the pleasure which they find therein, kill themselves with penances, and others weaken themselves with fasts, by performing more than their frailty can bear, without the order or advice of any, but rather endeavouring to avoid those whom they should obey in these matters; some, indeed, dare to do these things even though the contrary has been commanded them.
The above it might be noted was the weakness that beset Fr. Martin Luther. And your weblog host in his "trad" past was not exactly innocent in that area either unfortunately.
These persons are most imperfect and unreasonable; for they set bodily penance before subjection and obedience, which is penance according to reason and discretion, and therefore a sacrifice more acceptable and pleasing to God than any other. But such one-sided penance is no more than the penance of beasts, to which they are attracted, exactly like beasts, by the desire and pleasure which they find therein.
The reference to God preferring obedience to sacrifice in the Old Testament comes to mind here (1 Samuel xv,10-26).
Inasmuch as all extremes are vicious, and as in behaving thus such persons are working their own will, they grow in vice rather than in virtue; for, to say the least, they are acquiring spiritual gluttony and pride in this way, through not walking in obedience.
Notice how often St. John of the Cross returns to the subject of obedience. This is an area that is not infrequently problematical (if not lacking altogether) in many of those who claim to be "more Traditional than thou."
And many of these the devil assails, stirring up this gluttony in them through the pleasures and desires which he increases within them, to such an extent that, since they can no longer help themselves, they either change or vary or add to that which is commanded them, as any obedience in this respect is so bitter to them.
To such an evil pass have some persons come that, simply because it is through obedience that they engage in these exercises, they lose the desire and devotion to perform them, their only desire and pleasure being to do what they themselves are inclined to do, so that it would probably be more profitable for them not to engage in these exercises at all.
You will find that many of these persons are very insistent with their spiritual masters to be granted that which they desire, extracting it from them almost by force; if they be refused it they become as peevish as children and go about in great displeasure, thinking that they are not serving God when they are not allowed to do that which they would.
For they go about clinging to their own will and pleasure, which they treat as though it came from God; and immediately their directors take it from them, and try to subject them to the will of God, they become peevish, grow faint-hearted and fall away. These persons think that their own satisfaction and pleasure are the satisfaction and service of God.
Albert (among others I could mention), did you pay close attention to what was noted in the above paragraph???
There are others, again, who, because of this gluttony, know so little of their own unworthiness and misery and have thrust so far from them the loving fear and reverence which they owe to the greatness of God, that they hesitate not to insist continually that their confessors shall allow them to communicate often. And, what is worse, they frequently dare to communicate without the leave and consent of the minister and steward of Christ, merely acting on their own opinion, and contriving to conceal the truth from him.
And for this reason, because they desire to communicate continually, they make their confessions carelessly, being more eager to eat than to eat cleanly and perfectly, although it would be healthier and holier for them had they the contrary inclination and begged their confessors not to command them to approach the altar so frequently: between these two extremes, however, the better way is that of humble resignation. But the boldness referred to is a thing that does great harm, and men may fear to be punished for such temerity.
What is noted in this next paragraph can legitimately be noted of many of those who are so strident against communion in the hand. Granted the pretext given is that not receiving this way is more "fitting"; however, I have seldom found such a proponent who when superficialities are not stripped away does not react to this issue emotionally and thus betray themselves as one who is attached to the "sensible sweetness" of reception in the manner of reception on the tongue.
Now granted, since this option is allowed them, it cannot in and of itself be seen as problematical. However, it should be noted that those who would presume to kneel to receive (if there were local customs to the contrary), would be guilty of some degree of spiritual gluttony in this area. (Insomuch as their pride and stubbornness would be prevailing over the obedience that is required of them in these situations.)
These persons, in communicating, strive with every nerve to obtain some kind of sensible sweetness and pleasure, instead of humbly doing reverence and giving praise within themselves to God. And in such wise do they devote themselves to this that, when they have received no pleasure or sweetness in the senses, they think that they have accomplished nothing at all.
How many people say things like "I do not like mass because I get nothing out of it???" or opine about a supposed "superiority" of the Tridentine rite because the latter better caters to their own spiritual gluttony??? These are the sorts who believe that absence of sweetness or pleasure of the senses during mass is the barometer by which they measure the "worth" of the mass or the "superiority/inferiority" of a particular liturgical rite.
This is to judge God very unworthily; they have not realized that the least of the benefits which come from this Most Holy Sacrament is that which concerns the senses; and that the invisible part of the grace that it bestows is much greater; for, in order that they may look at it with the eyes of faith, God oftentimes withholds from them these other consolations and sweetnesses of sense.
The same principle applies in some respects to the Revised Missal which generally speaking is lacking in "sensible sweetness" to self-styled "traditionalists."
And thus they desire to feel and taste God as though He were comprehensible by them and accessible to them, not only in this, but likewise in other spiritual practices. All this is very great imperfection and completely opposed to the nature of God, since it is Impurity in faith.
These persons have the same defect as regards the practice of prayer, for they think that all the business of prayer consists in experiencing sensible pleasure and devotion and they strive to obtain this by great effort, wearying and fatiguing their faculties and their heads; and when they have not found this pleasure they become greatly discouraged, thinking that they have accomplished nothing.
I refer back to my previous three comments here.
Through these efforts they lose true devotion and spirituality, which consist in perseverance, together with patience and humility and mistrust of themselves, that they may please God alone. For this reason, when they have once failed to find pleasure in this or some other exercise, they have great disinclination and repugnance to return to it, and at times they abandon it. They are, in fact, as we have said, like children, who are not influenced by reason, and who act, not from rational motives, but from inclination.
Such persons expend all their effort in seeking spiritual pleasure and consolation; they never tire therefore, of reading books; and they begin, now one meditation, now another, in their pursuit of this pleasure which they desire to experience in the things of God. But God, very justly, wisely and lovingly, denies it to them, for otherwise this spiritual gluttony and inordinate appetite would breed in numerable evils. It is, therefore, very fitting that they should enter into the dark night, whereof we shall speak, that they may be purged from this childishness.
These persons who are thus inclined to such pleasures have another very great imperfection, which is that they are very weak and remiss in journeying upon the hard road of the Cross; for the soul that is given to sweetness naturally has its face set against all self-denial, which is devoid of sweetness.
Again I ask you Albert (among others I could mention), are you paying close attention to what was noted in the above paragraphs???
These persons have many other imperfections which arise hence, of which in time the Lord heals them by means of temptations, aridities and other trials, all of which are part of the dark night. All these I will not treat further here, lest I become too lengthy; I will only say that spiritual temperance and sobriety lead to another and a very different temper, which is that of mortification, fear and submission in all things.
Of course the so-called "neo-catholics" in frequently resorting to the above refrain (particularly that of submission) are only echoing the sentiments of St. John of the Cross. Apparently St. John of the Cross, the Mystical Doctor par excellence, was a "neo-catholic" too!!!
It thus becomes clear that the perfection and worth of things consist not in the multitude and the pleasantness of one's actions, but in being able to deny oneself in them; this such persons must endeavour to compass, in so far as they may, until God is pleased to purify them indeed, by bringing them into the dark night, to arrive at which I am hastening on with my account of these imperfections.
The above reason (for those who have in the past inquired about it) is why I have never once utilized the Indult in my dioceses (despite pestering my local ordinary about providing one which he finally did) and quite possibly never will. To explain this in detail would be akin to opening the windows to pray in front of others rather than doing so behind closed doors (cf. Matt. vi,1;5-6); ergo that is all I will say about it.
To be Continued...
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
Meditations on The Dark Night of the Soul:
(Aka "the Rerum Novarum 2004 Lenten Spiritual Instruction")
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. To start from the beginning of this series, please go HERE.
CHAPTER V
Of the imperfections into which beginners fall with respect to the sin of wrath.
BY reason of the concupiscence which many beginners have for spiritual consolations, their experience of these consolations is very commonly accompanied by many imperfections proceeding from the sin of wrath; for, when their delight and pleasure in spiritual things come to an end, they naturally become embittered, and bear that lack of sweetness which they have to suffer with a bad grace, which affects all that they do; and they very easily become irritated over the smallest matter--sometimes, indeed, none can tolerate them.
We will get to the biggest weakness of the so-called "traditionalists" as a group shortly -even bigger perhaps than pride, luxury, or wrath. In the meantime, the above paragraph notes one of the imperfections of the so-called "traditionalists": the irritability that they have when they are bereft of spiritual consolations.
In particular this would be those who are so attached to the Tridentine liturgy who are irritated at having to go to the Pauline liturgy either most of the time or on occasion. (Those who never do this -particularly where there is no available Indult liturgy- are in even worse shape than those who do.Tomorrow's A later points to ponder segment from St. Thomas Aquinas will deal with people in this situation.)
This frequently happens after they have been very pleasantly recollected in prayer according to sense; when their pleasure and delight therein come to an end, their nature is naturally vexed and disappointed, just as is the child when they take it from the breast of which it was enjoying the sweetness. There is no sin in this natural vexation, when it is not permitted to indulge itself, but only imperfection, which must be purged by the aridity and severity of the dark night.
As long as the natural vexation is contained within the internal forum, there is of course no sin just imperfection. It is when these difficuties or annoyances are put forth in the external forum when the danger of sin becomes much more proximate if not actual.
There are other of these spiritual persons, again, who fall into another kind of spiritual wrath: this happens when they become irritated at the sins of others, and keep watch on those others with a sort of uneasy zeal. At times the impulse comes to them to reprove them angrily, and occasionally they go so far as to indulge it[39] and set themselves up as masters of virtue. All this is contrary to spiritual meekness.
The above also applies in spades with so-called "traditionalists." Much as luxury is an area where the so-called "progressivists" often fall, wrath is an area which affects the so-called "traditionalists." (And of course both are affected by pride though not in exactly the same way.)
There are others who are vexed with themselves when they observe their own imperfectness, and display an impatience that is not humility; so impatient are they about this that they would fain be saints in a day.
Now we are into an area which still afflicts your weblog host. He used to make a lot of resolutions, now he does not make many. But there is an impatience at times that he is not progressing spiritually at a much more rapid pace.
Many of these persons purpose to accomplish a great deal and make grand resolutions; yet, as they are not humble and have no misgivings about themselves, the more resolutions they make, the greater is their fall and the greater their annoyance, since they have not the patience to wait for that which God will give them when it pleases Him; this likewise is contrary to the spiritual meekness aforementioned, which cannot be wholly remedied save by the purgation of the dark night.
The next one pertains to many if not most of the so-called "progressivists."
Some souls, on the other hand, are so patient as regards the progress which they desire that God would gladly see them less so.
To be Continued...
(Aka "the Rerum Novarum 2004 Lenten Spiritual Instruction")
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. To start from the beginning of this series, please go HERE.
CHAPTER V
Of the imperfections into which beginners fall with respect to the sin of wrath.
BY reason of the concupiscence which many beginners have for spiritual consolations, their experience of these consolations is very commonly accompanied by many imperfections proceeding from the sin of wrath; for, when their delight and pleasure in spiritual things come to an end, they naturally become embittered, and bear that lack of sweetness which they have to suffer with a bad grace, which affects all that they do; and they very easily become irritated over the smallest matter--sometimes, indeed, none can tolerate them.
We will get to the biggest weakness of the so-called "traditionalists" as a group shortly -even bigger perhaps than pride, luxury, or wrath. In the meantime, the above paragraph notes one of the imperfections of the so-called "traditionalists": the irritability that they have when they are bereft of spiritual consolations.
In particular this would be those who are so attached to the Tridentine liturgy who are irritated at having to go to the Pauline liturgy either most of the time or on occasion. (Those who never do this -particularly where there is no available Indult liturgy- are in even worse shape than those who do.
This frequently happens after they have been very pleasantly recollected in prayer according to sense; when their pleasure and delight therein come to an end, their nature is naturally vexed and disappointed, just as is the child when they take it from the breast of which it was enjoying the sweetness. There is no sin in this natural vexation, when it is not permitted to indulge itself, but only imperfection, which must be purged by the aridity and severity of the dark night.
As long as the natural vexation is contained within the internal forum, there is of course no sin just imperfection. It is when these difficuties or annoyances are put forth in the external forum when the danger of sin becomes much more proximate if not actual.
There are other of these spiritual persons, again, who fall into another kind of spiritual wrath: this happens when they become irritated at the sins of others, and keep watch on those others with a sort of uneasy zeal. At times the impulse comes to them to reprove them angrily, and occasionally they go so far as to indulge it[39] and set themselves up as masters of virtue. All this is contrary to spiritual meekness.
The above also applies in spades with so-called "traditionalists." Much as luxury is an area where the so-called "progressivists" often fall, wrath is an area which affects the so-called "traditionalists." (And of course both are affected by pride though not in exactly the same way.)
There are others who are vexed with themselves when they observe their own imperfectness, and display an impatience that is not humility; so impatient are they about this that they would fain be saints in a day.
Now we are into an area which still afflicts your weblog host. He used to make a lot of resolutions, now he does not make many. But there is an impatience at times that he is not progressing spiritually at a much more rapid pace.
Many of these persons purpose to accomplish a great deal and make grand resolutions; yet, as they are not humble and have no misgivings about themselves, the more resolutions they make, the greater is their fall and the greater their annoyance, since they have not the patience to wait for that which God will give them when it pleases Him; this likewise is contrary to the spiritual meekness aforementioned, which cannot be wholly remedied save by the purgation of the dark night.
The next one pertains to many if not most of the so-called "progressivists."
Some souls, on the other hand, are so patient as regards the progress which they desire that God would gladly see them less so.
To be Continued...
Monday, March 15, 2004
On Al Queda, Spain, John Kerry, Etc.:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
These are some disjointed thoughts that came to mind when reading Greg Krehbiel's Weblog today. In an entry on the Spain situation, Greg opines that Spain's election cave in is a victory for the terrorists. It is darn difficult to argue against this viewpoint as I see it.
For what happened was an entire country caved in at the last minute. The liberals were trailing big time before the explosions but within seventy-two hours the electorate did a flip flop voting out the conservative party and voting in theterrorist appeasers liberal party. I wonder if this will give those terrorists ideas about 11th hour bombings before elections in other countries. But enough on that point as this situation opens up a can of worms logically.
For one thing, this is referred to as America "losing an ally" in the war on terror. (In the election turnaround in Spain.) Now I am confused because we had no "allies" according to John Kerry.{1} Why now that Spain has folded like a cheap tent and voted in the Al Queda fan club liberal party in that country were they a "former ally." How can they go from not being an ally to being a former ally. Something does not jive with these media reports.
While my readers know that I am not much of a George Bush fan, I can nonetheless not see how a vote for Kerry is not a vote for Al Queda. Which reminds me of something else.
If (i) Al Queda is behind this bombing and (ii) they did so because Spain was an ally of ours in the recent war, then (iii) what of the claim that there was no connection between Al Queda and Saddam Hussein??? It would seem strange for Al Queda to care about what we did to Hussein and Iraq if there was no alliance of any kind (read: no connection) there. How will the media pundits explain away this one and will John Kerry actually name any of the so-called "world leaders" that he claims support him against Bush??? These are two questions that I would like to see answers to.
I am reminded of the old Bob Hope joke where he says that Joseph McCarthy claimed to have obtained the names of over 200 communists. Bob's punchline: [McCarthy] had gotten his hands on a Moscow phone book. In Kerry's case, he claims to have met with these leaders. But where (out of curiosity) did the media ever report Kerry meeting with foreign leaders???
You have to think that such meetings would be heavily reported since (i) the media wants Kerry to win and (ii) such meetings would give Kerry the appearance of being "presidential material" and also give him a certain amount of foreign policy credentials in the eyes of the average Joe Six Pack who at best casually follows these matters. Are we to believe that the media would avoid making Kerry look as presidential as he could by neglecting to report such meetings with foreign leaders??? Or is it more probable that Kerry is lying his keister off again???
In short, there are a lot of loose ends that need tying up for the Democrats as I see it...and not only that they have to root for higher unemployment, for increased job loss, for increased deficits, and also (it seems) for another terrorist strike right before our elections.{2} As far as Spain goes, the only concern they seem to have about the Spain explosion is that they see it as political fuel for their agenda. Which raises another question:
Does this make a vote for Kerry and the Democrats -who have long claimed that Bush exaggerated the scope of the terrorism threat for political advantage- a vote for Al Queda type terrorists??? I am forced in light of all that is noted above to answer that question with a "yes" unfortunately.
Notes:
{1} Except of course for Great Britain.
{2} With the hope that America will follow the poltroons of Spain and vote in our full blown socialist party (the Democrats) to replace our wishy-washy "ambiguously-socialist-on-domestic-policy-issues" party (the Republicans).
For more musings on these and other related subjects, please see this subsequent weblog link. -ISM (3/22/04 9:28 am)
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
These are some disjointed thoughts that came to mind when reading Greg Krehbiel's Weblog today. In an entry on the Spain situation, Greg opines that Spain's election cave in is a victory for the terrorists. It is darn difficult to argue against this viewpoint as I see it.
For what happened was an entire country caved in at the last minute. The liberals were trailing big time before the explosions but within seventy-two hours the electorate did a flip flop voting out the conservative party and voting in the
For one thing, this is referred to as America "losing an ally" in the war on terror. (In the election turnaround in Spain.) Now I am confused because we had no "allies" according to John Kerry.{1} Why now that Spain has folded like a cheap tent and voted in the
While my readers know that I am not much of a George Bush fan, I can nonetheless not see how a vote for Kerry is not a vote for Al Queda. Which reminds me of something else.
If (i) Al Queda is behind this bombing and (ii) they did so because Spain was an ally of ours in the recent war, then (iii) what of the claim that there was no connection between Al Queda and Saddam Hussein??? It would seem strange for Al Queda to care about what we did to Hussein and Iraq if there was no alliance of any kind (read: no connection) there. How will the media pundits explain away this one and will John Kerry actually name any of the so-called "world leaders" that he claims support him against Bush??? These are two questions that I would like to see answers to.
I am reminded of the old Bob Hope joke where he says that Joseph McCarthy claimed to have obtained the names of over 200 communists. Bob's punchline: [McCarthy] had gotten his hands on a Moscow phone book. In Kerry's case, he claims to have met with these leaders. But where (out of curiosity) did the media ever report Kerry meeting with foreign leaders???
You have to think that such meetings would be heavily reported since (i) the media wants Kerry to win and (ii) such meetings would give Kerry the appearance of being "presidential material" and also give him a certain amount of foreign policy credentials in the eyes of the average Joe Six Pack who at best casually follows these matters. Are we to believe that the media would avoid making Kerry look as presidential as he could by neglecting to report such meetings with foreign leaders??? Or is it more probable that Kerry is lying his keister off again???
In short, there are a lot of loose ends that need tying up for the Democrats as I see it...and not only that they have to root for higher unemployment, for increased job loss, for increased deficits, and also (it seems) for another terrorist strike right before our elections.{2} As far as Spain goes, the only concern they seem to have about the Spain explosion is that they see it as political fuel for their agenda. Which raises another question:
Does this make a vote for Kerry and the Democrats -who have long claimed that Bush exaggerated the scope of the terrorism threat for political advantage- a vote for Al Queda type terrorists??? I am forced in light of all that is noted above to answer that question with a "yes" unfortunately.
Notes:
{1} Except of course for Great Britain.
{2} With the hope that America will follow the poltroons of Spain and vote in our full blown socialist party (the Democrats) to replace our wishy-washy "ambiguously-socialist-on-domestic-policy-issues" party (the Republicans).
For more musings on these and other related subjects, please see this subsequent weblog link. -ISM (3/22/04 9:28 am)
Points to Ponder:
Obedience is foreign to the minds of the modern world because, again, it is sacrificial. Every obedience requires that we sacrifice our wills for truth. It requires that we be humble, to know that we cannot know everything, that we are fallible beings. Knowing that we are fallible beings, we know that there is always the possibiliy of error. No matter how intelligent we think we are, self-abandonment, self-sacrifice, is primary. And self-abandonment means to trust that God will work through us, through our thoughts, through our life, even if we do not think that we are walking on the right way. This is what obedience means. It is through obedience that we will grow in wisdom. [Apolonio Latar III (January 14, 2004)]
Obedience is foreign to the minds of the modern world because, again, it is sacrificial. Every obedience requires that we sacrifice our wills for truth. It requires that we be humble, to know that we cannot know everything, that we are fallible beings. Knowing that we are fallible beings, we know that there is always the possibiliy of error. No matter how intelligent we think we are, self-abandonment, self-sacrifice, is primary. And self-abandonment means to trust that God will work through us, through our thoughts, through our life, even if we do not think that we are walking on the right way. This is what obedience means. It is through obedience that we will grow in wisdom. [Apolonio Latar III (January 14, 2004)]
"St. Blogs Parish Hall" Dept.
Mary H of the Ever New BLOG has started a St. Blog's Parish Hall discussion board. It is set up a lot like the Catholic Converts board before the Novus Boardo format was imposed in January of 2003.{1} I even see some familiar names from years past (Walt, Lane Core Jr, Mary H) and fellow bloggers of St. Blog's as well. (Lane and Mary are also in this category.)
Though I will not make any promises, I will nonetheless note that it is probable that I will post there in the coming months at least occasionally. Such endeavours will depend on (i) the subject being discussed (ii) who is doing the discussing (iii) if I want to muse on the subject being discussed at that time and (iv) if I have time to involve myself there.
My guess offhand is that any posts for the Parish Hall that I put up will be written first at Rerum Novarum and then linked to the Parish Hall system. That is what I am generally inclined to do with message boards now for many reasons.{2} But anyway, I thought you may be interested in the Parish Hall and by all means, stop by and pay Mary a visit. She is one of the nicest people you will meet I assure you.
Notes:
{1} I had been finding myself less and less pleased with the way that board was going in 2002 but I still weighed in on occasion or when specifically requested to. However, when I sought to log on to wish the board a happy new year on January 1, 2003, my password of almost four years would not register. That was the next to last straw for me viz. posting at that board. (The last straw was the Novus Boardo format.)
{2} Primarily because it saves time and duplication of material that way. Though I often blog more developed versions of previous message box posts that is due to space constraints in the message box formats. (Which message boards generally do not have.)
Mary H of the Ever New BLOG has started a St. Blog's Parish Hall discussion board. It is set up a lot like the Catholic Converts board before the Novus Boardo format was imposed in January of 2003.{1} I even see some familiar names from years past (Walt, Lane Core Jr, Mary H) and fellow bloggers of St. Blog's as well. (Lane and Mary are also in this category.)
Though I will not make any promises, I will nonetheless note that it is probable that I will post there in the coming months at least occasionally. Such endeavours will depend on (i) the subject being discussed (ii) who is doing the discussing (iii) if I want to muse on the subject being discussed at that time and (iv) if I have time to involve myself there.
My guess offhand is that any posts for the Parish Hall that I put up will be written first at Rerum Novarum and then linked to the Parish Hall system. That is what I am generally inclined to do with message boards now for many reasons.{2} But anyway, I thought you may be interested in the Parish Hall and by all means, stop by and pay Mary a visit. She is one of the nicest people you will meet I assure you.
Notes:
{1} I had been finding myself less and less pleased with the way that board was going in 2002 but I still weighed in on occasion or when specifically requested to. However, when I sought to log on to wish the board a happy new year on January 1, 2003, my password of almost four years would not register. That was the next to last straw for me viz. posting at that board. (The last straw was the Novus Boardo format.)
{2} Primarily because it saves time and duplication of material that way. Though I often blog more developed versions of previous message box posts that is due to space constraints in the message box formats. (Which message boards generally do not have.)
Sunday, March 14, 2004
Reprising a Request for Dialogue on Foundational Premises:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
It seems good at this time to reiterate a previous dialogue request to my friend Tim Enloe which was issued two weeks ago. Slightly adjusted to reflect the time passage and refined a little bit, here is the text of that request once again. -ISM
Tim:
The main reason I want to discuss the foundational premises rather than the subjects that you want to discuss now is because I can determine in advance where we will arrive at in dialogue if we do not do this. Indeed, I am experienced enough in dialogue to anticipate future impasses and want to therefore avoid them if at all possible.
Such impasses are inevitable if all we do is hurl citations at one another and attempt to reduce complex theories into propositional formats that miss the finer details where God is often to be found. You often emphasize wanting to get to the nuts and bolts and avoid the kinds of generalizations that often impede fruitful dialogue. My intention here is to provide for doing just that.
To start with, we both agree and have often stated in divers ways that history is a complex mosaic. For that reason, we need to get beyond the individual interpretations of the data and into the operative points of view behind those interpretations. That is why I would rather focus on operative points of view first before even discussing the differing theories.
As a veteran of many of these kinds of discussions, you are not unaware of how people can continually miss one another like ships passing in the night.{1} My time for dialogue is not extensive nor will it be for the rest of the year. I am interested therefore even more than I normally am in getting behind your theory to attempt to better understand where you are coming from.
Of course in such a discussion, I would likewise strive to provide for you a window to viewing things as I view them. Once that is achieved, our odds of having a fruitful dialogue on these controversial subjects increase substantially over what they will be if we do not do this. This is the reason for the request I made to you. Hopefully this brief clarification will help explain why I posted the entry I posted.
And again I ask: is this an area that you have any interest in going over at all??? For like you I have little patience for apologetical "dog and pony shows" no matter who is putting them on. My interest is a dialogue on ideas and the presuppositions that colour those ideas. As I trust that you also have this interest, I extend to you again this invitation hoping that you will take it. Few people are willing to have this kind of discussion but I believe (and long have btw) that you are willing to go beyond conventional approaches in your desire to better understand any subject you study. (Be it theology, history, philosophy, or whatever.) This is why I addressed this request specifically to you.
The other points I touched on briefly can be dealt with another day. They are not going anywhere soon -indeed they have not in hundreds of years. So we need not worry that they will if we focus for a few months or whatever on the very prisms through which either of us view any data we appropriate to defend our respective distinctions of outlook. Surely you can concur with me there I presume.
Note:
{1} I remind you of the one year go around you had with Gary Hoge on the meaning of the term "perspicuity" as a case in point of precisely the kind of thing I am saying here. (Not to say I have been free of such go-arounds myself in my life of course.) But they are the sort of thing I desire to avoid or make the likelihood of them happening as remote as possible if at all possible. (Particularly in light of the even greater constraints on my time that I noted a month ago today.)
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
It seems good at this time to reiterate a previous dialogue request to my friend Tim Enloe which was issued two weeks ago. Slightly adjusted to reflect the time passage and refined a little bit, here is the text of that request once again. -ISM
Tim:
The main reason I want to discuss the foundational premises rather than the subjects that you want to discuss now is because I can determine in advance where we will arrive at in dialogue if we do not do this. Indeed, I am experienced enough in dialogue to anticipate future impasses and want to therefore avoid them if at all possible.
Such impasses are inevitable if all we do is hurl citations at one another and attempt to reduce complex theories into propositional formats that miss the finer details where God is often to be found. You often emphasize wanting to get to the nuts and bolts and avoid the kinds of generalizations that often impede fruitful dialogue. My intention here is to provide for doing just that.
To start with, we both agree and have often stated in divers ways that history is a complex mosaic. For that reason, we need to get beyond the individual interpretations of the data and into the operative points of view behind those interpretations. That is why I would rather focus on operative points of view first before even discussing the differing theories.
As a veteran of many of these kinds of discussions, you are not unaware of how people can continually miss one another like ships passing in the night.{1} My time for dialogue is not extensive nor will it be for the rest of the year. I am interested therefore even more than I normally am in getting behind your theory to attempt to better understand where you are coming from.
Of course in such a discussion, I would likewise strive to provide for you a window to viewing things as I view them. Once that is achieved, our odds of having a fruitful dialogue on these controversial subjects increase substantially over what they will be if we do not do this. This is the reason for the request I made to you. Hopefully this brief clarification will help explain why I posted the entry I posted.
And again I ask: is this an area that you have any interest in going over at all??? For like you I have little patience for apologetical "dog and pony shows" no matter who is putting them on. My interest is a dialogue on ideas and the presuppositions that colour those ideas. As I trust that you also have this interest, I extend to you again this invitation hoping that you will take it. Few people are willing to have this kind of discussion but I believe (and long have btw) that you are willing to go beyond conventional approaches in your desire to better understand any subject you study. (Be it theology, history, philosophy, or whatever.) This is why I addressed this request specifically to you.
The other points I touched on briefly can be dealt with another day. They are not going anywhere soon -indeed they have not in hundreds of years. So we need not worry that they will if we focus for a few months or whatever on the very prisms through which either of us view any data we appropriate to defend our respective distinctions of outlook. Surely you can concur with me there I presume.
Note:
{1} I remind you of the one year go around you had with Gary Hoge on the meaning of the term "perspicuity" as a case in point of precisely the kind of thing I am saying here. (Not to say I have been free of such go-arounds myself in my life of course.) But they are the sort of thing I desire to avoid or make the likelihood of them happening as remote as possible if at all possible. (Particularly in light of the even greater constraints on my time that I noted a month ago today.)
Saturday, March 13, 2004
Meditations on The Dark Night of the Soul:
(Aka "the Rerum Novarum 2004 Lenten Spiritual Instruction")
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. To start from the beginning of this series, please go HERE.
All I will note upfront about this imperfection is that it is doubtful that there are many people who do not run aground spiritually due to the imperfection of luxury or the sensual element obscuring or hindering in some manner or another their spiritual advancement.
CHAPTER IV
Of other imperfections which these beginners are apt to have with respect to the third sin, which is luxury.
MANY of these beginners have many other imperfections than those which I am describing with respect to each of the deadly sins, but these I set aside, in order to avoid prolixity, touching upon a few of the most important, which are, as it were, the origin and cause of the rest. And thus, with respect to this sin of luxury (leaving apart the falling of spiritual persons into this sin, since my intent is to treat of the imperfections which have to be purged by the dark night), they have many imperfections which might be described as spiritual luxury, not because they are so, but because the imperfections proceed from spiritual things.
For it often comes to pass that, in their very spiritual exercises, when they are powerless to prevent it, there arise and assert themselves in the sensual part of the soul impure acts and motions, and sometimes this happens even when the spirit is deep in prayer, or engaged in the Sacrament of Penance or in the Eucharist. These things are not, as I say, in their power; they proceed from one of three causes.
The first cause from which they often proceed is the pleasure which human nature takes in spiritual things. For when the spirit and the sense are pleased, every part of a man is moved by that pleasure to delight according to its proportion and nature. For then the spirit, which is the higher part, is moved to pleasure and delight in God; and the sensual nature, which is the lower part, is moved to pleasure and delight of the senses, because it cannot possess and lay hold upon aught else, and it therefore lays hold upon that which comes nearest to itself, which is the impure and sensual.
Thus it comes to pass that the soul is in deep prayer with God according to the spirit, and, on the other hand, according to sense it is passively conscious, not without great displeasure, of rebellions and motions and acts of the senses, which often happens in Communion, for when the soul receives joy and comfort in this act of love, because this Lord bestows it (since it is to that end that He gives Himself), the sensual nature takes that which is its own likewise, as we have said, after its manner.
Now as, after all, these two parts are combined in one individual, they ordinarily both participate in that which one of them receives, each after its manner; for, as the philosopher says, everything that is received is in the recipient after the manner of the same recipient. And thus, in these beginnings, and even when the soul has made some progress, its sensual part, being imperfect, oftentimes receives the Spirit of God with the same imperfection.
Now when this sensual part is renewed by the purgation of the dark night which we shall describe, it no longer has these weaknesses; for it is no longer this part that receives aught, but rather it is itself received into the Spirit. And thus it then has everything after the manner of the Spirit.
The second cause whence these rebellions sometimes proceed is the devil, who, in order to disquiet and disturb the soul, at times when it is at prayer or is striving to pray, contrives to stir up these motions of impurity in its nature; and if the soul gives heed to any of these, they cause it great harm.
For through fear of these not only do persons become lax in prayer--which is the aim of the devil when he begins to strive with them--but some give up prayer altogether, because they think that these things attack them more during that exercise than apart from it, which is true, since the devil attacks them then more than at other times, so that they may give up spiritual exercises.
And not only so, but he succeeds in portraying to them very vividly things that are most foul and impure, and at times are very closely related to certain spiritual things and persons that are of profit to their souls, in order to terrify them and make them fearful; so that those who are affected by this dare not even look at anything or meditate upon anything, because they immediately encounter this temptation.
And upon those who are inclined to melancholy this acts with such effect that they become greatly to be pitied since they are suffering so sadly; for this trial reaches such a point in certain persons, when they have this evil humour, that they believe it to be clear that the devil is ever present with them and that they have no power to prevent this, although some of these persons can prevent his attack by dint of great effort and labour.
When these impurities attack such souls through the medium of melancholy, they are not as a rule freed from them until they have been cured of that kind of humour, unless the dark night has entered the soul, and rids them of all impurities, one after another.
The third source whence these impure motions are apt to proceed in order to make war upon the soul is often the fear which such persons have conceived for these impure representations and motions. Something that they see or say or think brings them to their mind, and this makes them afraid, so that they suffer from them through no fault of their own.
There are also certain souls of so tender and frail a nature that, when there comes to them some spiritual consolation or some grace in prayer, the spirit of luxury is with them immediately, inebriating and delighting their sensual nature in such manner that it is as if they were plunged into the enjoyment and pleasure of this sin; and the enjoyment remains, together with the consolation, passively, and sometimes they are able to see that certain impure and unruly acts have taken place.
The reason for this is that, since these natures are, as I say, frail and tender, their humours are stirred up and their blood is excited at the least disturbance. And hence come these motions; and the same thing happens to such souls when they are enkindled with anger or suffer any disturbance or grief.[1]
Sometimes, again, there arises within these spiritual persons, whether they be speaking or performing spiritual actions, a certain vigour and bravado, through their having regard to persons who are present, and before these persons they display a certain kind of vain gratification. This also arises from luxury of spirit, after the manner wherein we here understand it, which is accompanied as a rule by complacency in the will.
Some of these persons make friendships of a spiritual kind with others, which oftentimes arise from luxury and not from spirituality; this may be known to be the case when the remembrance of that friendship causes not the remembrance and love of God to grow, but occasions remorse of conscience.
For, when the friendship is purely spiritual, the love of God grows with it; and the more the soul remembers it, the more it remembers the love of God, and the greater the desire it has for God; so that, as the one grows, the other grows also.
For the spirit of God has this property, that it increases good by adding to it more good, inasmuch as there is likeness and conformity between them. But, when this love arises from the vice of sensuality aforementioned, it produces the contrary effects; for the more the one grows, the more the other decreases, and the remembrance of it likewise.
If that sensual love grows, it will at once be observed that the soul's love of God is becoming colder, and that it is forgetting Him as it remembers that love; there comes to it, too, a certain remorse of conscience.
And, on the other hand, if the love of God grows in the soul, that other love becomes cold and is forgotten; for, as the two are contrary to one another, not only does the one not aid the other, but the one which predominates quenches and confounds the other, and becomes strengthened in itself, as the philosophers say.
Wherefore Our Saviour said in the Gospel: 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.'[38] That is to say, the love which is born of sensuality ends in sensuality, and that which is of the spirit ends in the spirit of God and causes it to grow. This is the difference that exists between these two kinds of love, whereby we may know them.
When the soul enters the dark night, it brings these kinds of love under control. It strengthens and purifies the one, namely that which is according to God; and the other it removes and brings to an end; and in the beginning it causes both to be lost sight of, as we shall say hereafter.
To be Continued...
Note:
[1] All writers who comment upon this delicate matter go into lengthy and learned explanations of it, though in reality there is little that needs to be added to the Saint's clear and apt exposition.
It will be remembered that St. Teresa once wrote to her brother Lorenzo, who suffered in this way: 'As to those stirrings of sense. . . . I am quite clear they are of no account, so the best thing is to make no account of them' (LL. 168). The most effective means of calming souls tormented by these favours is to commend them to a discreet and wise director whose counsel they may safely follow. The Illuminists committed the grossest errors in dealing with this matter.
(Aka "the Rerum Novarum 2004 Lenten Spiritual Instruction")
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. To start from the beginning of this series, please go HERE.
All I will note upfront about this imperfection is that it is doubtful that there are many people who do not run aground spiritually due to the imperfection of luxury or the sensual element obscuring or hindering in some manner or another their spiritual advancement.
CHAPTER IV
Of other imperfections which these beginners are apt to have with respect to the third sin, which is luxury.
MANY of these beginners have many other imperfections than those which I am describing with respect to each of the deadly sins, but these I set aside, in order to avoid prolixity, touching upon a few of the most important, which are, as it were, the origin and cause of the rest. And thus, with respect to this sin of luxury (leaving apart the falling of spiritual persons into this sin, since my intent is to treat of the imperfections which have to be purged by the dark night), they have many imperfections which might be described as spiritual luxury, not because they are so, but because the imperfections proceed from spiritual things.
For it often comes to pass that, in their very spiritual exercises, when they are powerless to prevent it, there arise and assert themselves in the sensual part of the soul impure acts and motions, and sometimes this happens even when the spirit is deep in prayer, or engaged in the Sacrament of Penance or in the Eucharist. These things are not, as I say, in their power; they proceed from one of three causes.
The first cause from which they often proceed is the pleasure which human nature takes in spiritual things. For when the spirit and the sense are pleased, every part of a man is moved by that pleasure to delight according to its proportion and nature. For then the spirit, which is the higher part, is moved to pleasure and delight in God; and the sensual nature, which is the lower part, is moved to pleasure and delight of the senses, because it cannot possess and lay hold upon aught else, and it therefore lays hold upon that which comes nearest to itself, which is the impure and sensual.
Thus it comes to pass that the soul is in deep prayer with God according to the spirit, and, on the other hand, according to sense it is passively conscious, not without great displeasure, of rebellions and motions and acts of the senses, which often happens in Communion, for when the soul receives joy and comfort in this act of love, because this Lord bestows it (since it is to that end that He gives Himself), the sensual nature takes that which is its own likewise, as we have said, after its manner.
Now as, after all, these two parts are combined in one individual, they ordinarily both participate in that which one of them receives, each after its manner; for, as the philosopher says, everything that is received is in the recipient after the manner of the same recipient. And thus, in these beginnings, and even when the soul has made some progress, its sensual part, being imperfect, oftentimes receives the Spirit of God with the same imperfection.
Now when this sensual part is renewed by the purgation of the dark night which we shall describe, it no longer has these weaknesses; for it is no longer this part that receives aught, but rather it is itself received into the Spirit. And thus it then has everything after the manner of the Spirit.
The second cause whence these rebellions sometimes proceed is the devil, who, in order to disquiet and disturb the soul, at times when it is at prayer or is striving to pray, contrives to stir up these motions of impurity in its nature; and if the soul gives heed to any of these, they cause it great harm.
For through fear of these not only do persons become lax in prayer--which is the aim of the devil when he begins to strive with them--but some give up prayer altogether, because they think that these things attack them more during that exercise than apart from it, which is true, since the devil attacks them then more than at other times, so that they may give up spiritual exercises.
And not only so, but he succeeds in portraying to them very vividly things that are most foul and impure, and at times are very closely related to certain spiritual things and persons that are of profit to their souls, in order to terrify them and make them fearful; so that those who are affected by this dare not even look at anything or meditate upon anything, because they immediately encounter this temptation.
And upon those who are inclined to melancholy this acts with such effect that they become greatly to be pitied since they are suffering so sadly; for this trial reaches such a point in certain persons, when they have this evil humour, that they believe it to be clear that the devil is ever present with them and that they have no power to prevent this, although some of these persons can prevent his attack by dint of great effort and labour.
When these impurities attack such souls through the medium of melancholy, they are not as a rule freed from them until they have been cured of that kind of humour, unless the dark night has entered the soul, and rids them of all impurities, one after another.
The third source whence these impure motions are apt to proceed in order to make war upon the soul is often the fear which such persons have conceived for these impure representations and motions. Something that they see or say or think brings them to their mind, and this makes them afraid, so that they suffer from them through no fault of their own.
There are also certain souls of so tender and frail a nature that, when there comes to them some spiritual consolation or some grace in prayer, the spirit of luxury is with them immediately, inebriating and delighting their sensual nature in such manner that it is as if they were plunged into the enjoyment and pleasure of this sin; and the enjoyment remains, together with the consolation, passively, and sometimes they are able to see that certain impure and unruly acts have taken place.
The reason for this is that, since these natures are, as I say, frail and tender, their humours are stirred up and their blood is excited at the least disturbance. And hence come these motions; and the same thing happens to such souls when they are enkindled with anger or suffer any disturbance or grief.[1]
Sometimes, again, there arises within these spiritual persons, whether they be speaking or performing spiritual actions, a certain vigour and bravado, through their having regard to persons who are present, and before these persons they display a certain kind of vain gratification. This also arises from luxury of spirit, after the manner wherein we here understand it, which is accompanied as a rule by complacency in the will.
Some of these persons make friendships of a spiritual kind with others, which oftentimes arise from luxury and not from spirituality; this may be known to be the case when the remembrance of that friendship causes not the remembrance and love of God to grow, but occasions remorse of conscience.
For, when the friendship is purely spiritual, the love of God grows with it; and the more the soul remembers it, the more it remembers the love of God, and the greater the desire it has for God; so that, as the one grows, the other grows also.
For the spirit of God has this property, that it increases good by adding to it more good, inasmuch as there is likeness and conformity between them. But, when this love arises from the vice of sensuality aforementioned, it produces the contrary effects; for the more the one grows, the more the other decreases, and the remembrance of it likewise.
If that sensual love grows, it will at once be observed that the soul's love of God is becoming colder, and that it is forgetting Him as it remembers that love; there comes to it, too, a certain remorse of conscience.
And, on the other hand, if the love of God grows in the soul, that other love becomes cold and is forgotten; for, as the two are contrary to one another, not only does the one not aid the other, but the one which predominates quenches and confounds the other, and becomes strengthened in itself, as the philosophers say.
Wherefore Our Saviour said in the Gospel: 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.'[38] That is to say, the love which is born of sensuality ends in sensuality, and that which is of the spirit ends in the spirit of God and causes it to grow. This is the difference that exists between these two kinds of love, whereby we may know them.
When the soul enters the dark night, it brings these kinds of love under control. It strengthens and purifies the one, namely that which is according to God; and the other it removes and brings to an end; and in the beginning it causes both to be lost sight of, as we shall say hereafter.
To be Continued...
Note:
[1] All writers who comment upon this delicate matter go into lengthy and learned explanations of it, though in reality there is little that needs to be added to the Saint's clear and apt exposition.
It will be remembered that St. Teresa once wrote to her brother Lorenzo, who suffered in this way: 'As to those stirrings of sense. . . . I am quite clear they are of no account, so the best thing is to make no account of them' (LL. 168). The most effective means of calming souls tormented by these favours is to commend them to a discreet and wise director whose counsel they may safely follow. The Illuminists committed the grossest errors in dealing with this matter.
Friday, March 12, 2004
John F-word Kerry's Voting Record Revisited:
Having decided earlier in the week to eventually slog through the various points of Senator Kerry's voting record, the results are posted here for your perusal. Though this is based mostly on the bullet-point summations, I did check the context closer on the ambiguous statements of which there were some. Nonetheless, without further ado, let us get to it:
---On the Abortion subject, Kerry is 0-5
---On the Budget and Economy subjects, Kerry is 1-6 at best.{1}
---On the Civil Rights subject, Kerry is 1-13.{2}
---On the Corporations subject, Kerry is 0-3.
---On the Crime subject, Kerry is 5-11.{3}
---On the Drugs subject, Kerry is 1-3.{4}
---On the Education subject, Kerry is 1-14.{5}
---On the Energy and Oil subjects, Kerry is 0-18.{6}
---On the Environment subject, Kerry is at best 1-10.{7}
---On the Families and Children subjects, Kerry is 2-3.{8}
---On the Foreign Policy subject, Kerry is 0-12.{9}
---On the Free Trade subject, Kerry is 0-14.{10}
---On the Government Reform subject, Kerry is 1-10.{11}
---On the Gun Control subject, Kerry is 0-7.
---On the Health Care subject, Kerry is 1-14.{12}
---On the Homeland Security subject, Kerry is at best 3-18.{13}
---On the Immigration subject, Kerry is at best 1-5.{14}
---On the Infrastructure subject, Kerry is 5-5.{15}
---On the Jobs subject, Kerry is at best 2-8.{16}
---On the Principles and Values subjects, Kerry is at best 2-17.{17}
---On the Social Security subject, Kerry is 0-8.{18}
---On the Tax Reform subject, Kerry is 0-16.{19}
---On the War and Peace subjects, Kerry is 0-24.{20}
---On the Welfare and Poverty subjects, Kerry is 7-7.{21}
There are 251 points in this examination. As a rule, Senator Kerry did very poorly in every category though there were of course some stellar exceptions. (Welfare/Poverty and Infrastructure where he had a perfect score in each.) However, in registering 34 out of a possible 251, that equates to a 13.54% rating.
President Bush would be far from perfect himself. Nonetheless, he would do significantly better on the whole than Kerry has. And we have not even considered the subject of same-sex so-called "marriages" - an area where I have noted already was the most significant issue facing us today bar none.
His 13.54% rating notwithstanding, Senator John F-word Kerry fails and fails huge on the defining issue of our age. So between that and his miserable voting record on other issues, We at Rerum Novarum will be biting our tongues and voting for Bush. Kerry's lousy voting record -which has been examined here- is simply more nails in his coffin as far as this writer is concerned.
Notes:
{1} If given the benefit of the doubt on the first bullet-point in that category. (In reality he is about half-right on it.)
{2} In this category, I concur with him on opposing the constitutional amendment to prohibit flag burning only.
{3} In the crime category, I concur with him on the moratorium on federal executions -though I would except more than terrorism from it, the death penalty for Osama bin Laden, on restricting class action lawsuits -if they cannot be eliminated altogether that is, on repealing federal speed limits (already happened), and on DNA testing for all federal executions.
{4} I frankly could care less whether or not he has smoked marijuana.
{5} He is correct on supporting charter school proposal only.
{6} There is no way I could support any of his alternative ideas on energy if they include continuing the charade of not drilling for oil on US soil. For not opening up more drilling -or more oil to be pumped from existing oil supplies- is to allow our oil prices to be affected by OPEC.
{7} When I read about a vote against a candidate for Secretary of the Interior who is "conservative to libertarian" on environmental issues, I am not sure I would necessarily disagree with this vote. See this link for an idea of my environmental outlook.
{8} His idea of more funding for programs like Head Start is problematical. I see little else in this subject to take issue with him on -but then there were three points only.
{9} Even his Africa proposal is tainted by the fact that he would seek to implement the same kind of population control methods which are killing first world nations economically.
{10} This is an unfortunate canard of the so-called "neo-conservatives" but even people generally liberal such as Kerry support it. In the case of the liberals, it it is likely because they like the idea of international organizations outside of US sovereignty telling us whom we can trade with and why. The so-called "neo-conservatives" fall for this kind of "voodoo economics" but cannot point to one single example in history where a nation became strong and prosperous due to so-called "free trade" without any recourse to protecting their borders.
The latter constituted the foundation of a challenge I made to some of my business instructors in college who were pro free trade. And despite not being able to answer the challenge, they still uncritically mimicked the "free trade" mantra. My exposing of this canard before the classes I was in -and invariably making my instructors look very bad in the process- probably prevented me from getting the grades I should have gotten in those classes.
{11} He voted correctly on the presidential line item veto.
{12} He voted correctly on medical savings accounts. For those who think his tobacco vote was correct, kindly read a past weblog musing I did on teen smoking/teen sex double standard to understand the principles behind this common liberal double think.
{13} He views the subjects of military pay raises and benefits to veterans correctly. (About the only area where I feel that the federal government "owes benefits" to anyone -except the handicapped who cannot help themselves- is the veterans who have through their service kept this country free.) And I suppose his view on chemical weapons is okay -though I am not sure I concur with it. His other positions are predictable and IMO detrimental to national security.
{14} He may have voted correctly to oppose visas for skilled workers. To determine this would require a bit more study but we should not be giving anyone visas who is in this country illegally. Nor should we be giving citizenship to illegals no matter how long they are here.
{15} Yes, you read that right.
{16} The idea for ergonomic rules for repetitive stress is a good one and one area that businesses should have much greater concern about than many of them do. The "energy independence" claim is shallow since Kerry would not be willing to allow for more drilling on US soil; ergo his position on "energy independence" is a sham since he would outlaw the one approach that would guarantee energy independence for this nation.
As far as "trade grows jobs" yes it can -depending of course on how this is approached. But there is too much vagueness on Kerry's part here to give him props for this position -particularly since he is on the record as a deluded proponent of so-called "free trade."
{17} A campaign built around "a call to service" is of course good -provided that it is genuine. (It is hard to take someone like Kerry seriously considering how often he tries to have it both ways on issues.) The rest is of course a bunch of pseudo-pious fluff but of course Kerry has the right to his favourite song even if he and I do not agree.
{18} And no, his "Retirement Savings Accounts" idea is not a good one if you read the fine print.
{19} You read that right.
{20} See footnote nineteen. Even the good sounding quips in that section if you check the context are not what they appear at first glance.
{21} Gotta givethe devil Kerry his due on this one.
Having decided earlier in the week to eventually slog through the various points of Senator Kerry's voting record, the results are posted here for your perusal. Though this is based mostly on the bullet-point summations, I did check the context closer on the ambiguous statements of which there were some. Nonetheless, without further ado, let us get to it:
---On the Abortion subject, Kerry is 0-5
---On the Budget and Economy subjects, Kerry is 1-6 at best.{1}
---On the Civil Rights subject, Kerry is 1-13.{2}
---On the Corporations subject, Kerry is 0-3.
---On the Crime subject, Kerry is 5-11.{3}
---On the Drugs subject, Kerry is 1-3.{4}
---On the Education subject, Kerry is 1-14.{5}
---On the Energy and Oil subjects, Kerry is 0-18.{6}
---On the Environment subject, Kerry is at best 1-10.{7}
---On the Families and Children subjects, Kerry is 2-3.{8}
---On the Foreign Policy subject, Kerry is 0-12.{9}
---On the Free Trade subject, Kerry is 0-14.{10}
---On the Government Reform subject, Kerry is 1-10.{11}
---On the Gun Control subject, Kerry is 0-7.
---On the Health Care subject, Kerry is 1-14.{12}
---On the Homeland Security subject, Kerry is at best 3-18.{13}
---On the Immigration subject, Kerry is at best 1-5.{14}
---On the Infrastructure subject, Kerry is 5-5.{15}
---On the Jobs subject, Kerry is at best 2-8.{16}
---On the Principles and Values subjects, Kerry is at best 2-17.{17}
---On the Social Security subject, Kerry is 0-8.{18}
---On the Tax Reform subject, Kerry is 0-16.{19}
---On the War and Peace subjects, Kerry is 0-24.{20}
---On the Welfare and Poverty subjects, Kerry is 7-7.{21}
There are 251 points in this examination. As a rule, Senator Kerry did very poorly in every category though there were of course some stellar exceptions. (Welfare/Poverty and Infrastructure where he had a perfect score in each.) However, in registering 34 out of a possible 251, that equates to a 13.54% rating.
President Bush would be far from perfect himself. Nonetheless, he would do significantly better on the whole than Kerry has. And we have not even considered the subject of same-sex so-called "marriages" - an area where I have noted already was the most significant issue facing us today bar none.
His 13.54% rating notwithstanding, Senator John F
Notes:
{1} If given the benefit of the doubt on the first bullet-point in that category. (In reality he is about half-right on it.)
{2} In this category, I concur with him on opposing the constitutional amendment to prohibit flag burning only.
{3} In the crime category, I concur with him on the moratorium on federal executions -though I would except more than terrorism from it, the death penalty for Osama bin Laden, on restricting class action lawsuits -if they cannot be eliminated altogether that is, on repealing federal speed limits (already happened), and on DNA testing for all federal executions.
{4} I frankly could care less whether or not he has smoked marijuana.
{5} He is correct on supporting charter school proposal only.
{6} There is no way I could support any of his alternative ideas on energy if they include continuing the charade of not drilling for oil on US soil. For not opening up more drilling -or more oil to be pumped from existing oil supplies- is to allow our oil prices to be affected by OPEC.
{7} When I read about a vote against a candidate for Secretary of the Interior who is "conservative to libertarian" on environmental issues, I am not sure I would necessarily disagree with this vote. See this link for an idea of my environmental outlook.
{8} His idea of more funding for programs like Head Start is problematical. I see little else in this subject to take issue with him on -but then there were three points only.
{9} Even his Africa proposal is tainted by the fact that he would seek to implement the same kind of population control methods which are killing first world nations economically.
{10} This is an unfortunate canard of the so-called "neo-conservatives" but even people generally liberal such as Kerry support it. In the case of the liberals, it it is likely because they like the idea of international organizations outside of US sovereignty telling us whom we can trade with and why. The so-called "neo-conservatives" fall for this kind of "voodoo economics" but cannot point to one single example in history where a nation became strong and prosperous due to so-called "free trade" without any recourse to protecting their borders.
The latter constituted the foundation of a challenge I made to some of my business instructors in college who were pro free trade. And despite not being able to answer the challenge, they still uncritically mimicked the "free trade" mantra. My exposing of this canard before the classes I was in -and invariably making my instructors look very bad in the process- probably prevented me from getting the grades I should have gotten in those classes.
{11} He voted correctly on the presidential line item veto.
{12} He voted correctly on medical savings accounts. For those who think his tobacco vote was correct, kindly read a past weblog musing I did on teen smoking/teen sex double standard to understand the principles behind this common liberal double think.
{13} He views the subjects of military pay raises and benefits to veterans correctly. (About the only area where I feel that the federal government "owes benefits" to anyone -except the handicapped who cannot help themselves- is the veterans who have through their service kept this country free.) And I suppose his view on chemical weapons is okay -though I am not sure I concur with it. His other positions are predictable and IMO detrimental to national security.
{14} He may have voted correctly to oppose visas for skilled workers. To determine this would require a bit more study but we should not be giving anyone visas who is in this country illegally. Nor should we be giving citizenship to illegals no matter how long they are here.
{15} Yes, you read that right.
{16} The idea for ergonomic rules for repetitive stress is a good one and one area that businesses should have much greater concern about than many of them do. The "energy independence" claim is shallow since Kerry would not be willing to allow for more drilling on US soil; ergo his position on "energy independence" is a sham since he would outlaw the one approach that would guarantee energy independence for this nation.
As far as "trade grows jobs" yes it can -depending of course on how this is approached. But there is too much vagueness on Kerry's part here to give him props for this position -particularly since he is on the record as a deluded proponent of so-called "free trade."
{17} A campaign built around "a call to service" is of course good -provided that it is genuine. (It is hard to take someone like Kerry seriously considering how often he tries to have it both ways on issues.) The rest is of course a bunch of pseudo-pious fluff but of course Kerry has the right to his favourite song even if he and I do not agree.
{18} And no, his "Retirement Savings Accounts" idea is not a good one if you read the fine print.
{19} You read that right.
{20} See footnote nineteen. Even the good sounding quips in that section if you check the context are not what they appear at first glance.
{21} Gotta give
On the Death Penalty with Sam and Dave:
(Plus some musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
This exchange started with this writer posting the following comments to SAM's weblog with regards to his comments on the death penalty and Justice Antonin Scalia:
Other than the usual oversimplifications on ex cathedra SAM, I concur with your assessment. As far as the application on the DP goes, it is true that we must look towards bloodless means whenever this suffices to achieve the end of the fifth commandment whic[h] -as Jeff noted and as I have noted on previous discussions is the preservation of life. The death penalty when properly utilized is a *means* towards this end. And if other means suffice to meet the same end, then the death penalty would not be appropriate to use.
The question though as I see it is what those limitations ought to be. See these threads for some examples I note which would seem to be congruent with the teaching of the Holy Father in Evangelium Vitae:
On the Death Penalty (Dialogue With Greg Mockeridge)
The Death Penalty Redux (Dialogue With Greg Mockeridge)
SAM noted in response to these comments the following:
"the usual oversimplifications on ex cathedra SAM, I concur . . ."
They're not oversimplifications, they're just not complete exposition of the nuances inherent in (tentatively, for a layman) locating ex cathedra statements. As I understand it, an ex cathedra principle need not be contained in a statement which explicitly qualifies as an ex cathedra pronouncement (i.e., repeated insistence on a thing by numerous pontificates' encyclicals, allocutions, Inquisition/Holy Office/CDF statements, etc.).
Anyhow, I'm never wrong.
HI DAVE!!!
Prior to SAM's comments, a certain "Dave" weighed in{1} noting the following:
Well, Jeff [Culbreath], my problem with SAM's treatment of Scalia's disagreement with part of EV, was that SAM considered this to be not simply dissenting, but at the same time schismatic and heretical. I considered his denunciations of Scalia as holding schismatic and heretical views, and his associating him so closely with the "Culture of Death", to be rhetorical overkill.
Is there no room in Catholic understandings of things for disagreement with an encyclical which is not automatically schismatic and heretical?
It seems to me that we'll be up to our eyeballs in schismatics/heretics if we take this view.
None of my protests should be taken to indicate agreement with Scalia's reading of EV or of his understanding of a properly functioning democracy.
Taking these in order of sequence, We at Rerum Novarum respond as follows. First to SAM, then to Dave.
They're not oversimplifications, they're just not complete exposition of the nuances inherent in (tentatively, for a layman) locating ex cathedra statements.
Ok.
As I understand it, an ex cathedra principle need not be contained in a statement which explicitly qualifies as an ex cathedra pronouncement (i.e., repeated insistence on a thing by numerous pontificates' encyclicals, allocutions, Inquisition/Holy Office/CDF statements, etc.).
Correct.
Anyhow, I'm never wrong.
When you are right you are seldom wrong SAM.
Well, Jeff [Culbreath], my problem with SAM's treatment of Scalia's disagreement with part of EV, was that SAM considered this to be not simply dissenting, but at the same time schismatic and heretical. I considered his denunciations of Scalia as holding schismatic and heretical views, and his associating him so closely with the "Culture of Death", to be rhetorical overkill.
Justice Scalia is no heretic. However, on the subject of the death penalty, he is expressing a schismatic mentality and quite clearly does not know his Catholic Tradition very well. Remember the teaching of Pope Benedict XV to the self-styled "integralist Catholics" of his time -forerunners of the so-called "traditionalist Catholics" of today:
[W]henever legitimate authority has once given a clear command, let no one transgress that command, because it does not happen to commend itself to him; but let each one subject his own opinion to the authority of him who is his superior, and obey him as a matter of conscience. Again, let no private individual, whether in books or in the press, or in public speeches, take upon himself the position of an authoritative teacher in the Church. All know to whom the teaching authority of the Church has been given by God: he, then, possesses a perfect right to speak as he wishes and when he thinks it opportune. The duty of others is to hearken to him reverently when he speaks and to carry out what he says. [Pope Benedict XV: Encyclical Letter Ad Beatissimi (c. 1914)]
In short, Justice Scalia's public display is outside the bounds of what is acceptable and he should confine his difficulties to private correspondence with others (such as Cardinal Dulles who could straighten him out) or simply keep his trap shut.
Is there no room in Catholic understandings of things for disagreement with an encyclical which is not automatically schismatic and heretical?
It seems to me that we'll be up to our eyeballs in schismatics/heretics if we take this view.
There is room for divergences of opinion on the manner whereby the teaching is applied. The principle of bloodless restitution being utilized whenever it can safely meet the end whereby the death penalty is a means of achieving remains intact. We must adhere to it with a religious submission of mind and will (at the very least in the external forum) or else we are being schismatic. However, we are well within our bounds to ask questions about the extent to which this can be achieved. And in doing the latter, there is no disobedience.
For how are we to determine if we can meet the end of the Commandment (preservation of life) viz. certain individuals if we do not inquire into the matter???
For example, if you have a serial murderer, is such an individual ever capable of being reformed??? Obviously not. Would the death penalty be necessary for such an individual in a society where there was a solid justice system and this man's likelihood of being released was non-existent??? The answer to that question is obviously "no."
But what of a society like America where we sentence kids with marijuana possession to longer sentences than murderers -the latter of whom have been known to be paroled??? Obviously that fact changes the equation significantly.
In such instances, recourse to the death penalty would be licit even according to the prescriptions of EV. See the links further up in this post which go over a few other examples -some of which may surprise you. They are in harmony with protecting and safeguarding life which is the purpose or "end" of the fifth commandment as JP II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the Roman Catechism all teach.
None of my protests should be taken to indicate agreement with Scalia's reading of EV or of his understanding of a properly functioning democracy.
Understood.
I am still mystified at why SAM is the only conservative Catholic blogger I know to have gone after Scalia in this manner.
To briefly comment on this point, if you are using the term "conservative" in the manner whereby it is utilized today that this writer is no "conservative." See these links for details on this subject:
The Definition of a Conservative
Some Brief Comments on Ressourcement Methodology
Hopefully they will serve to clarify the stance of this writer on the proper understanding of terms such as "conservative", "conservatism", "traditionalist", "progressivist", and "ressourcement."
Why didn't Mr. McElhinney or Kevin Miller, or any other of the bloggers who disagreed with Scalia use these terms in their discussion of him?
Because Professor Miller and this writer are not attorneys perhaps??? ;-)
The only thing I can think of is that SAM tightly associates disagreement with papal teaching/dissent/schismatic views/and heretical views. I think there's a looser connection here.
Certainly there is a looser connection as you note. However, We at Rerum Novarum understand SAM's annoyance at the degree of disobedience that is passed off as acceptable today. It is particularly annoying when done by those who claim to be "traditionalists" and "more Catholic than thou."
That is not to say that it is less problematical when so-called "progressivists" who are "more Enlightened than thou" do it.{1} But when those who are aghast at such things as committed by the so-called "progressivists" turn right around and do the exact same thing themselves, well they are ripe for rebuking for their attempts to have it both ways.
With regards to the latter, Greg Mockeridge outlined well the distinctions that accompany this problem from Justice Scalia's perspective in this Rerum Novarum Guest Editorial.
As far as SAM goes, this writer concurs with the substance of what he has said. If he wants to use the "schismatic" expression, that is his judgment call to make. It is certainly not in light of Church teaching and the Great Tradition an erroneous application of the expression even if it is (perhaps) pastorally ill-advised.
There's a long tradition of conservative Catholics disagreeing, quite publically, with various points in various encyclicals.
Encyclicals are a mixed bag Dave. Not everything in them constitutes teaching, there are also directives of a juridical nature, historical statements which are not covered under the mantle of teaching, and also prudential opinions pertaining to the application of teachings which are just that: personal opinions which are not binding.{3} This is why the assertion that "[t]here's a long tradition of conservative Catholics disagreeing, quite publically, with various points in various encyclicals is not problematical. Most of the time the points taken issue with are not matters of binding teaching.
Most of them disagreed with teachings that weren't being taught infallibly.
This begs the question Dave. Most Catholics have no idea what is and is not "infallible." Most theologians do not even get this element right. But of course they do not have to except as speculative theological exercises. For obedience to a teaching is not contingent upon whether it is or is not "infallible" in the subjective opinion of the individual. Rather, obedience is contingent upon the manifested mind, will, and intention, of the ecclesiastical magisterium. Not realizing this is unfortunately a common mistake made by most people -even many who are of good will.
I'd not always agreed with their criticism, but I never thought that such criticism itself placed them in the schismatical or heretical camp.
It depends on the subject and how it is approached.
George Weigel's criticisms of some of JPII's social encyclicals comes to mind.
Very few people approach this area with the care that someone such as George Weigel generally does. It would be advisable to read if you have not the CDF's Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian. From what can be discerned, George Weigel virtually never runs afoul of that instruction. This present writer is continually vigilant about avoiding anything incongruent with that instruction in his own writings. (SAM for his part is cautious too.) However, Justice Scalia in his public ruminations on Evangelium Vitae clearly has not been of this same mould.
But now I get the impression that SAM and perhaps you, Shawn, take the view that any public criticism of any part of an encyclical's teaching (even the non-infallible parts) is incompatible with religious submission of mind. Is that your view?
Why are you so hung up on "infallible"/"non-infallible" Dave??? The idea that obedience to a teaching is contingent up on its preceived "infallibility" or its preceived lack thereof is a serious error. Having reiterated that point, it is time to close this post with an answer to your question.
We at Rerum Novarum do not take the view that any public criticism of any part of an encyclical or other magisterial document is incompatible with religious submission of mind and will.{4} However, there is adherence to the belief -borne out in experience- that most public criticism is incompatible because it originates not from the position of seeking to conform oneself to the teaching of the magisterium on difficult matters of conscience. Instead, it originates from the position of striving to find ways of conforming the magisterium's teaching to the individual's view.
Any criticism from the standpoint of the former is acceptable since it has the desire of obedience at its core. By contrast, criticisms from the standpoint of the latter are not acceptable since the desire is not obedience but instead refashioning the difficult teachings or directives to accommodate to the personal whims of the individual. One approach involves carrying a cross and the other involves finding ways to set that cross down -if it is even taken up at all.
In summary, not all disagreements in the public arena are of the same weight. Nor do all disagreements proceed from the same premises. The aforementioned Instruction outlines a lot of these principles in detail. If reading the entire text exceeds the time you have for such endeavours, then please in particular focus on sections 21-37.
Notes:
{1} Not Dave Armstrong.
{2} For to some extent it is expected from them as they are by nature it seems inclined towards striving to be "as gods" ala the temptation of the serpent in Genesis. (Not that humans in general are lacking in this orientation but the so-called "progressivists" tend to shed the usual moorings that keep faithful Catholics within the boundaries of orthodoxy.)
{3} To name a few examples of the various gradations of elements that go into the gumbo of an encyclical letter.
{4} As the trackrecord of this writer's weblogs -as well as the contents of his public essays either on the web or in print periodicals- bears witness to.
(Plus some musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
This exchange started with this writer posting the following comments to SAM's weblog with regards to his comments on the death penalty and Justice Antonin Scalia:
Other than the usual oversimplifications on ex cathedra SAM, I concur with your assessment. As far as the application on the DP goes, it is true that we must look towards bloodless means whenever this suffices to achieve the end of the fifth commandment whic[h] -as Jeff noted and as I have noted on previous discussions is the preservation of life. The death penalty when properly utilized is a *means* towards this end. And if other means suffice to meet the same end, then the death penalty would not be appropriate to use.
The question though as I see it is what those limitations ought to be. See these threads for some examples I note which would seem to be congruent with the teaching of the Holy Father in Evangelium Vitae:
On the Death Penalty (Dialogue With Greg Mockeridge)
The Death Penalty Redux (Dialogue With Greg Mockeridge)
SAM noted in response to these comments the following:
"the usual oversimplifications on ex cathedra SAM, I concur . . ."
They're not oversimplifications, they're just not complete exposition of the nuances inherent in (tentatively, for a layman) locating ex cathedra statements. As I understand it, an ex cathedra principle need not be contained in a statement which explicitly qualifies as an ex cathedra pronouncement (i.e., repeated insistence on a thing by numerous pontificates' encyclicals, allocutions, Inquisition/Holy Office/CDF statements, etc.).
Anyhow, I'm never wrong.
HI DAVE!!!
Prior to SAM's comments, a certain "Dave" weighed in{1} noting the following:
Well, Jeff [Culbreath], my problem with SAM's treatment of Scalia's disagreement with part of EV, was that SAM considered this to be not simply dissenting, but at the same time schismatic and heretical. I considered his denunciations of Scalia as holding schismatic and heretical views, and his associating him so closely with the "Culture of Death", to be rhetorical overkill.
Is there no room in Catholic understandings of things for disagreement with an encyclical which is not automatically schismatic and heretical?
It seems to me that we'll be up to our eyeballs in schismatics/heretics if we take this view.
None of my protests should be taken to indicate agreement with Scalia's reading of EV or of his understanding of a properly functioning democracy.
Taking these in order of sequence, We at Rerum Novarum respond as follows. First to SAM, then to Dave.
They're not oversimplifications, they're just not complete exposition of the nuances inherent in (tentatively, for a layman) locating ex cathedra statements.
Ok.
As I understand it, an ex cathedra principle need not be contained in a statement which explicitly qualifies as an ex cathedra pronouncement (i.e., repeated insistence on a thing by numerous pontificates' encyclicals, allocutions, Inquisition/Holy Office/CDF statements, etc.).
Correct.
Anyhow, I'm never wrong.
When you are right you are seldom wrong SAM.
Well, Jeff [Culbreath], my problem with SAM's treatment of Scalia's disagreement with part of EV, was that SAM considered this to be not simply dissenting, but at the same time schismatic and heretical. I considered his denunciations of Scalia as holding schismatic and heretical views, and his associating him so closely with the "Culture of Death", to be rhetorical overkill.
Justice Scalia is no heretic. However, on the subject of the death penalty, he is expressing a schismatic mentality and quite clearly does not know his Catholic Tradition very well. Remember the teaching of Pope Benedict XV to the self-styled "integralist Catholics" of his time -forerunners of the so-called "traditionalist Catholics" of today:
[W]henever legitimate authority has once given a clear command, let no one transgress that command, because it does not happen to commend itself to him; but let each one subject his own opinion to the authority of him who is his superior, and obey him as a matter of conscience. Again, let no private individual, whether in books or in the press, or in public speeches, take upon himself the position of an authoritative teacher in the Church. All know to whom the teaching authority of the Church has been given by God: he, then, possesses a perfect right to speak as he wishes and when he thinks it opportune. The duty of others is to hearken to him reverently when he speaks and to carry out what he says. [Pope Benedict XV: Encyclical Letter Ad Beatissimi (c. 1914)]
In short, Justice Scalia's public display is outside the bounds of what is acceptable and he should confine his difficulties to private correspondence with others (such as Cardinal Dulles who could straighten him out) or simply keep his trap shut.
Is there no room in Catholic understandings of things for disagreement with an encyclical which is not automatically schismatic and heretical?
It seems to me that we'll be up to our eyeballs in schismatics/heretics if we take this view.
There is room for divergences of opinion on the manner whereby the teaching is applied. The principle of bloodless restitution being utilized whenever it can safely meet the end whereby the death penalty is a means of achieving remains intact. We must adhere to it with a religious submission of mind and will (at the very least in the external forum) or else we are being schismatic. However, we are well within our bounds to ask questions about the extent to which this can be achieved. And in doing the latter, there is no disobedience.
For how are we to determine if we can meet the end of the Commandment (preservation of life) viz. certain individuals if we do not inquire into the matter???
For example, if you have a serial murderer, is such an individual ever capable of being reformed??? Obviously not. Would the death penalty be necessary for such an individual in a society where there was a solid justice system and this man's likelihood of being released was non-existent??? The answer to that question is obviously "no."
But what of a society like America where we sentence kids with marijuana possession to longer sentences than murderers -the latter of whom have been known to be paroled??? Obviously that fact changes the equation significantly.
In such instances, recourse to the death penalty would be licit even according to the prescriptions of EV. See the links further up in this post which go over a few other examples -some of which may surprise you. They are in harmony with protecting and safeguarding life which is the purpose or "end" of the fifth commandment as JP II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the Roman Catechism all teach.
None of my protests should be taken to indicate agreement with Scalia's reading of EV or of his understanding of a properly functioning democracy.
Understood.
I am still mystified at why SAM is the only conservative Catholic blogger I know to have gone after Scalia in this manner.
To briefly comment on this point, if you are using the term "conservative" in the manner whereby it is utilized today that this writer is no "conservative." See these links for details on this subject:
The Definition of a Conservative
Some Brief Comments on Ressourcement Methodology
Hopefully they will serve to clarify the stance of this writer on the proper understanding of terms such as "conservative", "conservatism", "traditionalist", "progressivist", and "ressourcement."
Why didn't Mr. McElhinney or Kevin Miller, or any other of the bloggers who disagreed with Scalia use these terms in their discussion of him?
Because Professor Miller and this writer are not attorneys perhaps??? ;-)
The only thing I can think of is that SAM tightly associates disagreement with papal teaching/dissent/schismatic views/and heretical views. I think there's a looser connection here.
Certainly there is a looser connection as you note. However, We at Rerum Novarum understand SAM's annoyance at the degree of disobedience that is passed off as acceptable today. It is particularly annoying when done by those who claim to be "traditionalists" and "more Catholic than thou."
That is not to say that it is less problematical when so-called "progressivists" who are "more Enlightened than thou" do it.{1} But when those who are aghast at such things as committed by the so-called "progressivists" turn right around and do the exact same thing themselves, well they are ripe for rebuking for their attempts to have it both ways.
With regards to the latter, Greg Mockeridge outlined well the distinctions that accompany this problem from Justice Scalia's perspective in this Rerum Novarum Guest Editorial.
As far as SAM goes, this writer concurs with the substance of what he has said. If he wants to use the "schismatic" expression, that is his judgment call to make. It is certainly not in light of Church teaching and the Great Tradition an erroneous application of the expression even if it is (perhaps) pastorally ill-advised.
There's a long tradition of conservative Catholics disagreeing, quite publically, with various points in various encyclicals.
Encyclicals are a mixed bag Dave. Not everything in them constitutes teaching, there are also directives of a juridical nature, historical statements which are not covered under the mantle of teaching, and also prudential opinions pertaining to the application of teachings which are just that: personal opinions which are not binding.{3} This is why the assertion that "[t]here's a long tradition of conservative Catholics disagreeing, quite publically, with various points in various encyclicals is not problematical. Most of the time the points taken issue with are not matters of binding teaching.
Most of them disagreed with teachings that weren't being taught infallibly.
This begs the question Dave. Most Catholics have no idea what is and is not "infallible." Most theologians do not even get this element right. But of course they do not have to except as speculative theological exercises. For obedience to a teaching is not contingent upon whether it is or is not "infallible" in the subjective opinion of the individual. Rather, obedience is contingent upon the manifested mind, will, and intention, of the ecclesiastical magisterium. Not realizing this is unfortunately a common mistake made by most people -even many who are of good will.
I'd not always agreed with their criticism, but I never thought that such criticism itself placed them in the schismatical or heretical camp.
It depends on the subject and how it is approached.
George Weigel's criticisms of some of JPII's social encyclicals comes to mind.
Very few people approach this area with the care that someone such as George Weigel generally does. It would be advisable to read if you have not the CDF's Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian. From what can be discerned, George Weigel virtually never runs afoul of that instruction. This present writer is continually vigilant about avoiding anything incongruent with that instruction in his own writings. (SAM for his part is cautious too.) However, Justice Scalia in his public ruminations on Evangelium Vitae clearly has not been of this same mould.
But now I get the impression that SAM and perhaps you, Shawn, take the view that any public criticism of any part of an encyclical's teaching (even the non-infallible parts) is incompatible with religious submission of mind. Is that your view?
Why are you so hung up on "infallible"/"non-infallible" Dave??? The idea that obedience to a teaching is contingent up on its preceived "infallibility" or its preceived lack thereof is a serious error. Having reiterated that point, it is time to close this post with an answer to your question.
We at Rerum Novarum do not take the view that any public criticism of any part of an encyclical or other magisterial document is incompatible with religious submission of mind and will.{4} However, there is adherence to the belief -borne out in experience- that most public criticism is incompatible because it originates not from the position of seeking to conform oneself to the teaching of the magisterium on difficult matters of conscience. Instead, it originates from the position of striving to find ways of conforming the magisterium's teaching to the individual's view.
Any criticism from the standpoint of the former is acceptable since it has the desire of obedience at its core. By contrast, criticisms from the standpoint of the latter are not acceptable since the desire is not obedience but instead refashioning the difficult teachings or directives to accommodate to the personal whims of the individual. One approach involves carrying a cross and the other involves finding ways to set that cross down -if it is even taken up at all.
In summary, not all disagreements in the public arena are of the same weight. Nor do all disagreements proceed from the same premises. The aforementioned Instruction outlines a lot of these principles in detail. If reading the entire text exceeds the time you have for such endeavours, then please in particular focus on sections 21-37.
Notes:
{1} Not Dave Armstrong.
{2} For to some extent it is expected from them as they are by nature it seems inclined towards striving to be "as gods" ala the temptation of the serpent in Genesis. (Not that humans in general are lacking in this orientation but the so-called "progressivists" tend to shed the usual moorings that keep faithful Catholics within the boundaries of orthodoxy.)
{3} To name a few examples of the various gradations of elements that go into the gumbo of an encyclical letter.
{4} As the trackrecord of this writer's weblogs -as well as the contents of his public essays either on the web or in print periodicals- bears witness to.
Thursday, March 11, 2004
Apparently Rachelle Linner of Commonweal wrote a short article on St. Blog's titled ST. BLOG’S CHURCH: America’s most vibrant parish? It is certainly worth a read.
However, your humble servant would be remiss in not noting that Responsums to that article have already been penned by The Curt One, Gen X Revert, and Christopher Blosser of The Ratzinger Fanclub: three weblogs mentioned by name in the article.
However, your humble servant would be remiss in not noting that Responsums to that article have already been penned by The Curt One, Gen X Revert, and Christopher Blosser of The Ratzinger Fanclub: three weblogs mentioned by name in the article.
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Meditations on The Dark Night of the Soul:
(Aka "the Rerum Novarum 2004 Lenten Spiritual Instruction")
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. To start from the beginning of this series, please go HERE.
Before posting this section, I would like to extend apologies to those who are following this series who did not see Tuesday's installment run yesterday. It has been rather hectic and these sections take about ten to fifteen minutes or so to properly format, link, etc: a luxury I did not have yesterday. -ISM
CHAPTER III
Of some imperfections which some of these souls are apt to have, with respect to the second capital sin, which is avarice, in the spiritual sense.
MANY of these beginners have also at times great spiritual avarice. They will be found to be discontented with the spirituality which God gives them; and they are very disconsolate and querulous because they find not in spiritual things the consolation that they would desire. Many can never have enough of listening to counsels and learning spiritual precepts, and of possessing and reading many books which treat of this matter, and they spend their time on all these things rather than on works of mortification and the perfecting of the inward poverty of spirit which should be theirs.
Furthermore, they burden themselves with images and rosaries which are very curious; now they put down one, now take up another; now they change about, now change back again; now they want this kind of thing, now that, preferring one kind of cross to another, because it is more curious. And others you will see adorned with agnus deis[1] and relics and tokens,[2] like children with trinkets. Here I condemn the attachment of the heart, and the affection which they have for the nature, multitude and curiosity of these things, inasmuch as it is quite contrary to poverty of spirit which considers only the substance of devotion, makes use only of what suffices for that end and grows weary of this other kind of multiplicity and curiosity.
For true devotion must issue from the heart, and consist in the truth and substances alone of what is represented by spiritual things; all the rest is affection and attachment proceeding from imperfection; and in order that one may pass to any kind of perfection it is necessary for such desires to be killed.
I knew a person who for more than ten years made use of a cross roughly formed from a branch[3] that had been blessed, fastened with a pin twisted round it; he had never ceased using it, and he always carried it about with him until I took it from him; and this was a person of no small sense and understanding. And I saw another who said his prayers using beads that were made of bones from the spine of a fish; his devotion was certainly no less precious on that account in the sight of God, for it is clear that these things carried no devotion in their workmanship or value.
[Pay careful attention to the next words as they highlight the folly of those who have too much of an attachment to exteriors in worship and devotion. -ISM]
Those, then, who start from these beginnings and make good progress attach themselves to no visible instruments, nor do they burden themselves with such, nor desire to know more than is necessary in order that they may act well; for they set their eyes only on being right with God and on pleasing Him, and therein consists their covetousness.
And thus with great generosity they give away all that they have, and delight to know that they have it not, for God's sake and for charity to their neighbour, no matter whether these be spiritual things or temporal. For, as I say, they set their eyes only upon the reality of interior perfection, which is to give pleasure to God and in naught to give pleasure to themselves.
But neither from these imperfections nor from those others can the soul be perfectly purified until God brings it into the passive purgation of that dark night whereof we shall speak presently. It befits the soul, however, to contrive to labour, in so far as it can, on its own account, to the end that it may purge and perfect itself, and thus may merit being taken by God into that Divine care wherein it becomes healed of all things that it was unable of itself to cure.
Because, however greatly the soul itself labours, it cannot actively purify itself so as to be in the least degree prepared for the Divine union of perfection of love, if God takes not its hand and purges it not in that dark fire, in the way and manner that we have to describe.
To be Continued...
Notes:
[1] The agnusdei was a wax medal with a representation of the lamb stamped upon it, often blessed by the Pope; at the time of the Saint such medals were greatly sought after, as we know from various references in St. Teresa's letters.
[2] The word n**mina, translated 'token,' and normally meaning list, or 'roll,' refers to a relic on which were written the names of saints. In modern Spanish it can denote a medal or amulet used superstitiously.
[3] No doubt a branch of palm, olive or rosemary, blessed in church on Palm Sunday, like the English palm crosses of to- day. 'Palm Sunday' is in Spanish Domingo de ramos: 'Branch Sunday.'
(Aka "the Rerum Novarum 2004 Lenten Spiritual Instruction")
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. To start from the beginning of this series, please go HERE.
Before posting this section, I would like to extend apologies to those who are following this series who did not see Tuesday's installment run yesterday. It has been rather hectic and these sections take about ten to fifteen minutes or so to properly format, link, etc: a luxury I did not have yesterday. -ISM
CHAPTER III
Of some imperfections which some of these souls are apt to have, with respect to the second capital sin, which is avarice, in the spiritual sense.
MANY of these beginners have also at times great spiritual avarice. They will be found to be discontented with the spirituality which God gives them; and they are very disconsolate and querulous because they find not in spiritual things the consolation that they would desire. Many can never have enough of listening to counsels and learning spiritual precepts, and of possessing and reading many books which treat of this matter, and they spend their time on all these things rather than on works of mortification and the perfecting of the inward poverty of spirit which should be theirs.
Furthermore, they burden themselves with images and rosaries which are very curious; now they put down one, now take up another; now they change about, now change back again; now they want this kind of thing, now that, preferring one kind of cross to another, because it is more curious. And others you will see adorned with agnus deis[1] and relics and tokens,[2] like children with trinkets. Here I condemn the attachment of the heart, and the affection which they have for the nature, multitude and curiosity of these things, inasmuch as it is quite contrary to poverty of spirit which considers only the substance of devotion, makes use only of what suffices for that end and grows weary of this other kind of multiplicity and curiosity.
For true devotion must issue from the heart, and consist in the truth and substances alone of what is represented by spiritual things; all the rest is affection and attachment proceeding from imperfection; and in order that one may pass to any kind of perfection it is necessary for such desires to be killed.
I knew a person who for more than ten years made use of a cross roughly formed from a branch[3] that had been blessed, fastened with a pin twisted round it; he had never ceased using it, and he always carried it about with him until I took it from him; and this was a person of no small sense and understanding. And I saw another who said his prayers using beads that were made of bones from the spine of a fish; his devotion was certainly no less precious on that account in the sight of God, for it is clear that these things carried no devotion in their workmanship or value.
[Pay careful attention to the next words as they highlight the folly of those who have too much of an attachment to exteriors in worship and devotion. -ISM]
Those, then, who start from these beginnings and make good progress attach themselves to no visible instruments, nor do they burden themselves with such, nor desire to know more than is necessary in order that they may act well; for they set their eyes only on being right with God and on pleasing Him, and therein consists their covetousness.
And thus with great generosity they give away all that they have, and delight to know that they have it not, for God's sake and for charity to their neighbour, no matter whether these be spiritual things or temporal. For, as I say, they set their eyes only upon the reality of interior perfection, which is to give pleasure to God and in naught to give pleasure to themselves.
But neither from these imperfections nor from those others can the soul be perfectly purified until God brings it into the passive purgation of that dark night whereof we shall speak presently. It befits the soul, however, to contrive to labour, in so far as it can, on its own account, to the end that it may purge and perfect itself, and thus may merit being taken by God into that Divine care wherein it becomes healed of all things that it was unable of itself to cure.
Because, however greatly the soul itself labours, it cannot actively purify itself so as to be in the least degree prepared for the Divine union of perfection of love, if God takes not its hand and purges it not in that dark fire, in the way and manner that we have to describe.
To be Continued...
Notes:
[1] The agnusdei was a wax medal with a representation of the lamb stamped upon it, often blessed by the Pope; at the time of the Saint such medals were greatly sought after, as we know from various references in St. Teresa's letters.
[2] The word n**mina, translated 'token,' and normally meaning list, or 'roll,' refers to a relic on which were written the names of saints. In modern Spanish it can denote a medal or amulet used superstitiously.
[3] No doubt a branch of palm, olive or rosemary, blessed in church on Palm Sunday, like the English palm crosses of to- day. 'Palm Sunday' is in Spanish Domingo de ramos: 'Branch Sunday.'
Monday, March 08, 2004
John F-word Kerry's Voting Record:
For those who are interested in the details, Kerry's position on many issues can be found HERE. I counted approximately 300 bullets in that site on Kerry's various positions. To outline how far removed Kerry is from the correct position on those issues would take more time than I presently have. Among the only real problems I could see with the scoring is that they do so on a caricature of what is "pro business" in some categories (and what is "tough on crime" in others).
For much as I reject caricaturing of "traditionalist" and "progressivist" into falsely dichotomist camps, I likewise reject the so-called conventional wisdom that to be pro-business is to necessitate being anti-environment. Indeed I am very pro-business but not at the expense of genuine ecosystem concerns.
Likewise, there is the problematical idea that one must support capital punishment to be tough on crime. This is another false dichotomy that is unfortunately common and the aforementioned site reflects it. But other than those areas, the site seems thus far to be quite accurate on the issues. And I may well finish what I started this morning{1} in noting where Kerry should stand on the issues noted versus where he actually does. (To the extent that we can pinpoint an actual position for someone who hops around hot-potato-like on every issue.) But of course that will require perhaps doing so over lunch or before bedtime as until then such an endeavour is not feasible to do.
Note:
{1} Thus far, Kerry is right on 12.5% of the points I have examined. There will be more on this later when the final tally is completed.
For those who are interested in the details, Kerry's position on many issues can be found HERE. I counted approximately 300 bullets in that site on Kerry's various positions. To outline how far removed Kerry is from the correct position on those issues would take more time than I presently have. Among the only real problems I could see with the scoring is that they do so on a caricature of what is "pro business" in some categories (and what is "tough on crime" in others).
For much as I reject caricaturing of "traditionalist" and "progressivist" into falsely dichotomist camps, I likewise reject the so-called conventional wisdom that to be pro-business is to necessitate being anti-environment. Indeed I am very pro-business but not at the expense of genuine ecosystem concerns.
Likewise, there is the problematical idea that one must support capital punishment to be tough on crime. This is another false dichotomy that is unfortunately common and the aforementioned site reflects it. But other than those areas, the site seems thus far to be quite accurate on the issues. And I may well finish what I started this morning{1} in noting where Kerry should stand on the issues noted versus where he actually does. (To the extent that we can pinpoint an actual position for someone who hops around hot-potato-like on every issue.) But of course that will require perhaps doing so over lunch or before bedtime as until then such an endeavour is not feasible to do.
Note:
{1} Thus far, Kerry is right on 12.5% of the points I have examined. There will be more on this later when the final tally is completed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)