A Digression on the "Scylla/Charybdis" Conundrum of American Political Parties, Etc.

Though some of this will be covered in an upcoming response to an unidentified self-styled "traditionalist" Charles de Nunzio, it seems appropriate to touch on it here since it will allow for setting forth one of the principles that will guide that response. My words will be in regular font with any sources in darkblue font.

You will be happy to know that on Friday I'll be with VP Dick Chaney, in a reception for a local candidate for State (of Texas) Representative.

A great judge, proudly pro lifer conservative and smart. I have been helping elect W Bush as governor twice and to president once, hope the battle will be won again in November. It was a joy to see the historically democratic Texas turn around in the last 10 years. We are the last corner of Texas which is still democrat but even this island is changing. Thanks be to God.

We need more Constructionists on all the supreme courts -state and federal.

TROUBLE is that many professional politicians are beginning to pretend they are Republicans and are joining the party in droves with their socialistic atheistic ideas.

This has been a problem for a long time. It is the reason why I cannot in good conscience affiliate with the Republican Party. If not for the fact that (i) the Democrats are even worse (ii) there is no viable third alternative, and (iii) on the war on terror, Bush actually understands the kind of enemy we are facing, there is no way I would support the president. But concern for the common good and by logical extension this country's survival make that choice in my view necessary.

It takes a lot of homework to study every candidate who runs for election, especially in such a vast state. But it is our responsibility.

I use a simple acid test. To me, the key variable is how they view the proper function of law in a just society. Any candidate that endorses a differentiation between the laws of the individual and the laws of society at large is one who inexorably endorses the plunder of one class of citizens to enrich another class is not a real conservative. And sadly, almost all who run for office under the conservative banner support legal plunder in some form or another. It then becomes a case of ascertaining whether or not their support of legal plunder is based on ignorance of what they are actually supporting or whether they are intentionally in support of it. That is admittedly not easy to determine but a safe norm to follow is to see how much they favour federal involvement or intervention. For the greater they favour those factors, the more they inexorably endorse legal plunder.{1} And no just society can countenance such an abomination and expect to avoid dissolving as a nation at some point or another - either through military conquest or revolution.{2}

It's amazing how when you are listening to a pro lifer it is usually a moral, honest person on all other phases. While when one starts with the "personally I am against abortion..." he turns out to be a dishonest person morally on all other subjects.

And usually those who support abortion also favour various forms of legal plunder as well. I do not believe this parallel is at all coincidental.

One of the "reasons" for pro abortion I heard is that we need to get rid of all the poor (and unwanted) babies since they are such a burden on the tax payer...like they care about the tax payer.

Margaret Sanger would be proud of that "logic." So too would the Nazis. Those who would call themselves conservatives{3} who place the market over any and all things are wolves in sheep's clothing. But I digress.

Notes:

{1} For a working definition of legal plunder, see this link.

{2} But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law -- which may be an isolated case -- is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: The Law (c. 1850)]

{3} See this link for some details on what it means to be a true conservative.

Points to Ponder:

Today, some self-identified Catholic politicians prefer to emulate Pontius Pilate's 'personally opposed but unwilling to impose' stance. [Bishop Thomas Wenski of Orlando, Florida]

The Aggiornamento of Rerum Novarum:
(Via Ressourcement of Course)

Yes, it has been a long time since We at Rerum Novarum have updated this humble weblog. (Over three and a half months in fact.) Nonetheless, this update is substantially completed though We reserve the right of course to make additional adjustments in the coming days as needed. Without further ado, here are the additions listed by category:


Weblog Special Reports, Commemorations, Retrospectives, Etc:

"Raising an Irish Shotglass to Dad" Dept. [>>>]

Guest Editorial on the Passion of the Christ (Written by Mark Downey; Additional Commentary by Stephen Hand and I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]

On Emailing Rerum Novarum or Receiving Email From Us [>>>]

Miscellaneous Musings on "Funks" and How to Avoid Them While Blogging [>>>]


On Political/Social Subjects in General:

On So-Called "Gay Marriage" (Dialogue With Pete Vere) [>>>]

On Workable Remedies for Societies' Problems (Dialogue With Kevin Tierney) [>>>]



On the US Constitution and the Fundamental Rights of Man:

Society's Ills, the Function of Law in a Just Society, Etc. (Dialogue With Kevin Tierney) [>>>]


On Political Election Topics:

On the 2004 Election [>>>]

John F -word Kerry's Voting Record Revisited [>>>]

Miscellaneous Musings on Al Queda, Spain, John Kerry, Etc. [>>>]

More on John Kerry, Spain, Al Queda, Etc. [>>>]

On the 9-11 Commission (With Greg Mockeridge) [>>>]


On the Recent War and War in General:

Rerum Novarum Pays Tribute to Pat Tillman [>>>]

On Nick Berg and the Animals Who Killed Him (Not for Viewing by Children) [>>>]

Briefly on the Iraqi Prison Scandal [>>>]


On the Second Vatican Council:

Points to Ponder From Melkite Patriarch Maximos IV Saigh (Parts I-IV) [>>>]



On Particular Philosophical Subjects:

Brief Response and a Request to Tim Enloe [>>>]

A Followup Response to Tim Enloe on Proposed Dialogue [>>>]

Reprising a Request for Dialogue on Foundational Premises (to Tim Enloe) [>>>]

On Adoption in the Spirit (With Apolonio Latar III) [>>>]


On 'Traditionalism' (Falsely So-Called):

More Sedevacantist Nonsense [>>>]

Deconstructing Another Dyspeptic "Traditionalist" [>>>]

Responding to Another "Traditionalist" Wannabee [>>>]


On 'Traditionalism' (Properly So-Called):

Miscellaneous Musings on Communion Reception [>>>]

More on Intincture and the Common Good [>>>]

Mail From A Former "Traditionalist" [>>>]

More Mail From A Former "Traditionalist" [>>>]

Briefly on David Palm's Novelty Article, Etc. [>>>]

On the Recent CDWDS Document (With F. John Loughnan) [>>>]

Dialogue on Self-Styled "Traditionalism" (With Dr. Philip Blosser) [>>>]


On Certain Controverted "Hotpoint" Subjects Pertaining to Doctrine:

Natural Law vs. Personalist Approaches to Theology [>>>]

Briefly on Ressourcement Methodology [>>>]


On Other Controverted Subjects:

On the Pope, Moral Principles, the UN, and Stephen Hand [>>>]

Miscellaneous Musings on Weblog Maintenance and the Continued Existence of Rerum Novarum) [>>>]

Miscellaneous Morning Musings (on The Passion of the Christ) [>>>]

Briefly on The Passion of the Christ [>>>]

On the Death Penalty With SAM and Dave [>>>]

On Theological and Liturgical Ressourcement, 'Traditionalist' Schools of Thought, Abortion, and Other Subjects (Dialogue With Kevin Tierney and Pete Vere) [>>>]

An Activist Call Against the "Morning After" Pill [>>>]


Spiritual Instruction:

Meditations on the Dark Night of the Soul [>>>]



Shawn's Eastern Catholic Corner Approved Links:

Omnibus Compertium Encyclical Epistle on Unity Among the Greek Melkites (Pope Leo XIII) [>>>]


Other Approved Sites or Links of Interest:

A second division was made in this column for the magisterial texts grouped here to separate them from the other links.

Quanta Cura Encyclical Letter on Condemning Errors (Pope Pius IX) [>>>]

Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum Encyclical Letter on Appealing for Peace (Pope Benedict XV) [>>>]

Mediator Dei Encyclical Letter on the Sacred Liturgy (Pope Pius XII) [>>>]

Ecclesiam Suam Encyclical Letter on the Church's Path in the Modern World (Pope Paul VI) [>>>]

Lumen Gentium Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council) [>>>]

Veritatis Splendour Encyclical Letter on Fundamental Questions of the Church's Moral Teaching (Pope John Paul II) [>>>]


As all of these additions and modifications meet with my approval, by virtue of my authority as Sovereign Thane and Lord High Executioner of Rerum Novarum, I promulgate these additions in perpetuity all things to the contary notwithstanding.

Though I have discussed it on message boards before, I do not believe it has graced the archives of Rerum Novarum -though I am sure if I am mistaken on this that someone will at some point tell me. Nonetheless, here is a good example of why I have long taken Santayana's dictum about history so seriously:

The Myth of the Flat Earth

Thanks for the link Greg.

Briefly on the Unconstitutionality of Brown vs. Board of Education, Etc.

One of the nice things about being part of St. Blog's is that the odds are good that someone will cover an issue that We intend to talk about. (And they do it so well that We do not feel compelled to write about it Ourselves.) This is what The Mighty One did today with the subject of Brown vs. Board of Education a landmark perversion of constitutional law that that set the table for Roe vs. Wade and numerous other abominations.{1}

This is not to say that Brown was the first judicial perversion of its kind in American history of course. However, it did set the tone for such decisions eventually becoming normal rather than remaining as an occasional abominable exception as was the case prior to 1954. Anyway, give the Barrister's commentary a read and notice how well it meshes with what We have often noted on this weblog about the role of law in a just society. See the weblog column titled On the US Constitution and the Fundamental Rights of Man for many of the posts blogged through January of 2004. (In the coming days, We will be updating this weblog and adding to the various categories in the side margin including the aforementioned one.)

Note:

{1} Not to mention the kind of faulty reasoning that sustains such injustices.

A Rerum Novarum Weblog Update:

I have finally gotten and formatted all of the weblog posts that will go into the weblog update in the coming days. All that remains is to (i) sort them by category, (ii) add them to the margin, (iii) save the template, (iv) copy and paste the updated template to my private weblog, {v) save the template of the private weblog, (vi) republish the private weblog template so the changes take hold (vii) republish the template at Rerum Novarum after it has been updated (viii) post a note to the weblog indicating changes made with solemn promulgation formulary. In short, there is still plenty to do but the hardest of the process is completed. The rest should be tended to in the coming days if all goes according to plan.

Briefly on the Iraqi Prison Scandal:

My words in this thread will be in the regular weblog font.

[H]ow I wish my countrymen would grow up and stop emotionally overreacting to such excusable nonsense. A few bored and frustrated soldiers (secular idiot-heads that they are) had some sadistic fun with some of Saddam's thugs. So what? If this were peace time, we could get upset about that. But we don't have that luxury ...not with such people. Some things are more important than that American myth that goes "liberty and justice for all" ...all AMERICANS, that is, ...nor all Sadamists, or terrorists, or Nazis. ;-). Someone should remind the liberals of the latter.

I'm absolutely dumfounded by how these liberal IDIOTS over-react as cheap actors. The prison abuse isn't good, but as much as I'd hate to say this, those are terrorists in there. Why do we care about people that want to CHOP OUR HEADS OFF more than about our soldiers and our president?

Anything for political power is how they see it.

The sheer hatred of Republicans that the Democrats have is appalling and absolutely disgusting.

Real Americans know that during wartime these kinds of partisan squabblings are inappropriate. Hence though the Republicans savaged President Roosevelt before Pearl Harbor{1}, after that they put partisan politics aside because they recognized that the security of the republic was at stake and was of much greater importance. I might add that the Democrats of that day if the shoe was on the other foot probably would have done the same thing. But that only highlights just how far off the rails the Democratic leadership (and many rank and file Democrats) have gone.

Let us approach this pragmatically for a moment. What is needed is for President Bush to get the NEA to fund the pictures as "artistic license." I mean, come on: a crucifix in a jar of urine is "art" to these people as are pictures of Our Lady smeared with elephant feces. And of course do not forget about the "free expression" of pornography. Why then in light of these indisputable facts{2} are the pictures of the soldiers humiliating prisoners considered so "scandalous"??? If anything these people should be nominating those soldiers for the equivalent of the "2004 Larry Flynt Freespeech Award" for those photos where they are so clearly "indulging their appetites" right???

It is only a matter of sex so I cannot see why these people are so worked up about it. It is difficult to imagine that if Clinton were still president that this would be considered anything but an odd quirk if not for the fact that these were military people.{3}

That is why Bush should retaliate by getting the NEA to fund these pictures if only to expose these people for the hypocrites that they are.{4} A bunch of little Neros fiddling while Rome burns. I have to wonder if even atrocities like the savage beheading of Nick Berg by subhumans will wake these idiots up. Here it is in a nutshell: WE ARE AT WAR WITH SAVAGES WHO HAVE NO SHRED OF COMMON DECENCY IN THEM!!! My guess is that the liberals seeking to cozy up to these vermin will die with their severed heads still in their rectums because of an unwillingness to wake up, remove their heads, and face up to reality.

Imagine these liberal useful idiots of Satan during WWII. "Oh no, but look at how wonderful Hitler really is, he built the autobahns and helped German economy. Stupid bigoted Americans!" *sigh*.

If these kinds of people were in charge during the Second World War, we would all either be speaking German today or be lampshades. That is the bottom line that these seditionists cannot understand. And yes, I do favour trying the most extreme of these sorts for sedition and throwing them behind bars. Make examples of a few big names and the rest will not be so inclined to spout off with their verbal "aid and comfort to the enemy." But I digress.

Notes:

{1} And this was proper prior to December 7, 1941 I might add.

{2} I refer here to the fact that these talking points are treated as dogma by the liberals.

{3} Obviously anything the Purjurer-in-Chief could have used to denigrate the military would have been used if we are to go by his eight year track record in office.

{4} I am not saying that this would be constitutional of course because it would not be. But controverting the Constitution has become so common the past sixty odd years that what is one more indiscretion - particularly if it would underscore the hypocrisy of the "free speech" crowd???

In light of the earlier ranting -none of which I retract for an instant lest anyone wonder- it seemed appropriate to focus on more mundane matters such as weblog restoration. Therefore, not long after that post was added -and before I updated that post- the weblogs were recategorized as they once were and the bulk of the ones I had up previously were restored. (Along with some that I had long intended to add but never had being added at that time.) I also spent about three hours completing and formatting the restoration of the archives for Rerum Novarum. They are completed through July 31, 2004 so all that is left to do is the long delayed weblog update. However, I am too tired to do that now. It is however on the agenda before the end of the month as is finishing and blogging some long planned responses to others. As these adjustments will be duplicated on my private weblog so that any future glitches are easily corrected and quickly, all that is left now is to conclude this entry.

I am frankly not in the mood to utilize solemn pomp for these promulgations tonight my friends. I am tired and also quite livid still at what I blogged on earlier. For that reason I will only note here in brief that all adjustments, restorations, additions, and subtractions are approved in perpetuity all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

On the Death of Nick Berg and the So-Called "Religion of Peace":
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[WARNING: Any children or those with weak stomachs or sensitive ears, kindly do not read this post. -ISM]

Having noted that, those who are not children and can more readily handle reality, kindly go to these photos courtesy of the Paul Revere Society:

Nick Berg R.I.P

About thirty minutes ago, I was listening to the radio on my way to complete a business transaction when I heard the audio that went along with those pictures. What I heard was a bunch of Islamo-fascists changing to "Allah" while Mr. Berg was screaming. You see, they were sawing his throat with a blade and not apparently a sharp one at that. In a word: they cut his head completely off. I am so angry right now that if those bastards were in my presence I would kill them all without a second thought.

You see my friends, we are in a war here and we are dealing with people who are quite obviously incapable of being reasoned with - people who are less than people but are instead properly styled as "human debris." There is a reason why after mulling over the issue for about four months on this weblog{1} I took the stand I took last year on the war and even to the extent of publicly disagreeing with the Holy Father on that subject in no uncertain terms. Those who are familiar with my work know that I only do such things with the greatest of trepidation. However, these are not ordinary circumstances my friends. This is much like the so-called "homosexual marriage" subject in the realm of being a major determining factor in my paradigm of thought on these matters. Here is how I see the war on terror in a nutshell:

---We are fighting a group of intellectually and emotionally arrested fanatics who have yet to come out of the seventh century. Arab civilization contrary to the ignorant babblings of the media is hardly some fertile ground for philosophy, mathematics, science, and the like. All of their contributions in those areas -significant though they were- were a millennia ago. One commentator astutely noted that "since they gave us the zero, they have given civilization zero" and that sums it up about as well as can be done in a syllabus style statement.

---We are dealing with people who revel in death who do not hesitate to boast about this. We are dealing with people who view innocent children as "infidel subversives" and who have no scruples about killing them. Likewise non-Muslims are viewed. Essentially if they cannot convert you, then you must die. Hence in the most sadistic of "rituals" I heard chanting to "Allah" while a young man's bloodcurdling screams rang out over the airwaves as those bastards, those rats, those vile pieces of human debris cut his throat slowly in sawing motion with a dull blade.

But I suppose we are still going to hear the hollow paens of "involving the UN" in the Iraq situation - the same UN who cannot even run a simple oil for food program without massive corruption. I suppose we are going to still hear the cheap rhetoric of "give peace a chance" and after all, if we simply reason with these people and if we show them we are nice people that they will be nice too and all will be well. No my friends, you do not deal with a rabid disease infested dog that attacks you with kind words or idle threats. You deal with such an animal by shooting it. Likewise, these vile people need to be dealt with. I think stake burning would be appropriate for them.

Now I am sure that there are people who will think that I am doing an aboutface on my position on the death penalty stated on this weblog early on and inculcated at this weblog not a few times since then.{2} I however know for a fact that they are congruent with one another -as I never take public stands on controversial issues without doing a good amount of reflecting first on all possible contingent situations. The Church's directive is that the death penalty must be used judiciously and when no other recourse is possible. I submit my friends that this is one of those cases.

For we cannot negotiate with these bastards. They only want to kill us to appease their twisted view of God. Therefore, we need to incinerate them first. It has been proposed in various forms by others but here is my suggestion: give the populace 72 hours to get the hell out of Dodge and then carpetbomb their stronghold cities (like those inside the "Sunni Triangle"). After that, salt the earth so that nothing will grow. I came within a hair's breadth of wishing these inhumans an eternity in hell today but I will not go that far. But I will pray that they have the most painful of purgatories possible.

Also, I will note here for the record that I am calling the bluff of the hypocrites in the media who go out of their way to defend the silence of the Muslims in this country who are presumably no more represented by these thugs than Catholics or any other group are represented by the worst examples in their respective histories. Here is the call my friends. Those who continue to (i) defame or otherwise demean the "silence" of Pius XII during the Holocaust (ii) defame or otherwise demean the southerners who were silent in the face of Klan or other kinds of violence towards our brothers and sisters of a darker hue or non-WASP ancestry need to stop using the "they are silent out of fear" excuse for American Muslims. It is bullshit and I cannot take it anymore. Therefore, you media hypocrites need to start approaching these issues with consistency. I will give you your only choices here.

You can either (i) call them to the carpet for their negligence or (ii) continue to parrot this partyline and cease and desist from the slanders directed towards Pius XII and the inhabitants of the old pre-1970's south. Otherwise, you have not a whit of credibility with thinking people on any subject whatsoever and deserve any derision you receive now and in the future. Oh and one more thing. Though I am hardly a rabid Bush supporter,{3} the following needs to be said also:

I BLAME THOSE TRYING TO USE INDISCRETIONS FROM THE IRAQ WAR FOR POLITICAL GAIN -SUCH AS JOHN KERRY, EDWARD KENNEDY, AND THE OTHER PARTISAN DEVILCRATS- FOR THE DEATH OF NICK BERG. MAY HIS BLOOD BE ON YOU AND ON YOUR IDEOLOGICAL CHILDREN!!!

I am sure this post has resulted in my losing all but the most diehard of my readers but so be it. This is not a popularity contest and I never say what I say to be popular. Those who would question the tenure of this post or the language used -which I assure you is significantly restrained from what I would like to say- I exhort you to do two things:

1) Review the pictures at the link above.

2) Obtain the audio of Nick Berg's murder and listen to it when viewing the pictures yet again.

If at that point you have not changed your mind on this matter, then I have to question just how human you really are and how concerned you are for real justice. These dogs do not deserve to live for what they have done and they cannot be reasoned with. Therefore, exterminate their sorry asses as a testimony to other would-be Islamofascists. Then wrap their bodies in pig entrails. That is all I have to say on the matter at this time except for a small note to Nick Berg and his family -starting with Mr. Berg himself.

---Nick: be assured of my prayers that you may rest in peace with all the souls of the faithfully departed.

---To Nick's family: may you all receive the comfort you need in this difficult time. I hope that any readers I have left will also offer their prayers for you and your family.

And finally:

---May the animals who murdered Nick Berg be snuffed out and buried in pig entrails.

There is really nothing more to say at this time.

[Update: For those who still do not get it, consider the situation from a couple of years ago with the late journalist Daniel Pearl. Like Nick Berg, he was murdered in the name of "the religion of peace." May his soul rest in peace as well. - ISM 5/12/04 7:25 pm]

Notes:

{1} See the entries preceding the above links in the margin on the war subject. There may well be some in the archives which are not in the margin as well - I cannot at the moment remember one way or the other.

{2} I cannot recall if I blogged on this subject since January -as this humble weblog has not been updated since then. However, this subject was treated on again at least as recently as HERE. Until this weblog is updated again -and it is slated for being done before this month is out- I cannot say with certainty if there are any postings more recent than that.

{3} See this link lest anyone think this is a political grandstand on my part. (I solemnly assure you that it is anything but that.)

Points to Ponder:

We at Rerum Novarum found Ourselves while working on template restoration wondering when a good friend of our friend Pete Vere (Shawn Tribe) would begin blogging again. His take on several issues being akin to what has been expressed on this humble weblog is but one reason that We wonder about this. Another reason is that his eastern sensibilities provided a different way of viewing subjects rather than through the stock overly Latin way common to the majority of Catholics. (Even those not affected by so-called "traditionalist" outlooks.)

Though We have checked on occasion over the months, his weblog is still without an update since October 27, 2002. We therefore post this as some points to ponder on matters liturgical and exhort those who know this individual well to encourage him to again take up the blogging discipline anew. But without further ado, here are the points to ponder for today:

One of the things I have been trying to point out is that in the post-Tridentine Western church, we have what seems a uniquely Roman attitude that there is only one way to do things -- that there ought to be one Mass, etc. It is reflected in the tensions which already exist between communities of the indult, of the reform of the reform, and of the modern trendy liturgical circles with each other. Historically, it is represented in the negative bias which even the likes of the great Dom Gueranger expressed in relation to the Oriental and Byzantine liturgies. Even now there are many Western Catholics who view Byzantine Catholicism as somehow "funny", "odd", "eccentric" or even inferior -- yes, I have heard that claim made by some hardline traditionalists. It is reflected when parish priests get concerned because some people wish to receive on the tongue, or kneeling, or by making a sign of the cross first, etc. They feel the people must be catechized to all receive in the same way; they view this varied devotional practise as somehow a disunity in the Body of Christ. Each of these represent an attitude that there must be one way of doing things.

But what effect has this stab at homogeneity had? Has it been unifying? It would seem not since we have a situation where people are segregated in the ways suggested. Is the solution to allow a multiplicity of rites again? Not in and of itself, no. Really that is a separate, but not unrelated issue. It should not be said that I am proposing a multiplicity of rites as a means to greater unity in the Church. For myself, the harmonious co-existence of rites would be a *fruit* of greater unity in the Church. The point was initially raised in response to those who were hesitant to have changes applied to the 1962 missal. In response I pointed out that there was no absolute necessity that everyone must celebrate the 1962 missal with these changes, nor that everyone must use the 1962 missal as is, nor that there wasn't room for the 1965 missal and certainly not that all must use the Pauline missal. In short, that there is room in the Church's tradition, past and present, for unity in diversity; for legitimate liturgical variation. The East has always had this variance and it continues to serve them in the present day...

I should take a minute to point out that when I speak of liturgical variation, I am not speaking of, nor including do-it-yourself liturgies...

What we need to most establish is a change in what seems a uniquely Roman attitude in favour of homogeneity. It is that attitude, I think, that is the cause of the segregation and ghettoization in the Church. The mere presence of a multiplicity of rites is not the cause of this; it merely aggravates it (just as does homogeneity) given that climate. [Shawn Tribe: From Blog of a Byzantinesque Latin circa August 14, 2002]

Though I do not have time to say much else on it at the moment, the weblog list restoration project is almost complete. The archives as noted before are done through July 5, 2003. Everything is almost back to normal now...sigh...

Points to Ponder:

It seems appropriate to use this entire entry so that is what we will do here...

This is truly and frighteningly evil. From The Chronicle of Higher Education - Oh, what we have wrought:

In many parts of Asia, that advice [favoring male offspring] appears to have stuck. Centuries later, a strong preference for sons persists, enhanced by technology that increasingly allows parents to realize their desires. Amniocentesis and ultrasound can easily identify the sex of a fetus, and sex-selective abortion has become an everyday practice. Daughters who are born are frequently given up, and thousands are adopted out of the country every year. On the horizon are inexpensive sperm-sorting techniques that will guarantee a son even before conception. New technology, of course, is not the only factor; in some rural areas, old-fashioned female infanticide still lingers.

The reasons for the persistence of offspring sex selection, and the exact numbers of pregnancies involved, have been hotly debated since the early 1990s, when the economist Amartya Sen called attention to the phenomenon of "missing women." By some social scientists' measure, more than 100 million females are now missing from the populations of India and China.

For example: in 1996, the ratio of boys to girls (aged 1 - 4) was 121 boys for every 100 girls. Do you have any reason to believe that this is not a ticking time bomb?

If ever there was proof that abortion targets women, here it is. Women, you've been tricked into supporting a genocide that is wiping out your sisters (sororicide) at a rate far higher than your brothers, and yet you support the very evil that has you squarely in its crosshairs.

On the other side, without providentially even ratios, there are a lot of men out there without hope of a mate. Rather than fix the problem at its source (stop killing women), supporters of the Sacrament of Abortion will simply advocate killing more males. And gay marriage.

While I subscribe to the theory that if you see ten troubles coming down the road nine are sure to fall in the ditch, I can't see a problem this large as doing anything but hugging the middle of the road. Combine this with the increasing enstupification of large segments of the population (link goes to Fred Reed's latest column) and I think we're looking at a massive, world-wide social failure. [The Mighty Barrister (c. 5/03/04)]

A Response to Dr. Philip Blosser:

Dr. Blosser's words will be in green font. The text which Dr. Blosser emailed to me (and to which I am responding here) can be accessed HERE.

Dear Shawn,

Hello Dr. Blosser:

Thanks for your detailed response.

You are welcome.{1}

I understand all about time constraints and difficulties of engaging the sorts of concerns raised by Mr. David Palm in New Oxford Review.

To David's credit, I am far more inclined to respond to him than to most of his allies.

As I'm sure you would agree, one of the principal challenges facing us in the Church today is the problem of ignorance and confusion. It is no longer a matter of large numbers of rank-and-file Catholics (lapsed or "practicing") rejecting Church teachings or "dissenting" from them; many of them have not the vaguest knowledge of what those teachings are. And, ironically, the more widespread the ignorance about Catholic teaching, the greater the prejudice against the Catholic Church.

Indeed.

The fact that "the truth is out there" somewhere, in encyclicals and historical documents of the Church seems of little avail when one is staring priests and catechists in the face who don't believe in hell or purgatory, and who deny the importance of sacramental confession, observance of holy days of obligation, rubrics of Mass, or importance of knowing the Bible.

This is also true.

It may be that writers such as David Palm are wrong about this or that detail of their patristic interpretation, etc.

They usually are.

But my interest is with what animates their concern in the Church today, which I do not think can be easily dismissed as a matter of misreading this Church Father or that encyclical. "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge . . ." (Hosea 4:6)

Most who call themselves "traditionalists" make the mistake of not handling problematical issues with a proper Catholic way. Hence, they gripe about Assisi and incidents like that forgetting that it is contrary to the dogma of the papal supremacy to refuse assent to the Apostolic See not only in matters of faith and morals but also in matters which concern the Church's general good as well as her rights and discipline.

Catholic dogma is clear that the pope has full authority in the areas of "feeding" (teaching), ruling (directives or disciplines), but also in "guiding" the Church. These distinctions were spelled out by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura: an encyclical that "trads" like to prooftext but obviously have not read very carefully.{2} Likewise, the practice or utilizing terms such as "Neo-Catholic", and "traditionalist Catholic" was clearly condemned by Pope Benedict XV in Ad Beatissimi.{3}

That same pope condemned those who would appeal to the press or media outlets against a judgment or directive of the Holy See.{4} Yet what essentially has David and his allies done repeatedly over the years??? They attempt to defend this dissidence under the umbrella of Canon 212 but that dog does not hunt as Pete Vere has noted on a few occasions.{5} But I am getting ahead of myself here.

Returning to the subject of Quanta Cura and the threefold division it makes (feeding, ruling, and guiding), the trads usually toe the line with the first one and sometimes with the second one. But even people such as David Palm appear to me to be falling short of the third one which deals with the Pope's ability to set the agenda for how the Church is to handle issues in a given epoch of time.

As far as David's other essay goes, I have proposed a way of approaching it on one of your weblogs. Here is the link.

In closing, I agree with you that the concern that animates their positions is important. However, a lot of it is simply a lack of spiritual maturity on their side -something I made note of in many of my writings particularly my August 2003 essay response to Chris Ferrara and my last essay response to David Palm. Previous writings alluded to it and in revising my treatise in late 2002 early 2003, I added a section I wrote in March 2002 specifically for addressing this subject which had become much more obvious to me than it once was. {6} I have enclosed that section in this note as you may find it of interest.

We need your resources.

Fortunately, I have written a lot in the past five years so I can draw on that material as needed. I will do what I can but admittedly because of time constraints being tighter than ever now, I have to be more selective in the topics I discuss.

Notes:

{1} I may blog the bulk of that response later on.

{2} [We cannot] pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that "without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals." But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church. [Pope Pius IX: Encyclical Letter Quanta Cura §5 (c. 1864) as quoted in I. Shawn McElhinney's essay The "Tradition is Opposed to Novelty" Canard (c. 2004)]

{3} It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself. [Pope Benedict XV: Encyclical Letter Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum §23 as quoted in I. Shawn McElhinney's essay The "Tradition is Opposed to Novelty" Canard (c. 2004)]

{4} [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 Apostolorum §22 as quoted in I. Shawn McElhinney's essay The "Tradition is Opposed to Novelty" Canard (c. 2004)]

{5} See this link for details:

No, Canon 212 Does Not Grant An Imprimatur To Publish Irresponsible Opinions

{6} Psychological Factors:

As none of the changes made to the liturgy in any way infringes upon unalterable Tradition, none of them are valid excuses for avoiding the Pauline liturgy. (Those with the licit option to attend the Tridentine Mass in their dioceses can do so of course.) The only arguments can be made are ones of personal preference and not for the invalidity of the Pauline Rite. (And arguments about any rite being "superior" are by their very nature very subjective judgments.)

Objectively speaking, since the merits of the Mass are infinite regardless of the rite used, arguments from any position except those of personal preference are illegitimate and those who claim otherwise are opposing themselves to the judgment of the Church. Indeed often statements about one rite or another being "superior", one rite providing "greater motivation to pray better" or the claims that "I get more out of it" are statements that this writer has heard different Catholics make about the various rites sanctioned by the Catholic Church. (Including some converts who have told him that understanding what is said at mass with the newer rite was a pivotal part of their conversion process.) Whichever liturgy this attitude is taken towards, it is a dangerous principle for reasons that will now be outlined in brief.

One constantly hears in the west that many people do not go to church because they "do not get anything out of it". Now many Catholics claim that they attend a rite of mass that they are "motivated to pray better" with, and a lot of them justify rending the cloak of Christ by partaking in liturgy with groups that are schismatic either de facto or de jure. Hence, that this attitude can lead to shipwreck of the Faith, it must be repudiated.

The reader can start by asking himself or herself why they are "better motivated" - if indeed they are - at a particular liturgy. They need to ask themselves why they "get more out of" one liturgy than another. They need to really focus on the fact that their motivation may seriously be misplaced - because it is. An easterner would hear a statement like "I do not get anything out of it" and be shocked that someone could be so shallow, so selfish. The reason for this is that the Easterners recognize oftentimes that what one "gets out of it", is the inestimable privilege of glorifying Almighty God.

This has nothing to do with what you the reader subjectively feel. Instead, it is recognizing that Mass is to honour the Lord of Hosts. Ergo, if you cannot place the honour of the Lord above your own personal motivations, then you are not approaching worship as a Catholic should. This is how a Catholic who prefers a rite of mass that is not licitly celebrated in their dioceses needs to approach this subject, lest they be like the "spiritual gluttons" spoken of by the great mystic and Doctor of the Church St. John of the Cross:

"You will find that many of these persons [spiritual gluttons] 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, faint-hearted, and fall away. These persons think that their own satisfaction and pleasure are the satisfaction and service of God..."

"These persons who are thus inclined to such pleasures have another 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..."

"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 therein 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 themselves by God acting quite contrary to that which He Himself taught in the Gospel, saying: 'That he who should lose his will for His sake, the same shall gain it and he that desires to gain it, the same shall lose it.'"

"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 run fretfully away from everything that is hard, and take offense at the Cross, wherein consist the delight of the spirit. 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." ...

The reader needs to honestly assess if they are acting in the same manner as the "spiritual gluttons" outlined in St. John of the Cross' work. This writer asserts that anyone who feels the need to disobey their ecclesiastical superiors in any area (except of course for a command to sin) is spiritually immature. A spiritually mature Catholic, who prefers a rite of mass that is not licitly celebrated in their dioceses, does not disobey their ecclesiastical superiors by attending illegally celebrated masses by clerics who do not have the communion of the Holy Father. This will be dealt with in greater detail in the upcoming treatise urls lest the reader falsely ascribe as "non-authoritative" or "optional" teachings or directives which are in reality binding. (Or ascribing ecclesiastical communion to those who do not have it.) [I. Shawn McElhinney: From the treatise "A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism'" Part V (c. 2003, 2000)]

For bibliographical and notes on this entry, see url five at this link.

"Slouching Towards Gommorah" Dept.

Your weblog host received this link (among other materal) from Kathryn Lively earlier today:

Stop the Morning-After Pill! Over-the-Counter approval to be decided by the FDA May 21. No age limits, no medical supervision, no parental involvement!

Please take a moment and read the material at that link carefully.

As the arguments that undergird these subjects are so similar, We at Rerum Novarum remind the readers that your weblog host mused on the teen smoking/teen sex double standard last year. For the record, Our views have not changed and the above link outlines a classic example of such hypocrisy. We therefore, take the time to reiterate anew our previous observations on this obvious double standard and exhort you all to contact your senators and representatives. {1}

To facilitate contact of these representatives, if it helps any, We release from our normal site copyright any and all of the material in the aforementioned link. The readers of this weblog may thereby utilize it as they see fit without concern for proper crediting thereof.{2} Our only recommendations is to apply such points -if they are utilized at all- with measured care. It is imperative that anyone contacting their congresspeople try to avoid coming across as someone that can be typecast as a fringe lunatic. There are very good arguments in our favour consistency-wise which can be used to advance this cause. Please try to approach it from that issue however passionate you may be on this issue. (And We trust that you are plenty passionate about it.)

Notes:

{1} See the link as supplied by Kathryn Lively. Here is a sample letter to send to congresspeople and the president which you will find among the materials at the aforementioned link:

Dear Senator ____________ (or Congressman _____________):

I understand the FDA is set to decide whether or not the morning-after-pill (MAP) will go over-the-counter on 21 May 2004. I believe that pressure from you and your colleagues could stop this
dangerous drug from being made available to very young girls without medical supervision or parental knowledge. Would you please advise the FDA to cease and desist? If MAP is approved, then it won't be long before the FDA makes the birth control pill available over-the-counter. This will further compromise the sanctity of life and the integrity of the family.

Thank you.

(Signed)
Your name
Address
City, State. Zip
Phone

It also would not hurt to remind your congresspeople (and any senators you have who are up for election in 2004) that you will be active in that election and will remember how they stood on this crucial issue. Again though, please do this tactfully for the best possible effect.

{2} However, for all other post entries -along with any essays written by your humble servant- the site copyright and respective essay copyrights remain intact, stable, and valid all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

"Tales From the Mailbag" Dept.

Dear Shawn,

Hello Gregory:

[N]ow that I'm in touch with you, I would like to ask a few questions. Hope you don't mind.

I do not mind.

First, I have a lot of news pieces, which are relevant to "traditionalism", that I've put in files on my computer. I was entertaining the idea of posting some of them on the LIdless Eye blog, but I would like your opinion first. What do you think I should do with them??

Feel free to post them there.

Furthermore, I believe (and I'm sure you agree) that traditionalists, in attacking VII's teachings (and the Pope's) don't understand the concept of
"paradox" (GK Chesterton had some interesting stuff to say on that).

Yes, I have long thought that was one of the significant problems that they have as a rule. (Though there are of course exceptions.)

But here is were the trouble is. If we can use the argument "don't disagree with Church teachings merely because you don't understand how they are consistent; things are more complex then they seem", how can one, like myself who is not a theologian, say for that a certain position is "immoral" or "heretical". It seems to me that once you say that paradoxes exists which can certainly seem like contradictions, you have eliminated the foundation for making judgments on peoples theological opinions.

This is a good question. The best answer you can give in my opinion is that you do not judge anyone. As a Catholic we leave such judgments of the internal forum to God and of the external forum to the Church. If the Church defines something as being de fide, then those who do not accept this teaching as such are heretics. We of course do not make the demarcation that strict but instead recognize most non-Catholics as heretics only in the improper sense. And because this sense is improper,{1} and has long been recognized as such,{2} we no longer utilize terms like "heretic" or "schismatic" on the broadbrush basis as they were once used.

Also, on your blog today you have a post about "How grammatically sound are you?".

It is one of those web quizzes. Things were rather hectic today and I needed a bit of levity.

I was just wondering why you didn't think that picture, with it's title, wasn't somewhat disrespectful to God. I'm not saying that *I* believe it was disrespectful, but I think some people would feel that way.

It was a bit irreverent perhaps but that is all in my opinion.

I'd like to know how you would defend that.

I amended that post a bit to address this concern. You will see my answer to that question there.

Finally, (this is a little off topic) what is your opinion of modern art?

My view of modern art is not one that I can give in a brief sentence or two. Perhaps another time I will go over that subject. In the interim, I will simply note that my view of most modern art is akin to my view of 95% of what is published on all subjects ala the dictum of the great Arthur Jones. (Not the guy who writes for NCR.)

Notes:

{1} Since it applies to a denial of material that requires belief rather than a conscious and willful active rejection or doubt which is properly referred to as formal. For this reason, the Church has seen fit in recent decades to no longer use such improper terminology and instead only apply it to those who can be reasonably discerned by her to be rejecting such truths in a formal sense.

{2} Schismatic. In its strict sense, one who voluntarily, knowingly, and deliberately separates himself from the unity of the Church. Ordinarily one who is so separated is called a schismatic regardless of the circumstances, but "anyone born and brought up in a schismatic church and turned away in good faith from the Roman Church, not knowing her to be the one true church...is called by the epithet 'schismatic' only in an improper sense; he is not in fact party to the sin of schism" (Jugie, Theol. Dogm. I. pg. 17). Such is apparently the state for the overwhelming majority of non-Catholic Christians today. [Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary: Donald Attwater General Editor, tenth edition, pgs. 476-477 (c. 1941)]

You are a GRAMMAR GOD!


If your mission in life is not already to
preserve the English tongue, it should be.
Congratulations and thank you!


How grammatically sound are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

In light of how this picture could possibly be construed, it seems appropriate to note that any similarities between anyone either living or dead is purely coincidental as far as I am concerned.

My #1 result for the SelectSmart.com selector, Medieval Figure Selector, is Justanian

To quote my late father (when he paraphrased Dirty Harry with deliberate sarcasm): "Marvelous!!!"

Among all the medievals on this list, they tell me that I am most like the Emperor that harrassed Pope Vigilius??? This is not exactly someone I would have picked from that list. For those who are interested, here was the rest of the top 20 in order of closest match:

2) Charlemagne

That one would have been much more acceptable to me.

3) King Arthur

This would have probably been first if I was choosing them myself.

4) Constantine

I am starting to see a pattern here...

5) Frederick Barbarossa

I would have liked this one too...

6) King Alfonso

7) Richard the Lionhearted

8) Pope Urban XVII

Are there only monarchs and popes in this quiz or is it simply my draw that my answers are thus far all of this categorization??? With regards to "Pope Urban XVII", I presume they meant Pope Urban VIII there. (Cannot say I would object to that one based on what I know of Pope Urban VIII.)

9) William the Conquerer

10) King Clovis

11) Pope Leo I

12) Saladin

13) Theodora

I am more like an Empress than a man in tights apparently...

14) Robin Hood

15) Ghengis Kahn

Not "Jenjis Kahn" as Senator Kerry referred to him back in 1971 before the US Senate...

16) Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar (El Cid)

17) Zoe

18) Joan of Arc

19) Belasarius

20) Mohammed

I am glad that Mohammed was dead last on that list. I can deal with most of the rest -even if wincingly at times- but I want no similarity to someone who invents their own religion. I may be dogmatic at times but I am never that dogmatic.

New Perspectives on Paul (NT Wright)

Very rarely will your humble servant recommend a work he has not yet read. However, on occasion, a friend whose perspectives he respects will recommend something for reading. In the case of the above article, it was recommended by Dr. Art Sippo. It is therefore offered to you at this time and your weblog host will personally begin reading it as soon as this posts. The article is about the controversial New Perspective and the observations of one of its more prolific exponents.

As this writer is one who believes that the most fruitful manner of approaching dialogue is to look for common ground from which to strive for a consensus{1} -and who seeks to properly represent the views of others- in that spirit this article is presented as another way of looking at the writings of St. Paul. However, as the writer of the above article is not Catholic, he feels the need to note this up front. This is properly done so that (i) Catholics will understand going in that there will be some areas they are not going to agree with and (ii) as a pretext for requesting to everyone not to dismiss NT Wright's entire paradigm for those reasons.

Note:

{1} However, this writer would be remiss to not note here that there are certain areas where he diverges with NT Wright and quite sharply at that. On the subject of justification these differences can be noted in this writer's essay on justification written about four years ago.

Briefly on the Recent CDWDS Document:
(Dialogue With F. John Loughnan)

This is a response to my good friend and fellow Inquisitor F. John Loughnan. His words will be in blue font with the words he responded to in black font. My words will be in regular font.

Fr Joe put this link on his home page. It is the answer to all the
abuses to the Liturgy of the Mass that have been going on and that they
are to stop immediately per Rome. Now let's see what happens.

Well, the "form" of the abusers regarding prior (and similar) documents has been: Oh yeah (yawn) - another bloody Roman document to file(read "burn")

This indeed has been the case.

Where are the "teeth" in this document to deal with the abusers; and how many bishops have the will to see it through?

As far as how many bishops have the will to see it through it is too early to tell at this stage obviously. However, it would seem that after the scandals in recent years, the bishops will as a rule be more inclined to toe the line on these issues than they were previously. From a merely human standpoint they have to restore their own credibility after all. And any belief that such things can be achieved while continuing the saimo saimo approach as before on this matter is delusional.

Also, it must not be overlooked that we who have the ability to get this in the hands of our pastors have to do our part to do that. Otherwise, it will once again be "so much sound and fury signifying nothing" much as the vast majority of supposed outrage is. This is not the 1970's or 1980's where information exchanges are difficult. Instead, everyone reading this can download the text and print it in a matter of minutes and take it to church on Sunday after they have carefully read it and highlighted within it the particular abuses or negligences that they have seen regularly at their parish from the various priests and deacons, etc.

I emphasize regularly because this is not a case of jumping on Fr. X for missing a word in the canon last week when this is not a pattern for him. In those situations we need to give the benefit of the doubt of course. But there are other situations -even in the best of parishes- where this is not necessary to do. The Instruction from the CDWDS is not ambiguous with regards to what is allowed and what is not.

As far as the "teeth" goes, I was actually surprised that this document had a harsher tone than is common for statements from the popes or their dicasteries in recent years. It is way too early to know one way or the other how this will go but if the recent observations of Fr. Andrew Greeley are correct, the support structure is there now in many areas where before it was lacking. We shall see.

Refer [HERE] for the latest "bun-fight" with my Archbishop.

Indeed I have been following situation with Archbishop Hart. You have handled yourself in this unfortunate situation in a manner that I believe is commendable and as a model for others whereby they can approach their local ordinaries with regards to dissident clerics.{2} It is also worth noting here that the recent CDWDS document quite clearly supports your approach over and against what Archbishop Hart had to say:

Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ?s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity. [CDWDS: Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum Chapter VI]

You have done everything that the Holy See would expect in such matters. All you can do now is appeal to Rome on the matter and hopefully Archbishop Hart will listen to them. And hopefully by noting these matters here at Rerum Novarum, your example can be learned from by others who seek to have their ordinaries act as proper shepherds and gently but firmly correct liturgical abusers -even resorting when all else fails to canonical penalties. Of course those who do not follow the proper approach as you have are not in much of a position to complain. But I digress.

Notes:

{1} And of course the "choir directors" and self-styled "liturgists" as well.

{2} Or even (in some cases) dissident local ordinaries.

A Rerum Novarum Restoration Update:

To provide a brief update, the archives have been completed as of July 5, 2003 now. I have also begin sifting the old blog list that is still in the margin. I got it from a developmental weblog which had an older version of the template. Unfortunately, the older template which I added the webpost updates to predated mid 2003 so a lot of blogs added since that time are now not listed in my weblog margin. For those who were once linked to the side margin and now are not,{1} the omission is not intentional. I hope to restore all the blogs once linked to this site's margin within the coming week as well as update old links (such as the old Junkyard BLOG link) with the more up to date ones. It is a tedious process indeed but this time I am saving every adjustment to the private weblog so that future template losses (if there are any) can be corrected quickly.

At this rate, the blogs and the archives should be done within the week or at least the next ten days. At that point, the weblog will be updated -as I have not done any updates since early February 2004- and then I can focus on the other responses I promised to tend to before this entire fiasco occurred.

Note:

{1} With the exception of the weblog of a certain individual who has gone off the reservation in recent months.

Rerum Novarum Pays Tribute to Pat Tillman:

Upon the fields of friendly strife are sown the seeds that upon other fields, on other days will bear the fruits of victory. [General Douglas MacArthur: Supreme Pacific Commander During WW II, Supreme Commander During Korea, West Point Graduate Class of 1903, and avid booster for Army's football team]

It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived. [General George S. Patton: Leader of the Feared Third Army During WWII]


The poem I will use to commemorate Pat Tillman is one that I used to commemorate the untimely deaths of the Columbia astronauts back in February of 2003. For the current situation however, the death of Pat Tillman even more fits this poem since there is not only the sentiment directed towards one who has been cut down in the prime of their life but also because Pat was an athlete. He was a twenty-seven year old two hundred ten pound safety for the Arizona Cardinals. Despite being a standout college linebacker, he was drafted very low (seven spots from the bottom of the draft) and started his career on the bench with the Cardinals. (He was undersized for a linebacker.) Less than six months later, he was the starting free safety on defense and also doubling on special teams during kickoffs. (He went on to have the second most special teams tackles on the Cardinals that year.) In his second season, he was switched to strong safety and in his third season, he set the team record for tackles in a season. After that, he was gone from the NFL.

The same man who turned down a 9 million dollar five year contract with the St. Louis Rams to accept a three year 3.6 million contract with the team that drafted him after September 11th walked away from his football contract to enlist in the Army with his brother at $18,000 a year. He asked for no publicity on the part of his family. Much as he was an excellent player in college and a good student (3.84 GPA), he was an excellent player in the NFL. But far more important than all of that was his service on the battlefield where he stood out as well:

"He was an excellent soldier," Mussatti said of Tillman in an interview with the local Columbus (Ga.) Ledger-Enquirer. "He was motivated. He had great leadership styles. He was definitely dedicated to everything he did -- and he didn't bring up his football career, ever." [Sgt. 1st Class Craig Mussatti, who guided Tillman through basic training after he enlisted in June 2002. (From an SI.Com Article A soldier's life)]

As I noted earlier, he made the decision to enlist in the military after September 11th. He trained as an Army Ranger and served in Afghanistan. His death last week at so young an age, in the prime of his life deserves mention because he was among the very best of us all: someone who valued sacrificing it all for others in a culture where such values are not well understood anymore. Simeon Rice (another NFL player) claimed that Tillman left the NFL for the Army because "he was not that good a player." Putting the statistics to confute that statement aside for a moment, I want to note that if the significance of Pat Tillman's actions are lost on him than Simeon Rice is an idiot. Feel free to quote me on that. While you are at it, also note that he is a egotistical primadonna who does not have his entire body the character Pat Tillman had in one hair follacle. Few people anymore have such stature.

I know that despite my own attempts to achieve it that I still fall noticably short of a Pat Tillman. It is not enough to standout in a culture where people are spineless and without conviction: indeed that is more an indictment of others than a praiseworthy trait on the part of such standouts. But people like Pat Tillman would stand out in any era. I tried to find pictures to post with this but none of the links worked. I therefore if anyone has a picture of Pat Tillman in an Arizona Cardinals uniform and also one of him in a military uniform that actually work to please send me the links. Otherwise, enough has been said by me now and time to close this post with the A E Housman poem now to commemorate Pat Tillman: an athlete who died young. Please remember him and his family in your prayers.

To An Athlete Dying Young:

THE time you won your town the race
We chaired you through the market-place;
Man and boy stood cheering by,
And home we brought you shoulder-high.

To-day, the road all runners come,
Shoulder-high we bring you home,
And set you at your threshold down,
Townsman of a stiller town.

Smart lad, to slip betimes away
From fields where glory does not stay,
And early though the laurel grows
It withers quicker than the rose.

Eyes the shady night has shut
Cannot see the record cut,
And silence sounds no worse than cheers
After earth has stopped the ears:

Now you will not swell the rout
Of lads that wore their honours out,
Runners whom renown outran
And the name died before the man.

So set, before its echoes fade,
The fleet foot on the sill of shade,
And hold to the low lintel up
The still-defended challenge-cup.

And round that early-laurelled head
Will flock to gaze the strengthless dead,
And find unwithered on its curls
The garland briefer than a girl's. [A.E. Housman]


Rest in Peace

I hope to correct the blog list at Rerum Novarum sometime tomorrow -as well as work on a bit more of the archives. But at the moment a more important project to fill up my limited time has presented itself. See the next weblog entry for details on it.

On "Funks" and How to Avoid Them When Blogging:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

Hi Tim:

I have not had a chance to read your response to my last blog post to you (posted sometime during Lent). There appears to be something wrong with your blog archives that prevents me from accessing them. As far as the burnout on theological matters and apologetics that you noted, I am one to recommend widening the scope of your weblog musings. As you have probably noticed, theology (along with Church history and apologetics) only encompasses one facet of what I do here at Rerum Novarum. The primary reason for this is that I have a very broad base of subjects that I like to talk about. However, a strong secondary reason is that if too much time is spent on one subject matter (or one element of a subject matter), it has a way of wearing out even the most resolute of us.

As a veteran of countless message board formats (encompassing a diverse range of subject matters), the problem with all of them is that subjects outside of the "official subject matter" of the site is considered offlimits. Hence, on political message boards religious discussions are not well tolerated, likewise religious discussions on political message boards. Other formats such as sports message forums are even more restrictive than that.{1} Hence for many years I had to be dichotomistic in my approach depending on the particular message board I was on. And if there is one thing I do not like doing, it is being dichotomistic in how I approach discussing any subject.

Again, I recommend as a kind of remedy for your current funk to broaden the scope of Societas Christiana. There are a thousand subjects to talk about.{2} Is there any subjects out there that you really like discussing that you have not been allowed to on various message board forums??? Surely there has to be. I cannot imagine that you go through life with only three tracks on your conversational CD rack.{3} Even if you do not think others want to read about a particular subject, blog on it anyway. You will not know until you try it and even if it does not appear to generate much interest,{4} consider it the opportunity to muse on different subjects for the benefit of (i) broadening your paradigm and (ii) helping remove you from your current funk.

In closing, I am too busy to do that proposed dialogue at this time but in the next month would like to pursue it. In the interim though, please send me the link to your last response to me and consider the points elucidated in this post to you. These are just a few points to ponder and hopefuly you find within them something of value.

Notes:

{1} I mention sports here as I am probably the only person in the history of the old CNN/SI message boards to bring up G K Chesterton and St. Thomas Aquinas on one of their discussion forums. (And for the most part it did not go over well unfortunately.)

{2} Such as political, social, philosophical, historical, theological, ecclesiological, soteriological, anthropological, scientific, literary, etc.

{3} Referring to the subjects of (i) the "reformation" (ii) epistemology and (iii) conciliarism.

{4} In case you are disposed to judge the popularity of a subject by the number of emails or comments box entries generated, it bears noting that comments boxes and email responses to particular posts are usually a very small percentage of readers. As I have noted before on this subject:

I do not know what subjects elicit the most readership and which do not and frankly, I have no interest in finding out. For the moment I do that is the moment my impulse to blog my mind becomes to some extent compromised.

All I will note in closing is that my position has not wavered and I believe the above approach is the best one to take with blogging if we are to avoid being typecast or otherwise caricatured by others.

Briefly on David Palm's Novelty Article, Etc.

Though this was covered in the comments boxes on Mark Shea's weblog, it seems appropriate to reprise it here. After all, this exchange involves one of my writings that was the subject of a recent blogosphere discussion. This post is the three responses I made to David Palm in those message boxes -with some minor adjustments to that text. David's words will be in dark green font.

I freely admit that I am not qualified to deal with the liturgical and canonical disputes (plenty of people out there are: such as Pete Vere and Shawn McElhinney -- and the latter has replied to you at extreme length).

Actually, Shawn replied at extreme length to another David whom he mistook for me. But he has graciously and publicly apologized for the mistake, so this is no longer an issue. So far, Dave, nobody has relied to my most recent articles...

You are both right David. I responded to David Smith (whom I mistook for you) as you note. However, I also responded to your Remnant article as per your request to do so -and at far greater length than what I wrote to David Smith.{1} I should note to the readers that David handled that situation of mixed-up David's on my part with the kind of charity that the spiritual masters of our great tradition would recognize. And though I was planning to respond to his essay anyway -indeed my response was about 80% done when that situation came to light- I was considering abandoning the project due to the time required to adequately respond to all of David's points.

David's reaction towards my public mistake -which was rectified publicly as he noted- made me feel an obligation to finish the response to him. That is ironically perhaps the most significant reason that the piece was completed. Admittedly it still needs some minor HTML tweaking in spots -and a grammatical glitch or two corrected-{2} but the article was posted back on January 14th to Rerum Novarum. From there it was added to the scroll of links at that weblog on January 20th.{3} I was under the assumption that David got information on the previous weblog post (the one that was corrected) by reading my weblog so I posted almost all notifications about the writing to the same sources. I am surprised that it took this long for him to find out about it.

So far, Dave, nobody has relied to my most recent articles...I'd like to get some genuine critique of the arguments I present, on their merits.

I have not read the second piece yet but on the first article David, I deal with your entire essay. Here is the link that was supposed to go with the last post:

Miscellaneous Writings

The essay response to David is the second link from the top.

The definition of novelty which I proposed in the article is a change in doctrine or practice which suggests that the Catholic Tradition is wrong.

Examples of novelties in practice are the condemnation by Nicea II of any bishop who would consecrate a church without the use of relics or treating the vessels of Consecration as common cups and plates. Both actions, in their historical context, imply a defective faith.

In the time of the Iconoclastic heresy sure, this would be applicable. But if the Church later on decided to loose what she previously bound, then there would be no defective faith involved. I am not saying that Vatican II did this mind you, only that there is a huge difference between a novelty sanctioned by ecclesiastical authority (such as those I listed) and those which are not (as you noted with the two above).

This is why the long lists of changes that Shawn cites in his reply are not ad rem.

Aah but David, your article was a sweeping condemnation of novelty. Much as with any universal negative, it only involves an example or two to confute. In that case, I took two minutes or so and made a list of about four dozen examples that came immediately to mind. For the sake of uniformity, I only used about forty of them in the essay.

But that list in the essay is not the most prevalent argument against your theory. Instead, the examination of the context of all the sources you cited that I could verify -which was most of them- is the strongest argument in my favour. But I digress.

One need only ask of each of those changes whether there was any opposition at all and if there was, which side were the heretics on? In each of the examples he gave, the change was either uncontroversial (its harmony with the Faith being obvious) or the Church instituted the change *against the desires and beliefs of heretics*.

St. Charles Borromeo was vehemently opposed to Quo Primum. I do not like where that places his orthodoxy according to your criteria. Other examples could be given but that one alone is problematical for your attempt at a clear-cut distinction viz. what changes the Church made or did not make. There is also the fact that sometimes heretics are right!!! And that opposing them when they are possibly right does not do the Church any justice at all.

Once again, the argument is most emphatically *not* against change qua change. It is against novelties, as defined above. Omar Gutierrez, to whom I was responding in my article, claimed that the Fathers only spoke of novelties in terms of doctrines. I believe I demonstrated (and even Shawn seems to agree with me) that the term can also be used to refer to changes in practice.

Yes, I did agree with you on that point in abstract principle but not in your application of the concept.

Thus, I use the phrase "practical novelties" to distinguish from "doctrinal novelties" because those are the distinctions being made in the present discussion.

I have no problem with this kind of distinction being made. It is akin to making a distinction between other words with differing meanings such as capitalizing Tradition in some contexts and not doing so in others.

Now remember that I agreed with Gutierrez's definition of novelties as those changes which suggest that the Tradition is wrong.

This is a very loaded definition on Omar's part.

My departure from him was to argue that, "even in the sphere of Church practice and custom, as also in doctrinal matters, it is precisely those changes which 'suggest that the Tradition is wrong' that represent harmful novelties."

And of course this definition itself would be well assisted if it was quantified a bit. For how do we know which changes "suggest that the Tradition is wrong" David??? When you claim that of those changes I noted in the essay that the change was either uncontroversial (its harmony with the Faith being obvious), you beg the question. What appears "obvious" to the retrospective eyes of a reasonably intelligent, literate, and educated individual such as yourself is not necessarily so "obvious" to illiterate and ignorant peasants contemporary to the time of the various changes made.

Attempts to deal with these dynamics such as yours (and Fr. Chad Ripperger's theory on "extrinsic tradition"{4}) tend to be rather selective in their acceptance of what Church history tells us. But as this point is one I have noted more than once in web writings, I will not belabour it again here but instead refer people to those writings{5} if they are interested.


Notes:

{1} As is my wont with longer writings, it is on multiple urls though so do not fret about the volume issue.

{2} Which will be tended to hopefully before summertime.

{3} When it was also posted to The Lidless Eye.

{4} Responded to in an essay by yours truly about three years ago.

{5} Many of those writings were either referred to within (or were sources used in) my essay response to David on the question of novelty.