On "Liberty", "Equality", and Christian Culture:
(A Dialogue With Charles de Nunzio)

This post is in response to some of the comments Charles posted to Jeff Culbreath's weblog in one of the comments boxes. While the text before you was originally intended as a brief response, as usually happens when responding to individuals of no small amount of intelligence, what starts out as "brief" ends up being anything but. Nonetheless, the reader can take solace in the idea that what is noted here is but a smattering of the points that could have been covered if not for this writer's conscious intention to be more economical in his utterances.

To aid in following the sequence below, Charles' words will be in shale font. This writer's words will be in regular font with all sources in darkblue font. Without further ado, let us get to it.

[O]ur ancestors bought into a lie that made "liberty" and "equality" into absolute, first-rank "virtues," not seeing the intrinsic contradiction with Christian social order induced by such deification.

All errors of one extreme beget errors of an opposing extreme. In the case of our ancestors, they reacted to the extreme of viewing people as "superior" or "inferior" by virtue of a class (or caste) system. In doing this, they took the basic truth of people being equal to one another in a manner that transcends such distinctions and overemphasized certain points to where they were removed from their proper context with certain additional truths. (The latter of which by necessity accompany and balance out those they chose to place an emphasis on.) The scale has shifted too far from one side to too far to the other now and needs to be balanced. However, that is difficult to do when you have people unnecessarily polarizing one another.

Liberty properly conceived is among the first rank of virtues.{1} However, it is usually not properly conceived by people who (as is not uncommon) ignore the parts of the equation that they do not like and overhype those which they do like. For example, with liberty properly conceived comes responsibility. However, most who are claiming a "right" to liberty envision a complete liberty without proper boundaries or the incumbent responsibilities involved. This is obviously a pseudo-liberty and was rightfully branded as an "insanity" by Pope Pope Pius IX of blessed memory and by his predecessor Gregory XVI.

All errors of course have certain truths that they embrace and in the case of the nineteenth century libertines, it was the understanding of liberty as an intrinsic right even though they did not properly conceive of all the incumbent parameters involved in this realization. The more fruitful response to these people is not to diminish liberty but to raise up a properly balanced conception of the principle and then endeavour to persuade people of good will to accept it. This writer happens to believe that the latter can be done but to succeed at it means to appeal to the better angels of our nature.{2} To do this is to require carrying the person outside of themselves and to view their wants and preceived needs as requiring subordination to society's public order as well as its common good.{3} In short, liberty cannot properly be seen as a nebulous subjective conception; therefore there has to be some objective standards by which to determine whether one is dealing with legitimate or illegitimate liberty.

Anyone who doubts the soundness of Jeff's reflections isn't living in the real world, or else just isn't grasping the underlying truths about what is driving current events.

That is a rather universalist assertion is it not Charles??? For the record, this present writer doubts the soundness of Jeff's reflections in some areas and he is (i) not living in some other world than the present one and (ii) he understands reasonably well the underlying presumptions that govern so much of what we see today.

Sun Tzu once noted that "to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." I see Jeff coming very close to that point in his reflections. If not for a reasonable grasp of history, then I undoubtedly would view things generally as Jeff does because when one looks at the surface, things look very desolate indeed.

Now I would be remiss in not noting that I have my days where I view it as a lost cause too.{4} But the problem with having that approach generally speaking is that it insures that the enemy will win physiologically speaking of course. However, we are not fighting a battle of purely empiricist proportions but instead one with supernatural and eschatological proportions.

For that reason, a Christian should always see things through the lens of victory already being achieved because it has been.{5} That does not make for smooth sailing all the time of course but in the most difficult of times, the hope of partaking in that final victory can sustain us.

If we attempt to meet people halfway in our elucidations and provide a degree of rationalism to contemporary events, perhaps we can illustrate this with sketching out in detail here some principles that are intrinsic to the natural order. I speak here of the principles of intensity and duration which properly understood can assist us. Many people strive to go at matters with white-hot intensity all the time. Physiologically this is not possible to do and the reasons for the kinds of burnout by people who take this approach are not infinite; instead you will find the reason in what I am about to say.

Intensity and duration in the natural sphere are inversely proportionate to one another. The problem with that to some extent is that it means one cannot go at things with maximum intensity for long periods of time. There has to be reprieves or a reduction in emphasis at times in a battle of duration if total exhaustion is not to be reached in short order.{6}

With a long-distance endeavour, one must hold back some of their capabilities if they want to finish the race and finish strong. As grace builds on nature, we do well to learn these lessons from nature and from what is built into the human organism by God: as we learn of what is invisible to some extent from what is visible (cf. Wisdom xiii,7-9; Romans i,20). Grace of course can extend someone beyond their normal natural capabilities{7} but it is God's prerogative to give His grace as He sees fit.{8} We must not anticipate it in our approach to issues as we are in no position to claim it as a right.

Our society has been de-Christianizing for a long time — look at the "Name That Philosopher" post below for Orestes Brownson's mid-19th Century observations about the decomposition of the family that had already begun in his day!

You can always find writers of past eras talking in this manner. Everyone who lives through a period of crisis thinks that theirs is the worst ever seen. That is the value of historical perspective above all else: it helps us have a truer sense of proportion in our assessments of the contemporary age.

I remind you of the theories of motion as discovered by Sir Isaac Newton. If an object in motion will remain in motion, then attempts to stop that object will not succeed without a greater or equal force being involved. In light of the manner whereby intensity and duration are inversely proportioned, an intense reaction cannot sustain itself for very long in opposing an object in motion -particularly if that object appeals to the lower levels of our nature from which there is continual struggle against anyway.

What must be attempted is to reverse the direction of the moving object but the approach taken has to be one focused on success over the long term. For that reason, the intensity behind such an approach has to be by logical necessity of lessor import if there is to be a conceivable reversal of trends that will be more than illusory.

For reasons too numerous to note here, society has been de-Christianizing for some time as you correctly note. However, the approach of the Counter-reformation to try and stop this phenomenon not only did not succeed but was in fact failing. The decision of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council was to try and essentially reverse the trend with an approach more offensive-oriented, more integral in its approach, and more long-term oriented. I have argued elsewhere that the authentic ressourcement methodology that permeated the weltanschauung of the Second Vatican Council was more faithful to the methods and principles of the Angelic Doctor himself than the neo-scholastic approaches advocated by the Roman school manualists. That is a subject that is beyond the scope of this response to deal with adequately; however I will note this in brief for the benefit of the readers.{9}

But with the Church's surrender (I can't really think any other word appropriate) to the modern world at Vatican II, the agents of evil have become emboldened and increasingly confident of refashioning civilization to their Satanic mold.

I can think of a word far more appropriate and it is this: the Church's assimilation of what is good in the modern world. This was done to properly appropriate it for the purposes of preaching the Gospel to the world in a manner more readily perceptible to the contemporary mind.{10} This is little different in substance than what the Church has always done in eras when she actively engaged the world in the arena of ideas. I have summarized the purpose of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council many times -usually under the rubric of ressourcement. Here is one example from a recent essay writing that you may find of interest:

[I]n light of many unsavoury elements that had been prevalent in various sectors of Church for a long time --such as an acute anti-intellectualism, a profound suspicion of science and scholarship, a loss of the sense of the local church and local customs, and also an unhealthy and untraditional legalistic outlook-- the credibility of the faith to anyone whose head was not buried in the sand was clearly at stake. For these and other reasons, it was long overdue for the Church to once again interact with the world - to engage critically and credibly the philosophical trends that had for a couple of centuries been undermining society. This kind of critical engagement was something that --with few notable exceptions--had been neglected in the Church for some time. (Particularly since the so-called "enlightenment" period onward.)

To use the words of St. Augustine, it was necessary "either to change what was done amiss, or to appoint the doing of what had been neglected." This was the purpose of the Second Vatican Council: it was convoked to "trim the boat" to use the words of Cardinal Newman. (When he spoke of a future Council correcting the perceived imbalance of the First Vatican Council on some points of doctrine.) And as such a correction was akin to some extent to taking the cap off of a radiator in ninety degree weather after a lengthy car trip, the lessons of history for those who have eyes to see are not surprising. [I. Shawn McElhinney: The 'Tradition is Opposed to Novelty' Canard Introduction Section (c. 2004)]

I would argue (and have) that far from a "surrender... to the modern world" at Vatican II, what we have is the Church again taking up a practice that during the Counter-reformation was more the exception than the rule: engaging the world and seeking to assimilate and purify non-Christian strains of thought for the sake of speaking the Gospel in an idiom more comprehensible to the people of this epoch. And with the latter, there is the situation of dealing with people who in general are more practical than theoretical, more personalist than abstractual. I explained this situation in a different place using the following words:

One of the predominant tasks of [the Second Vatican Council] was to move the Church out of the garrison posture taken in the Counter-reformation period --a posture which intensified in its isolation after the French Revolution-- and situate her once again firmly into the role of engaging the modern world. This engagement was to be in as much a proactive role as a reactive one.

The landscape had in some ways changed drastically from the days when the Church withdrew from engaging the world. The most significant differences in that interim were (i) the increasing degree of literate people with secondary education (ii) the ever-increasing mobility as a result of technological advances as well as (iii) the ability for the average person to acquire information to an extent previously unheard of. In a sentence, the era of the illiterate, immobile many with few resources being at the obvious disadvantage of the literate, mobile, and heavily resourced few was over. And therefore, a paradigm shift had taken place that needed to be addressed. [I. Shawn McElhinney: A Commentary on the Intracacies of Dialogue (c. 2003)]

Hopefully, it is clear why I do not see the term "surrender" as being an apt analogical word for the Second Vatican Council.{11}

With due respect, ... I doubt your proposed solution is all that practical. When in my 20s, I thought as you do. I have discovered, however, that logic and intellectual argument appeal only to the small minority of people.

That has always been the case Charles.

Besides that, there is one other problem, which is a correlative point of my blog post for today. Go read that, and then understand this as well: not only does the contemporary Church crisis rob us of what would be the best rallying-point for an organized resistance, the current authorities' persistent refusal to reaffirm the integrity of Catholic tradition robs the argument for the same of that authoritative aura that, not only by rights it should have, but more to the point here, is more assuring to the greater number of people of its rectitude, people who will not be moved by the force of cold reasoning alone.

I wonder sometimes when reading statements like this if Charles and I are referring to the same "authorities." Not being able to speak for him on this, I will simply note here that the problem (as I see it) is the bulk of the episcopate's unwillingness to implement the corpus of the teachings of the present pope much as they did with his predecessor. It is to be hoped that the recent episcopal scandals will shame them into doing the right thing but thus far even that appears to be a mixed bag{12} - perhaps because the worst of the scandals are probably not fully exposed yet.{13} For that reason, perhaps they will have to hit rock bottom before they will get the backbones needed to deal with the problems that confront them and their flocks.

For whose word are most people inclined to take as to what constitutes that which is a "distinct Catholic worldview"? Any of us mere individuals with our journals, blogs, and such — or, rather, whatever the Pope happens to be saying at the time?

The problem with the notion of a "distinct Catholic worldview" is that depending on who is applying the concept it can often be made to encompass a lot of external elements that are not intrinsic to the Catholic profession. The one thing that is quite "distinct" about "the Catholic view" (to the extent that one exists) is that there are a lot more points unsettled than actually settled. This was not a popular admission to make during the Counter-reformation when the myth of the "unchanging Church" and artificially inforced notions of "uniformity" held sway. But those of us who are reasonably well read and are aware of the variegated nature of the Church throughout most of her history are not about to buy into that notion for a moment.

As far as whom to accept on these matters -us bloggers or the Pope, well that answer should be self-evident to Catholics: it is the Pope. I remind readers of this list of the teaching of Pope Benedict XV on this subject:

[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. [Encyclical Letter Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum §22 (c. 1914)]

If Catholics want to see the genesis of all problems in the Church today, it is the constant violation of the above teaching by numerous Catholics -be they self-styled "traditionalists", self-styled "progressivists" or even a number of those who identify themselves as "conservatives." If Catholics cannot find the fortitude to obey their superiors, then why on earth do they think that non-Catholics will find the claims of the Church to be credible???

That is why I've come to realize that no matter how compelling I find the case for a "traditionalist" understanding of our religion to be, those arguments will convince the few and not the many. And as long as there continues to be no authoritative affirmation for our sense of what a "distinct Catholic worldview" is, there's little hope of persuading the masses of anything other than the conceptual language today's Vatican is speaking, a language that some of us realize is part of the problem, not the solution.

Charles refers here to the more personalist tone of more recent magisterial pronouncements presumably. The only thing that I see that is potentially "problematical" about this style is its expository format which can lead to rather lengthy texts. This is both a blessing as well as a burden because most people do not (and never have) read magisterial texts and with the state of modern catechesis, the Magisterium has to essentially catechise as well as teach if that makes any sense -and the form must be accomodated to the predominent mindset of the target audience which is much broader today than in years past.{14}

Fortunately, we have the Catechism of the Catholic Church now which covers a lot of these matters in a more summary format than is common in encyclical letters and constitutions of the popes or resolutions of the councils.{15} And the obvious moves in recent years --particularly the past fifteen-- by the Vatican to slowly tighten the screws is working in many areas. (Though there is still a lot left to accomplish here.)

I am left thinking of how many people in America will not be sufficiently aware of the terrorist threats posed since 9/11 until another attack takes place. This seems to have an ecclesial parallel in that the local ordinaries are probably going to need to see either another scandal --or a magnification of the 2002 scandals-- before they are moved to show backbones both individually as well as collectively as a rule rather than as the exception to the rule. But I digress.

Notes:

{1} It has to be because one cannot make an authentic act of faith without having the freedom to do so. And as salvation ultimately depends on faith, liberty must if not be a first rank virtue then at the very least proximate to a first rank virtue because of the role it plays in the theological virtue of faith.

{2} Part of which involves seeking to cultivate the religious impulse.

{3} If there is a preceived conflict between the individual and society that is.

{4} I call them my "forty acres and a generator" days.

{5} Those of us who are bound by the chains of time cannot see the eschatological reality of Christ's final victory over the Evil One.

{6} The same is the case for any endeavour we can refer to but for the sake of discussion, let us focus on running.

Though I used to be a pretty good sprinter, I do not run anymore because of what running does to the knees of those who engage too often in the activity. (And in part because of a serious knee injury suffered seven years ago which makes running an impractical and destructive activity for me to engage in now even more than it previously was.) However, we can gather an appreciation of the three phases of stress on the human organism by looking at the activity of running as an example.

Dr. Hans Selye MD identified three phases of what he termed the General Adaptatation Syndrome (GAS) of the human organism. The first is the stage whereby the organism is shocked in its reception of stress. With running, one "limbers up" first to allow the body to prepare for the initial stresses of the activity. This constitutes part of the first stage which Seyle referred to as "the alarm phase." Once the alarm phase passes, there is the second stage of adaptation which is a period whereby the body can run at an efficient pace. (Selye referred to this stage as the "stage of resistance".) However, after this stage runs its course, there is the third phase which Selye termed "the state of exhaustion." On ecclesial matters, this parallel would adequately be summarized in the periods of renewal and reformation historically.

I would argue that the Church passed from the "exhaustion" stage of the sequence brought on by the so-called "reformation" to a fresh stress impetus with the Second Vatican Council. The latter stress --due to the scope of the myriad of stresses imposed on the ecclesial organism as a whole-- has taken a few decades to adjust to. If my theory on this is correct, we are in the beginnings of the "stage of resistance" and have been for about ten to fifteen years. This would give much more reason for optimism than for pessimism -particularly since we already are assured of the outcome of this battle in favour of the forces of good. (Even if we do not see it in this lifetime.)

{7} I say "normal natural capabilities" because as a rule, we make very little usage of our intrinsic capabilities in day to day living. Or to quote the early twentieth century psychologist William James on the matter:

Every one knows on any given day that there are energies slumbering in him which the incitements of that day do not call forth, but which he might display if these were greater. Most of us feel as if we lived habitually with a sort of cloud weighing on us, below our highest notch of clearness in discernment, sureness in reasoning, or firmness in deciding. Compared with what we ought to be, we are only half awake. Our fires are damped, our drafts are checked. We are making use of only a small part of our possible mental and physical resources.[circa 1906)]

If one considers the arguments set forth above on the polarity between intensity and duration, it is easier to understand how we get through day to day activities.

{8} Obviously grace being supernatural and from an infinite source could transcend nature and take it beyond where it was otherwise conditioned to go.

{9} This argument was made in a few of my writings including the essay on the Syllabus of Errors. And though not as polished perhaps as the arguments of the aforementioned writing on this subject, it is also advanced in the following bit from my earlier treatise when addressing the common approach of certain self-styled "traditionalist" groups to inconsistently and hypocritically dump on the ressourcement theologians behind the methodology utilized by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council while giving a free pass to luminaries of the past whose methods echoed those of the aforementioned theologians:

If the 'traditionalists' and their allies were around in the time of the Angelic Doctor, they would have been one of the groups that called St. Thomas a heretic and sought to have his teachings suppressed. Based on what they think of modern philosophies and sciences today, ask yourself if we should doubt this in any way about the 'traditionalist' tunnel vision tendencies. (With regards to how they would have reacted to St. Thomas' teachings in his time period.) After all, St. Thomas did not utilize the "traditional" theological methods of his time. Which brings up another interesting point of consideration.

If self-styled 'traditionalists' are going to dump on people like Fr. Henri de Lubac SJ, Fr. Yves Congar OP, and other similarly influenced as they were (including Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) then they ought to be consistent. They ought to likewise dump on Ven. John H. Newman, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Vincent of Lerens, and St. Augustine for the same reasons. (Every single one of them to some extent had innovative insights on certain theological subjects.) But of course the so-called 'traditionalists' will not do that which underscores how utterly hypocritical they really are. Sure modern philosophy and science has its secular aspects to it but Aristotle and other Greek philosophers (not to mention Aristotelian philosophers like Averros and Avicenna and the Jewish philosopher Maimonides) preceded Aquinas and influenced St. Thomas' work in not a few aspects. Therefore, according to the so-called 'traditionalist', the Angelic Doctor if he used his formulary today would be labeled a "Modernist." Ven. John H. Newman was accused of being a Modernist after the Holy Office decree Lamentabili Sane was promulgated. The fact that his thesis and personal integrity were defended by Pope St. Pius X should shut these kinds of 'traditionalists' up. As for the rest, are 'traditionalists' going to impugn canonized saints with the charge of betraying the Church for their heavy involvement in secular philosophies and the development of methods that were "untraditional" for their respective time periods??? Of course not, these will get another free pass while Fr. de Lubac and Fr. Congar continue to be treated by them in manners akin to how many in the Church treated Ven. Newman during his lifetime. (And how not a few treated the theology of the Angelic Doctor whose orthodoxy had to be zealously defended at Lyons II by his master the aged St. Albert the Great.) [I. Shawn McElhinney: A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' Part X (c. 2000, rev. 2003)]

I trust that Charles will not see the above text as an indictment of personal nature but instead as a more generalized indictment of certain methods and presuppositions common to not a few of those who call themselves "traditionalists."

{10} This is the basis for the pastoral slant of the Council: an approach which sought to rectify an evident gap between abstract notions and their application when the rubber of abstraction meets the road of reality.

{11} A source to buttress this point from an influential prelate both prior to the Council (and also at and subsequent to the Council) if I may:

The Vatican Council was held at that period of history where it was necessary to strike a balance between two extremes both in the world and in the Church: individualism and socialism. By individualism, I mean the emphasis on the right of the individual to develop his own spirituality or economically to increase his own capital without much concern for the social good. By socialism, I mean the stress on social welfate with little concern for either the individual's religion or his morals...What the Council did was to establish equilibrium or balance between these extremes--between evangelization and human progress, between soul-winning and society-saving, between divine salvation and human liberation. It made both inseparable...It was a master stroke under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that bishops gathered from all over the world could see the new direction the Church must take--which actually was nothing else than the old direction that Christian salvation has an earthly and historical dimension, namely, the relation of the love of God and the love of neighbour. [Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen: Treasure in Clay pgs. 289-290 (c. 1980)]

{12} Since the scandals of 2002, there have been increasing traces of episcopal backbone; however they thus far have been the exception rather than the rule.

{13} I will not for the sake of brevity explain why the genesis of this scandal (not to mention a number of the priests accused of pedophilia) preceded the Second Vatican Council.

{14} When documents from the magisterium were explicitly addressed only to the clergy.

{15} Charles could (I suppose) opine that a more condensed version of the text of the CCC would be beneficial: a sentiment to which I do not disagree. And that text will be put forth at some point -much as the Roman Catechism was followed by a series of smaller catechisms drawn from its texts.

Points to Ponder:

[L]ibertarianism remains in the largest part a thought experiment for college sophomores of all ages. [Richard J. Neuhaus (circa 1997)]

In Defense of Michelle Malkin's Theory:

This is a continuation of sorts from an earlier post which touched on Michelle's recent visit to Seattle to launch the tour in support of her new book on the subject of internment.

Readers of this humble weblog are aware that I have particular definitions for terms such as theory and thesis. As I will throughout this post be referring to Michelle Malkin's position on the internment as a "theory", it is incumbent upon me to define these terms so that readers know where I am coming from in utilizing them. The definitions I will use are ones which I sketched out earlier this year in essay form and have long guided my approach to different issues. Or as I noted shortly afterwards in parsing those definitions for posting to my Miscellaneous weblog:

[W]hen one is dealing with a theory, they are dealing with both abstract notions as well as coordinating dynamic principles of action. One of the author's intellectual mentors once defined a theory as "a set of non contradictory abstract ideas (or as philosophers like to call them 'principles') which purports to be either a correct description of reality or a guideline for successful action."...

Having established a working meaning of the term theory, it is worth noting also that the word thesis according to the Merriam Webster Thesaurus is related to the word theory. (Both of them having a foundation in the term assumption.) A good way of looking at this in the current context is to view a thesis as "an abstract principle or proposition to be advanced and maintained by argument" and a theory as incorporating a thesis -or a series of theses -with a guideline for successful action. The reason for this is because a theory by its nature must involve either (i) a correct description of reality or (ii) a guideline for successful action. For this reason, any viable theory involves several principles if you will which work together.

Or another way of looking at it would be to consider that a theory is being conceived of a series of non contradictory coordinative theses or points of presupposition. When viewed in this light, a theory clearly is only as strong as the theses which support it. [I. Shawn McElhinney: The 'Tradition is Opposed to Novelty' Canard Introduction Section (c. 2004)]

In the manner whereby the preceding terms are defined, Michelle Malkin's position is properly referred to as a theory because in her book, she seeks to put forth what she claims is a correct description of reality viz the internment. As her view is not exactly congruent with the so-called "conventional wisdom" on that subject, she will be on the receiving end of many criticisms -some potentially of merit. The purpose of this post is to respond to some of the latter criticisms. The words of the critic (a Mr. Eric Muller) will be in dark green fon. Any quotes from Michelle's work as quoted by Eric Muller will be in blue font.

Michelle is undoubtedly aware that the two most prominently voiced criticisms of the government's program are these:

Being "the two most prominently voiced criticisms of the government's program", they are what we will focus on in this brief post.

1. The government evicted all American citizens of Japanese ancestry from their West Coast homes and placed them into camps, but took no action affecting American citizens of German or Italian ancestry. (In other words, if your name was, say Joe Kaminaka or Lou Matsumoto, you were evicted and confined; if your name was, say, Joe DiMaggio or Lou Gehrig, well, uh, you know.)

Michelle pointed out in her Seattle talk that (i) the Japanese attacked us, the Germans and Italians did not. Furthermore, (ii) the west coast of the United States was particularly susceptible to Japanese attack in a manner Germany and Italy could not remotely achieve. She has also noted that (iii) it is untrue to say that people of German or Italian ancestry were not also at times interned. And of course (iv) the impracticality of interning all Americans of German or Italian ancestry (which would represent about 45% or more of all Americans) made it necessary to be more selective in the internment of people of those nationalities than with the much smaller population Japanese-Americans. Other points could be noted but that is sufficient to answer the first point in macro form.

However, as Eric Muller attempts to answer these kinds of responses, it is only fair to interact with his criticisms. One of his responses to arguments like the above points include the following:

What's more, it was not true after early June of 1942--before a single Japanese American was transferred for indefinite detention in a "relocation center"--that Japan had the capability of launching a major attack on the United States. The decisive American victory at Midway ensured that. And folks, notwithstanding Michelle's assertion (page xxxiii) that this view of Midway's impact is hindsight, that's just wrong: Newsweek (June 22, 1942), The New Republic (June 15, 1942), The Nation (June 27, 1942), Time (June 22, 1942), and the Los Angeles Times (June 8, 1942) all opined that the Midway victory essentially foreclosed any large-scale sea-based attack on the continental United States.

Eric Muller appears to not understand the value of war propaganda and how important it was to the US Government that people believe that Midway was the "turning point" whether or not it was actually seen as true at the time. Obviously in retrospect, the Battle of Midway can be said to have been what Eric is claiming in this case. However, he has to be careful not to argue anachronistically and to consider what I noted above. For there are viable reasons for doubting the objectiveness of the reporting from the media outlets Eric Muller refers to.

After all, we are talking about a country (the United States) that waited almost a month to announce the Doolittle raids on Tokyo in order to put a good "spin" on that news.{1} That is correct my friends, rather than report immediately on what had happened, there was a delay in reporting in order to spin the news for propagandistic purposes.{2} Despite this treatment of the news scarcely a month earlier than Midway (circa May 10, 1942), Eric Muller seems to think we are supposed to believe that more immediate media stories such as the June 8, 1942 story from the LA Times on the Battle of Midway{3} were somehow objective assessments of the situation rather than cleverly utilized propaganda that the judgment of history happened to confirm later on.{4}

In light of the previously enunciated contemporary example of the Doolittle raid (and the press treatment of it), this notion of Eric Muller's viz. the US media's contemporary assessment of the Battle of Midway is not just a little questionable. Again, while hindsight vindicates his position; at the same time a student of history who is aware of the value of propaganda during wartime{5} is not quick to take such opining at face value. (But has just cause to see it as suspect at best.){6}

As far as the claim that Michelle's comments about Germany or Italy not having "[a] large scale espionage network akin to the one described by Japan's diplomats in the MAGIC messages", Mr. Muller boldly asserts that this claim is so easily refuted that it's not worth the effort to spell it out. Within the sentence, he has seven links to four different sources. Let us examine them now in brief.

Among the aforementioned sources, one refers to a Tyler Kent and there is no evidence in the link of "[a] large scale espionage network[.] Another link he cites to support his contentions goes to a link on German espionage but it does not prove Eric Muller's case either since Michelle was claiming that Germany and Italy did not have "[a] large scale espionage network akin to the one described by Japan's diplomats in the MAGIC messages" This statement is not the same as Michelle claiming that there was no espionage sponsored by Germany or Italy. In short, the second link fails as a refutation of one of the theses of Michelle's theory.

To resume an examination of his sources, there are another bunch of links which go to the same site at different parts. To summarize them briefly, one is to the Duquesne Spy Ring and the arrest of 33 members in 1942 who were Nazi spies. Another is to an article that starts off saying [t]he first sign of the German High Command's intention to engage in sabotage activities in the United States was disclosed by the apprehension of eight trained German saboteurs by Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation within two weeks after they had landed in the country from German submarines. At the danger of sounding redundant, again it appears that Eric Muller thinks that providing evidence of German espionage -either actual or intended- equates to the same thing as (to use Michelle's words) "[a] large scale espionage network akin to the one described by Japan's diplomats in the MAGIC messages."

Further examination points us to yet another link in the sequence which goes to the story of one single German espionage agent and then at the very end it ties in another agent. Presumably we are supposed to see these two agents a sevidence of (to use Michelle's words) "[a] large scale espionage network[s] akin to the one described by Japan's diplomats in the MAGIC messages." If that is the case, then it would be like asserting a parity between the jaywalker and the murderer because both parties wer guilty of breaking the law!!!{7} But there is more.

For in another example from Eric Muller, we are presented with a link that notes the arrest of nine Nazi spies on espionage. We are apparently supposed to conclude that nine people equates to (again, using Michelle's words) "[a] large scale espionage network akin to the one described by Japan's diplomats in the MAGIC messages."{8} The last link is another one on the Duquesne Spy Ring so we need not say anything else about it. Having noted all of these, let us recap their witness now in brief.

If this writer is interpreting Mr. Eric Muller correctly, we are supposed to conclude because of the existence of some Nazi spies and espionage rings sponsored by Germany that the existence of these espionage agents means that at least one of the theses to Michelle's theory is so easily refuted that it's not worth the effort to spell it out. Again let us reiterate: the existence of some Germany-sponsored spies and small espionage networks does not ipso facto constitute (to use Michelle's words) "[a] large scale espionage network akin to the one described by Japan's diplomats in the MAGIC messages." This should be obvious to anyone with a proper sense of proportion in their argumentation.

To summarize the first example, Michelle's words can be read in a number of ways. Hopefully the above example points out why those who are quick to try and disprove the work of another should read with greater care the sources they utilize to support their contentions. So much for the "easily refutable" part of Ms. Malkin's text. Let us move onto the second "major objection" to Michelle's theory as enunciated by one Eric Muller.

2. The actions taken against Japanese Americans were absurdly disproportionate to the scope of any security risks of which the government was even arguably aware.

Michelle apparently deals with this charge by discussing the MAGIC cabels in her book -claiming that they are largely ignored by apologists against the internment policy. But even if she is wrong in her assessment there,{9} she clearly recognizes the first fundamental of the three fundamental rights of man and that is the right to life.

In the matrix of life, faculties, and production (to use Bastiat's classic delineation), though all three intrinsically stand together, the faculty of life is the fountainhead of the others and therefore must be the final trump in the hierarchy of rights real or preceived. In the "life", "liberty", and "pursuit of happiness" denoted rights contained within the Declaration of Independence, it should stand to reason that while "liberty" trumps "pursuit of happiness" that "life" must likewise trump "liberty." I focus often on the necessary concern for the public order and the common good of society as necessary points of reference in these kinds of discussions because without this recognition, no society can possibly survive longterm. Furthermore, in a time of war, there are additional restrictions that the government can take with regards to the freedoms of individuals -as the needs of the many must in the purest of logic outweigh the needs of the few.{10}

So to summarize this brief examination of the two most prominently voiced criticisms of the government's program, hopefully it is clear that at least a couple of the theses that support Michelle's theory are not as easily refutable as critics such as Mr. Eric Muller assert that they are.

[Update: Apparently Michelle has responded to many of the criticisms of Eric Muller and company. Readers can therefore see this post as a kind of complement to her responses on these subjects. - ISM 8/09/04 5:21pm]

Notes:

{1} Objectively speaking, the Doolittle raids -heroic though they were- accomplished nothing materially speaking towards defeating Japan.

{2} In this case to give optimism to the public who were anything but optimistic after the attack on Pearl Harbour.

{3} From which the stories of the other periodicals (June 15, 1942: The New Republic; June 22, 1942: Time and Newsweek; June 27, 1942: The Nation) were probably to a large extent based.

{4} This is at least as viable a theory on the contemporary view of the Battle of Midway as the one that Mr. Muller propagates.

{5} And the US's significant employment of propaganda in numerous facets of its media coverage.

{6} One of the points that Michelle's book apparently makes is that the existence of the MAGIC cables lends credence to the position that the internment was a justified measure taken at the time, assertions of racism and the like notwithstanding. (Also, this point would mitigate any attempts to turn this writer's references to US propaganda during the war around in service of those who opposed the internment measures.)

{7} Need I point out that this is the germ of the same arguments used by the left viz. the comparison of Bush and Hussein??? (Or Abu Ghirab and the murderous policies of Al Queda???)

{8} This is an unusual notion of "large" to put it mildly.

{9} Not having read the book yet, I cannot be certain on this point -though Michelle's propensity throughout her career for doing her homework provided me an ample rationale for giving her the benefit of the doubt here. (Until I do read the book of course and see how this point is treated therein.)

{10} Mr. Spock was correct.

On Michelle Malkin's Visit to Seattle:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

This was written on Saturday and slightly adjusted today prior to posting.

Michelle Malkin gave an overview of her new book on the Japanese internment at a reasonably packed church hall last night Friday evening. (A meeting which was attended by yours truly.) It was a very informative book overview lasting about ninety munutes -part of which included a question and answer period from the audience. A signing session followed the Q and A where Michelle interacted with a number of those who came to the event. I decided that despite wanting to ask a question during the forum to let others do that since I have public outlets for my musings (dyspeptic or otherwise) and most others probably do not. I did though want to shake her hand and thank her for this book and for opening a public debate that needs to take place on this crucial issue.{1}

Michelle is even lovelier in person than in her pictures and in her live presentation there was evidence of a sense of humour which always aids in the discussion of serious issues. I cannot hope to do any of the topics she covered justice in a brief post such as this -nor for that matter do I have the kind of micro knowledge of them that would facilitate such a discourse. All of that is reason why I will be buying her book and encourage you to do so as well.

As longtime readers of this weblog know, I have a certain affinity for originality in thought.{2} However, this cannot be originality for its own sake as uncritical change for change's sake creates a climate in which logic and reason cannot fruitfully flourish. No my friends, genuine originality must consist mainly in the re-presentation of timeless truths or principles in ways that will make them easier for the modern mind to assimulate and be able to put into action.

I explained the aforementioned principle HERE in setting forth a workable definition for "conservative" that while pointed at a specifically religious context nonetheless is framed in political concepts. The reason for the latter should be obvious: if we are to avoid repudiating the Law of Non-Contradiction, we must recognize that authentic conservatism is the same in any context whereby it is categorized.{3} Michelle has the kind of authentic originality in her approach to these issues that interests me -and not because we tend to (from what I can discern) agree on a lot of issues.

I recommend highly that you go see her live if you can and also, buy this book. It will hopefully be the spearhead of a debate subject that needs to be waged in the public arena. As I noted earlier in the week, someone such as myself would be in very hot water to discuss the subject she has written on most recently. But that is not to say that Michelle is going to miss a media lynching of her own.{4} No, what she will go through is par for the course when you dare to challenge the "established orthodoxy" on any issue. That is when those who whine about being "tolerant" and how we all should be "tolerant" of others become amazingly intolerant themselves.

Michelle also displays the kind of integrity that goes with a genuine thinker on issues. I say this because a thinker when presented with evidences that require a paradigm shift in their outlook (at least in part) is faithful to their conscience even at the risk of public disparagement on issues not viewed as "politically correct." In Michelle's case, she went from opposing the internment concept (as recently as the year 2000) to supporting the concept (if not all of the particulars) after studying the issue with (one would presume) reasonable depth and (without a doubt) reflection upon the multiple nuances that go into this position.

It is much harder to actually think for oneself and much easier to simply accept what so-called "conventional wisdom" says on whatever the subject is. (Arthur Jones' dictum that "ninety-five percent of what is published on all subjects is hogwash" is not a principle noted at this weblog without reason my friends.) Apparently critics of this book -most of whom probably have scanned it at best if they have at all read it-{5} are already trying to go after her theory. We will address these main objections (as outlined by one of her critics) in another post. But first, a bit on the Q and A at last night's Friday night's gathering.

One of those whom Michelle mentions in her book (the UW professor Tetsuden Kashima) was present and he asked a good question which I thought Michelle adequately handled. Another man of Japanese-American ancestry tried to claim that Michelle by supporting internment was putting herself on the same side of the ideological fence as the Romans who persecuted and killed the early Christians. This is a very poor analogy and the moderator -despite attempts to get this guy to ask a question rather than pontificate with the microphone- adequately shut him down. (Though for a little while it did not appear he was going to relinquish the microphone.){6} There was also a woman who wanted to editorialize on her experiences in internment camps and to some extent dress down Michelle for being "too young" to really handle this matter properly -an extension of the "you must experience something to credibly talk about it" logical fallacy.{7} Again, Michelle handled this critic with proper tact and sensitivity.

I though the evening went well and I found myself reflecting on something that Teresa Heinz Kerry said at the Jones town Democratic Convention when leaving the gathering. Mrs. Kerry claimed to want to be considered "intelligent" rather than "opinionated" -despite her evincing no reasonable precedent for being accorded the mantra of being "intelligent." Michelle by the starkest of contrasts to Mrs. Kerry is not only opinionated but she manifests an acute intelligence in her work. I will be buying and reading her latest book for that reason and I recommend that you consider doing likewise.

Notes:

{1} If you are reading this Michelle, I was the one who asked you if you cover the subject of President Lincoln suspending habeas corpus in your book. (In response to the southern states seceding from the Union in 1861.) It would be among the understatements of the millennium to state that President Bush's handling of suspected allies of the terrorists has (by contrast) been quite benign.

{2} Indeed the title Rerum Novarum means essentially "of new things."

{3} This applies to areas of philosophy, politics, sociology, theology, economics, etc. As far as conservatism goes, so much of what passes for "conservatism" today is fraudulent. It is beyond the scope of this post to explain the reasons for this: indeed it has been rehashed at this weblog before and at the subsidiary Miscellaneous weblog.

{4} Indeed she points out at her site an article from a Seattle Post Intelligencer reporter on this matter written yesterday where the intention is quite obviously to discredit her theory on the internment.

{5} This is par for the course as any writer whose work strikes a nerve with people is well aware.

{6} Anyone who thinks this line of argumentation is solid, email me on the matter and I will explain to you why this kind of reasoning is specious.

{7} This is akin to the argumentation fallacy some utilize in claiming that someone has to manifest a certain subjective amount of "credentials" in order to discourse intelligently on a particular subject matter. Essentially we have here a premise popular in ivory tower circles as a kind of lazy expedient to avoid having to interact honestly with the outlooks of those who run counter to the "accepted" version of situations, events, or topics of discussion.

If we take this issue down to brass tacks, the assertion is essentially that one has to be learned to be logical. If this was not what was being asserted at least by implication, then the arguments would be addressed on their merits rather than by appealing to "credentials" as a presumed "authority." (This is an example of the argument from authority logical fallacy in spades.) In reality, the tools of logic and reason are available to all people regardless of their level of learning. Education can refine these tools certainly; however they can also blunt them as is demonstrated by numerous people in academia who parade about their "credentials" despite showing a profound inability to utilize logic and reason properly.

I am almost finished with a post which covers the visit to Seattle of Michelle Malkin. The delay is because I am not sure if the post should be divided into two with the visit information and general information part in the first post and the refutation of some of Michelle's critics in the second post. In the meantime, any Kerry supporters can make use of this image from JunkYard BLOG in support of their candidate if they so choose:

Swift Boat Veterans For Truth on Kerry's Fitness To Be President of the United States

My score on the John Kerry Loyalty Quiz

As another email was received challenging my attribution of one of this weblog posts to GK Chesterton, I will be responding to this sometime (I hope) before the weekend is over. In the meantime though, a poem from the multitalented GK Chesterton. Enjoy!!!

Wine and Water

OLD Noah he had an ostrich farm and fowls on the largest scale,
He ate his egg with a ladle in a egg-cup big as a pail.
And the soup he took was Elephant Soup and the fish he took was Whale.
But they all were small to the cellar he took when he set out to sail,
And Noah he often said to his wife when he sat down to dine,
'I don't care where the water goes if it doesn't get into the wine.'

The cataract of the cliff of heaven fell blinding off the brink
As if it would wash the stars away as suds go down a sink,
The seven heavens came roaring down for the throats of hell to drink,
And Noah he cocked his eye and said, 'It looks like rain, I think.
The water has drowned the Matterhorn as deep as a Mendip mine,
But I don't care where the water goes if it doesn't get into the wine.'

But Noah he sinned, and we have sinned; on tipsy feet we trod.
Till a great big black teetotaller was sent to us for a rod,
And you can't get wine at a P.S.A., or chapel, or Eisteddfod,
For the Curse of Water has come again because of the wrath of God,
And water is on the Bishop's board and the Higher Thinker's shrine,
But I don't care where the water goes if it doesn't get into the wine. [G. K. Chesterton]

Miscellaneous Mutterings on the Mental Disorder of Liberalism, Political Propaganda, Etc.

"One From the Vault" Dept.
(On Justification in Romans)

This post is one which was not in the proverbial "vault" for too long: twelve days to be exact. Nonetheless, We have not discussed justification subject matter in public forums for some time so have decided to do so at this time. The words of the questioner will be in black. Our words will be posted in dark hard magenta with any sources in the material posted in dark hard azure font. Without further ado, let us get to the material at hand...


Is this pertaining to personal sin or original sin?

It pertains more in my view to the Jew-Greek distinction that Paul makes so prevalently in the first four chapters of Romans. With Romans iii,23, it needs to be read in the context of "what advantage then remains of the Jew, or what then is the use of circumcision?" (cf. Romans iii,1). To follow the thread of thought of Romans, Paul starts off with a greeting and an ardent wish to see the Roman community. From there, he sketches out the theme of the entire epistle in chapter 1 verses 16 and 17 which read as follows:


"For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes, to Jew first and then to Greek. For in it the justice of God is revealed from faith unto faith as it is written 'He who is just lives by faith'" (Romans i,16-17).

In a nutshell, that is the entire thrust of the epistle right there. If you follow the sequence, Paul goes on from there to explain that the existence of God is made manifest in creation itself and those who choose to ignore this do so at their own peril because God will leave them to their own lusts to consume them (cf. i,18ff).

Then, Paul explains in chapter 2 that all will be rewarded or punished based on whether or not they do good -whether they be Jew or Greek. (In this context, Jew and Greek can be seen as referring to "the people of the covenant" and "those not of the covenant.") He makes the note here that such judgments will be "without respect of persons" (cf. Romans ii,1-11). He clarifies this by making the distinction again -this time between Jew and Gentiles starting from verse 12 onward. (By doing this, Paul would seem to make it clear that "Greek" and "Gentile" are one and the same in his thinking.)

From that point (Rom. ii,12), Paul moves onto to state that Gentiles will be rewarded or punished by their fidelity or lack thereof to the law which is written in their hearts: their doing what the Law prescribes despite not having the Law being a witness for them. In short, "it is not the hearers of the Law who are just in God's eyes but the doers of the Law who will be justified" (cf. Rom. ii,13). Paul after noting these things about the Gentiles, makes it clear that the Jews who boast in the Law yet who transgress the same Law will be judged by the Law as transgressors (cf. Rom. ii,17-24).

Then, Paul reiterates the core theme of Romans for a second time in Romans ii,25ff and it is essentially summed up in verses 28-30. From there, Paul feels called to answer objections the Jews may have to any advantages of being Jewish since Gentiles can be saved as well. (Those familiar with ecclesiological struggles in the past half century or more with the Feeneyites see this same theme being played out in the case of certain Catholics.)

Paul in chapter three, seeks to answer objections to those who would assert that there is no advantage to being Jewish or to being circumcised (iii,1-8). From there, he moves on to point out that all -Jews and Greeks alike- are under sin: quoting one of the Psalms on this matter (iii,9-18). That brings us up to iii,18 which is the point I believe where we have to start to get the proper context of iii,23.

Paul starts at that point speaking of the Law and the works of the Law. He is still speaking on these themes when chapter 3 ends. It is therefore, a rather arbitrary notion that he deviates from that theme in the interim thirteen verses when the same subject matter is discussed in (i) verse 20 with "the works of the Law", (ii) verse 21 with "God's justice [being] made manifest independently of the Law and attested to by the Law and Prophets", (iii) verse 22 where Paul again asserts that justice is by faith without distinction.

Thus, to see verse 23's "all have sinned" apart from the clear injunction "Jews and Greeks are all under sin" (cf. v.9) and Paul quoting a healthy portion of a Psalm to substantiate this point (v. 10-18) is to not consider the context of the statement at all but to instead read into the text one's own theological preferences.

Finally, verses 24-26 in speaking of all being in need of God's grace and all being justified freely by His grace results in Paul again turning to the Jew and asking him essentially "where therefore can YOU boast???" (cf. v. 27). He makes it clear at that point that justification is by faith apart from the works of the Law (v. 28).

[T]he proof that this interpretation is correct is one that XXX has so often pointed out in his own work on justification: Paul's question in verse 29 where he asks "Is God the God of the Jews only, and not of the Gentiles also? Indeed of the Gentiles also." The final two verses again summarize the principle that all will be judged by faith -be they circumcised or not (v. 30) and that by this faith, the Law is not destroyed but instead is established (v. 31). [C]hapter four provides a case study in how this faith establishes the Law but I have noted enough here already. For more on the matter, I recommend reading my essay on justification by faith.

"Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain Redux" Dept.

This post is a continuation of sorts from some material posted yesterday to this weblog on certain Democratic Senators who have engaged in blatant contradictions on WMD's, their assessment of the danger posted to America by Iraq prior to March 17, 2003, and the necessity of dealing with Saddam Hussein.

To add to the passages cited there, I supply this link where not only the stuff I posted yesterday is contained but there are also similar quotes from other Democratic Senators or leaders. The persons on the list include:

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) circa 2002
Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) circa 2002
Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) circa 2002
Senator Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) circa 1998
Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) circa 2002
Madeline Albright circa 1998 and 1999{1}
Sandy Berger circa 1998{2}
President Clinton circa 1998{3}

I thank Glen Beck not only for those quote but also for supplying links to the sources of the quotes to substantiate my previous usage of some of them. Finally, to those who complain about the time it is taking in Iraq, I supply the following courtesy of another email received earlier today:

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

So those who complain about the time this war is taking can put those facts in your pipes and smoke them!!!

Notes:

{1} Both quotes are from her in her capacity as Secretary of State for President Clinton.

{2} Mr. Berger's quote is from him in his capacity as National Security Advisor to President Clinton.

{3} I remind you, these quotes were prior to the election of President George W. Bush.

Miscellaneous Mutterings on Michael Moore and Modern Ways to be Anti-Utility Oriented

More on President Bush and Arguments For His Re-Election:

Though the case for re-electing President George W. Bush is a decent one, it is by no means an airtight one as has been noted on not a few occasions at this humble weblog.{1} Nonetheless, most of the arguments against him are so patently stupid and illogical that it is difficult to take those who utilize them seriously. There is, however, an occasional self-admitted liberal who is willing to wrestle with their reactionary nature against President Bush and focus (however uncomfortably for them) on the real core issue defining the Bush presidency.{2} A liberal of breathtaking honesty and concern for principles deserves to be noted when they are discovered and in Tom Junod, we have such a liberal.

Mr. Junod's August 1, 2004 column The Case for George W. Bush (i.e., what if he's right?) is worth your time to read -regardless of your personal feelings for the President. We at Rerum Novarum do not completely concur with the text of the above article but (i) there is concurrence with a fair amount of it and (ii) it is imperative for those who froth at the mouth about President Bush to see how to honestly interact with the complex elements that go into the Bush weltanschauung.

In summary, We recommend this article concurrent with the manner outlined in this weblog's disclaimer on essay approval all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Notes:

{1} For some of my previous comments on this subject, see this link, this link, and this link.

{2} This is arguably the strongest defense one can make for Bush in this election cycle.

"Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain" Dept.
(On Democrat Lies and WMD's)

This is part of an email received this morning where the oft-attested assertion that the Democrats have flip flopped on the WMD subject has some supporting evidence presented to your humble servant. Far be it from Us at Rerum Novarum to fail to supply these quotes for you the reader who have Democratic sheep in your family who need rhetorical (among other kinds of) shearing:

"[We] urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." [Letter to President Clinton signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D-MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998]

Senators Carl Levin, Tom Dascle, and John Kerry are not telling us these things today; indeed they saying the exact opposite if We are not mistaken.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." [Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Sept. 27, 2002]

Senator Ted Kennedy today is not telling us these things now; indeed he is saying the exact opposite if We are not mistaken.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." [Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA), Oct. 9, 2002]

Senator John Kerry today is not telling us these things now; indeed he is saying the exact opposite if We are not mistaken.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." [Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Oct 10, 2002]

Senator Hillary Clinton today is not telling us these things now; indeed she is saying the exact opposite if We are not mistaken.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction...So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." [Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA), Jan. 23. 2003]

Senator John Kerry today is not telling us these things now; indeed he is saying the exact opposite if We are not mistaken. Let us recap briefly.

There is evidence to substantiate the assertion that the following Democratic Senate leaders believed prior to March 17, 2003 that Saddam Hussein had or was obtaining the capability for WMD's and posed a real thread to America:

---Senator John Kerry (1998, 2002, pre-March 2003)

---Senator Tom Daschle (199 8)

---Senator Carl Levin (1998)

---Senator Hillary Clinton (2002)

---Senator Ted Kennedy (2002)

But now, after no incontrovertible evidence of WMD's have been found (thus far), and as the 2004 election is upon us soon, the following Democratic Senators are now claiming that (i) President Bush lied about the presence of WMD's in Iraq (ii) there was never any WMD's, and (iii) President Bush took us to war unnecessarily:

---Senator John Kerry

---Senator Tom Daschle

---Senator Carl Levin

---Senator Hillary Clinton

---Senator Ted Kennedy

Your humble servant at Rerum Novarum -seeing a clear violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction in the above situation must ask you readers these questions:

1) Were the above "esteemed Senators" (falsely so-called) lying prior to March 17, 2003 or did they tell the truth then and start lying on these matters since March 17, 2003???

2) If the above "esteemed Senators" (falsely so-called) were lying prior to March 17, 2003, why should we trust them to tell us the truth now???

3) If the above "esteemed Senators" (falsely so-called) were telling the truth prior to March 17, 2003, then they are quite evidently lying now. Why therefore should we trust them now???

Oh what a tangled web they weave...

"Michelle Malkin" Dept.
(A Rerum Novarum Triple Slam)

The lovely and intelligent Michelle Malkin has a history of being quite politically incorrect. Indeed, in her latest column she has put together a list of questions for asking journalists -particularly those of colour. The way to score it is to give oneself (or the journalist being asked the questions) five points for every "yes" answer they give. Here are the questions of the quiz:

1. I have never voted for a Democrat in my life.
2. I think my taxes are too high.
3. I supported Bill Clinton's impeachment.
4. I voted for President Bush in 2000.
5. I am a gun owner.
6. I support school voucher programs.
7. I oppose condom distribution in public schools.
8. I oppose bilingual education.
9. I oppose gay marriage.
10. I want Social Security privatized.
11. I believe racial profiling at airports is common sense.
12. I shop at Wal-Mart.
13. I enjoy talk radio.
14. I am annoyed when news editors substitute the phrase "undocumented person" for "illegal alien."
15. I do not believe the phrase "a chink in the armor" is offensive.
16. I eat meat.
17. I believe O.J. Simpson was guilty.
18. I cheered when I learned that Saddam Hussein had been captured.
19. I cry when I hear "Proud to be an American" by Lee Greenwood.
20. I don't believe the New York Times.

Basically, I score a 90 on that quiz.{1}

My score: 100. Natch!

And as is usually the case with women such as this, they are married. Typical...

Also, Michelle will be in Seattle this week to promote her new book In Defense of Internment: The Case for "Racial Profiling"in World War II and the War on Terror. The launch of her book will officially will August 9th.

As one who has long supported the concept of internment during a time of war or other extraordinary circumstances,{2} I find this subject gutsy to discuss publicly. I certainly have never mentioned it publicly prior to now but then again, I have good reason for only discussing this matter privately prior to this time.{3} You see, my tan notwithstanding, I am (as my profile picture well illustrates) what is called a "white man." Fewer subjects could get someone of my skin hue crucified faster than coming out in support of internment measures in any circumstances.

The problem with too many people is that they either do not think or they suffer from mental disorders such as extreme liberalism or fundamentalism{4} which prevent them from being able to adequately utilize the tools of logic and reason. (Whereby to discuss subjects such as this intelligently and dispassionately.) And of course there is the tarbaby of racism{5} that a subject such as this inevitably creates in the minds of those who are emotionally overreactive mental midgets. I mean let us be honest here: if Michelle was a white man discussing this subject, she would be branded a racist.{6} Thankfully, she has two assets in her camp on this one being both female and non-white. Not that the media will go easy on her anyway of course but she has shown a trackrecord of being able to defend herself and do so admirably so she will be quite alright. And of course she will get plenty of support from likeminded readers of her work such as your humble servant. But I digress.

Interestingly enough, Michelle will be giving a talk on Friday, Aug. 6 at 7 pm. The location of the talk (Cedar Park Church in Bothell) is about fifteen-twenty minutes from where I am writing this message so I will try to make it there on Friday, business schedule and all permitting.

And finally, Michelle after a bad situation with the comments boxes at her weblog has vindicated (to some extent) some of the reasons why your humble servant -while he will utilize other means of allowing readers to express their opinions on this weblog- will nonetheless not have comments boxes at this weblog.

Notes:

{1} I have voted for Democrats before -almost always they were running unopposed but there was once when that was not the case: something which was not to my credit. However, lest people misconstrue this as me voting for Republicans all the time, I have (and do) vote for Libertarians, Independents, and others on occasion as well. (Remember, I have not been a Republican for nearly eight years now.) On the second point where my score diverges from Michelle's I do not cry when I hear the Lee Greenwood song but it does nonetheless move me. Other than that, I have a perfect score on the quiz.

{2} I am actually willing to go beyond that point and to support the internment of those with AIDS who knowing that they are infected yet choose anyway to engage in behaviour that puts others at risk of catching the disease. (I emphasize the key clarifying phrase above because otherwise those with short attention spans and who are serial prooftexters and/or mental midgets will miss my carefully qualified statement and assert erroneously that I support internment to a much wider degree than I have actually said I do.) In my view, this position is only common sense and it falls under the rubrics of taking into concern the common good of society's and right public order over and above an individual assertion of "rights." But common sense not being so common anymore, it bears inculcating these points yet again in brief.

{3} But of course with Ms. Malkin in my corner, it is a safer subject for me to discuss because she does her homework. She is one of the few writers whose work I will recommend unread and with this book out now, I can readily point to it and tell those critical of my basic position to educate themselves on the matter before bothering me about it. (And of course I will be buying and reading this book.)

{4} The fundamentalist sorts would probably support this measure but in many cases it would not be for the right reasons.

{5} Those who are not familiar with this analogy need to read up on the Disney movie on Brer Rabbit and the Tarbaby - a brief exposition of which can be read HERE.

{6} Though some of the elitist minorities who traffic in race pimping may well brand her with this label anyway. After all, the Animal Farm dictum "all creatures are equal but some are more equal than others" applies here in spades and do not forget it.

The Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG has been updated.

Miscellaneous Articles Worth a Read:
(With commentary from your host at Rerum Novarum)

The following are two articles that are in my humble opinion of a "must read" status. I will comment on them briefly after posting the links.

If the Dead Could Talk

Victor Davis Hanson writes an article you must read my friends. If the idiotic liberal propagandists have your goat as much as they do mine, the above piece explains in summary detail why they are so wrong and why their approach to the war on terror (and war in general) is an insult to previous generations whose sacrifices paved the way for our modern abundance. (And the political apathy that in many cases accompanies it.)

Michael Savage has noted in a memorable quip that "if these people were running things during WWII, we would all be speaking German today or be a lampshade." Hanson's article buttresses that assertion well -indeed his statement about preferring the wisdom of the noble dead to the ignorance of the shameful living is one that we all should take to heart: even those of us who have a healthy respect for those great people who made the ultimate sacrifice. (May they all rest in peace.)

In short, do as I have done and print that article out and keep it handy with the upcoming election being imminent my friends. I am not saying the article is perfect (it is not) but it is brief and it strikes so many targets cleanly and in a pithy manner that it is worth having in one's arsenal.

Has the counter-revolution begun?

This writer has often noted in the years since he was an avid Buchanan supporter{1} that Patrick J. Buchanan is a streaky kind of writer. I say this in the sense that when he is on, he is quite often not merely on target but indeed en fuego.{2} He opines in the above article that Congress may be about to begin reining in the Supreme Court using what he claims is an oft-neglected weapon from the US Constitution. Interestingly enough, your humble servant recently dialogued on this very weblog on the subject Buchanan raises as a subtext of a larger discussion theme.{3} I explained there why I am not sure this weapon is as sharp as some make it out to be;{4} however I am not a professional constitutional scholar so I may simply -out of a desire to avoid errors of an opposing extreme- be perhaps a bit overly cautious here.

In closing, though Buchanan is a streaky shooter, as I noted above, when he is on, he tends to get it on the bullseye. I for one hope that with the above article that his usual marksmenship when on target presents itself. (As that could be some of the best news to come out of Washington in a long time.)

Notes:

{1} A subject I have gone over elsewhere on this weblog but at the moment do not have the time to track down the links. (If interested, peruse the archives for those posts.)

{2} Whereas when he is off, he tends to miss just as consistently.

{3} Dialogue With an Unidentified Self-Identified "Traditionalist": (On Marriage, the Supreme Court, Law in General, Etc.)

{4} It would seem to me that the legislature would have the authority as you note to declare a certain judgment by the Supreme Court that so obviously controverted the Constitution as understood by the Framers*...by a kind of decree akin to church tribunal declaration of nullity of a marriage. It would essentially be a declaration that the decision so outlined was null and void. And it bears noting that as the judiciary requires the executive branch to enforce its decrees, that a declaration of nullity as I outlined which passed both houses of the legislature and was signed by the President would effectively put a check on the Supreme Court. [Excerpt from the post in footnote three]

On George Sims Johnston's Article "After the Council: Living Vatican II":
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

There has been a predictable barrage of anger at a recent George Sims Johnston Crisis article. Having read the article, I find little of real criticism about it in its essential outlines. However, in the area of presentation --and some of Mr. Johnston's presuppositions-- there is no shortage of room to be critical. This post will endeavour to do this out of a conscious sense of fair play and the recognition that objections -even those of the most veneer kind- are seldom without some degree of validity to them.

To start with, the manner whereby Mr. Johnston seems to view some of his audience is in need of being mentioned. I do think the "training wheels" analogy of pre-Vatican II Catholics that Mr. Johnston used to explain some prevalent outlooks in the period prior to the Council was (to put it mildly) inappropriate. Mr. Johnston's intention seems was to point out that the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council called much more explicitly for lay involvement than was previously the case. There is a significant amount of truth in this assertion. Likewise, there is a significant degree of merit in pointing out that prior to Vatican II, the Tridentine model of the church had many cases where there was an ever-widening disconnect between the church at different levels -particularly the church and the laity.{1} The model of the Church commonly espoused was certainly more medieval essentially -and not in many respects in the best way. It is also undeniable that the over-focus on rules and disciplines after Trent was internally detrimental.{2} As I noted in an essay written earlier this year:

[I]n light of many unsavoury elements that had been prevalent in various sectors of Church for a long time--such as an acute anti-intellectualism, a profound suspicion of science and scholarship, a loss of the sense of the local church and local customs, and also an unhealthy and untraditional legalistic outlook-- the credibility of the faith to anyone whose head was not buried in the sand was clearly at stake. For these and other reasons, it was long overdue for the Church to once again interact with the world - to engage critically and credibly the philosophical trends that had for a couple of centuries been undermining society. This kind of critical engagement was something that --with few notable exceptions--had been neglected in the Church for some time. (Particularly since the so-called "enlightenment" period onward.) [I. Shawn McElhinney: excerpt from the essay The 'Tradition is Opposed to Novelty' Canard (c. 2004)]

It appears that Mr. Johnston was attempting to enunciate points parallelling the above ones in his article. I am however not pleased at all with his apparent view that prior generations did not "take their vocations as Christians seriously." One can point to problematical approaches and methodology without at the same time blaming those who in good faith utilized them.

Mr. Johnston appears to blame the people themselves and then writes about such people needing to "remove their training wheels." I find this condescending manner to be frankly apalling. Mr. Johnston was obviously trying to reach people of various dispositions with his article -the flow of the text and the divers subjects touched on makes this clear. But in utilizing this kind of mocking manner, he will only put off those who call themselves "traditionalists."

How does he expect people of good will such as Jeff Culbreath, Charles de Nunzio, Kevin Tierney, Mark Cameron or others who are inclined towards a presumed "traditionalist' weltanschauung to be persuaded by his arguments when he takes this kind of dismissive tactic with them??? Indeed I am aware of certain periodicals or publications that cater to that outlook which have already seized on this demeaning caricature and are using it to dismiss the article wholesale. Well done Mr. Johnston, you have alienated some of those you were trying to reach. There is one additional point to touch on at this time and then this post will be concluded: Mr. Johnston's reference to the aggiornamento of Vatican II as called for by Pope John XXIII of blessed memory.

Yes aggiornamento as a concept was part of the approach taken with Vatican II. Mr. Johnston refers to the term twice -once in quoting the philosophical titan Jacques Maritain. However, it was not aggiornamento for its own sake which was the goal of Vatican II. Instead, Vatican II was the culmination of a methodology of aggiornamento through a ressourcement approach: a point I have gone over at sundry times and in divers manners at this humble weblog.{3}

Referring to aggiornamento apart from ressourcement is to miss the forest for the trees.{4} That to me is a noticeable weakness of the article. Methodologically though, it is not the most significant problem. I would submit that the most significant problem with the article is with fostering an apparent contempt for those who repine in varying ways for the so-called "good old days."{5} Mr. Johnston by this approach detracts significantly from an otherwise pretty on target article and succeeds only in alienating a portion of whom he was trying to reach: honest Catholics of good-will who are inclined in various ways towards forms of what is often (legitimately or otherwise) called Traditionalism.

Though he attempts to cover his tracks later on in the piece, the damage has already been done by that point. Because by then, later admissions that there were some "good and holy Catholics in the old days—even some saints" sound pretty hollow when Mr. Johnston has essentially have consigned the beliefs and practices of these same people as childish earlier in the article.{6} Nor will on target admissions along the lines of "since the council we have lost much that is good" be picked up by the bulk of these people. No, they will instead focus on the condescending inferences to them as "immature children" and everything of worth in Mr. Johnston's article will be ignored.

Again, this is not the tone deaf Remnant/SSPX/SSPV/CAItanic crowd we are talking about here --those who are not going to listen except to find tidbits in your work to caricature in their building of strawmen.{7} No, this is those who are Indult-goers trying their best to sort out a lot of what has been thrust upon them as "truth." By alienating them, Mr. Johnston turn off a good portion of people who are our allies in this fight. It is the hope of this commentator that Mr. Johnston tries to mend these fences before he is written off as a quack propagandist by these people -something that they are not without some reason for doing as long as Mr. Johnston does not address these points in a subsequent article or public clarification.

Notes:

{1} Or as has been noted elsewhere in work from the present writer:

The ghetto image of the Church is not wrong; it is incomplete. Wh at it lacks is a balanced understanding of the Church’s responsibility towards the world. The dynamic outward thrust of the apostolic Church, which remained strong for centuries, begin to die down noticeably after the Reformation. It could not have been otherwise. When a man’s house is on fire, he is in no position to host the neighbours. When the Protestant break occurred, the Church had to bend all of its energies to shore up crumbling foundations.

Inevitably, however, the Catholic Church yielded more and more to isolationism. It became a ghetto closed in on itself. The "barque of Peter" was captained single-handedly by the pope. The bishops were viewed as the officers of the ship and priests and religious as the crew. Where did the laity fit into the picture? Here is the rub. The laity were viewed as paying passengers. They had no active role in the Church. As one bishop put it at the Second Vatican Council, the laity were expected only to pay, pray, and obey. [Fr. Melvin L. Farrell's Theology for Parents and Teachers pgs. 18-19; 20 circa 1972 as quoted in the coauthored project Detection and Overthrow of the 'Traditionalist Catholics' Falsely So-Called from Part 3, Section 3 written by I. Shawn McElhinney (c. 2000, rev. 2003)]

{2} After a long period of uncritical acceptance of this kind of "one size fits all" thinking.

{3} Two examples of many which could be noted are this post on ecclesiological models -as an example of these principles applied to a particular subject- and this post where the main reforming forces behind the Council are discussed in brief along with other subjects.

{4} The late great Jacques Maritain was a philosopher who was quite influenced by ressourcement methodology lest anyone wonder.

{5} In many cases it is a kind of misplaced nostalgia but I do believe the integral human desire for a sense of order seeks the latter in those things where it either exists or is preceived to exist. This accounts in my view for part of the reason why many who are attracted to the so-called "traditionalist" weltanschauung are converts to Catholicism from Protestantism. (And why many Catholics who were "catechized" in the CCD wasteland of the 1970's and 1980's also gravitate towards this outlook.)

{6} That is what Mr. Johnston does with his "training wheels" analogy and references to the Council being a call to "spiritual maturity" phrased in a manner that appears to dichotomize between pre and post Vatican II as eras of "childish spiritually immature" and "grownup spiritually mature" respectively.

{7} This is something that I am not unfamiliar with seeing done woth my own work by these kinds of people I might add.

Notification of Some Recent Writings Adjustments:
(In Reference to Some of the Web Essays of Your Weblog Host)

A few of my web essays were recently reviewed and adjusted accordingly. In an essay response to a certain attorney who will not be named from August of 2003, the essay had some minor grammatical glitches and a few points that needed to be phrased smoother than the originally submitted template contained. I figured correcting those points would give those seeking to defend the aforementioned individual a lot less superficial fluff to hang on as a way of avoiding the positions set forth in that particular writing.

The commentary on the intricacies of dialogue from December of 2003 had a couple areas that needed to be smoothed out HTML-wise and also a few points that I wanted to nuance a tad better than I did in the original template. (Along with wanting to utilize a few more Scriptural injunctions where warranted to bolster previously enunciated points in the text.)

With regards to my one (thus far) web essay of 2004, I reviewed all seven urls and made some very minor adjustments to those templates as well. With the latter essay, it was virtually all either HTML, minor grammar stuff, or a minor nuance here and there. However, in going over one of the urls of that work, I found myself writing some new material and referencing my spiritual instructions for another source to bolster what was initially a very lightly touched on point prior to that url's concluding paragraphs.{1}

That template was sent to Matt about four hours ago and the other retouched templates for that work were posted this morning. Anyway, those adjustments and one very small reworking of a controverted point in my September/October 2001 essay on the Syllabus{2} will probably be posted in a day or so.

[Update: The adjusted Syllabus template and the expanded url from the essay contra David Palm are now on the web. -ISM 8/01/04 4:44pm]

Notes:

{1} This was not an essential adjustment by any means; however, as it provided the opportunity to develop further a point that was barely touched on in the composition of the original template, I took the opportunity to do that earlier today when making the other adjustments to the template in question.

{2} It was a point whereby a friend of mine who identifies with the "traditionalists" hung an entire thread of argumentation on last year. Having removed the sections of their previous evasion, perhaps the arguments in that writing will in time be honestly interacted with by them. (I am not holding my breath on that though.)

On the Democratic Party Convention, John Kerry, Etc.:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

I did on occasion tune into the Democratic Convention to listen to the speakers -upon which I was left wondering what they slipped into the Kool Aid if you know what I mean. These people have no connection whatsoever with reality. I will cover only a couple of the examples here in brief but these should suffice.

To start with, if one listens to Teresa Heinz Kerry, they may have thought that women had no voice whatsoever...no right to vote or to be heard. To listen to the Al Sharptons of the world, they may have thought that the South was still awash in Jim Crow laws. And need I mention the idiocy of one of John Kerry's kids recalling Mr. F-word himself giving CPR to a drowned hamster and claiming that just as Kerry protected the hamster, he would protect abortion rights??? You do not have to be Mr. Spock to notice the illogic behind claiming a parallel between saving the life of a hamster and killing the life of a child.

And of course to listen to John Edwards talk about "restoring" respect and credibility is a laugh and a half. This fellow talks about credibility when he built his legal career on the dogmas of junk science. He is an ambulance-chasing fraud. Indeed Edwards is arguably even worse than the phony that he is running under.

With F-word, his voting record in the Senate is not the only millstone that will hopefully drag him down in this election. No, even his military record -previously thought to be a feather in his cap- has its own share of problems apparently. Hopefully Bush will take the gloves off and really pound these guys now and stop treating them as honourable opposition. There is nothing honourable about Edwards or Kerry. Indeed they arguably make Bill Clinton look pretty good by comparison and that my friends is a scary thought to put it mildly!!!

Oh, before wrapping this post up, I would be remiss to not mention that Bill O'Reilly -someone I am not much of a fan of- did an excellent job exposing Michael Moore in his interview. Moore kept repeating the same line again and again about Bush "lying" and asking O'Reilly "would you send your child" as if the men and women fighting in Iraq were not consenting adults who joined a volunteer fighting force.

To O'Reilly's credit, he did not fall into these traps and he adequately exposed Moore as an ideologue who is not at all interested in the truth if it conflicts with his personal agenda.{1} And finally, am I the only one who found Moore's interview stipulation that he would only do the interview if O'Reilly agreed to run the entire thing without any editing to be quite telling??? I mean, Moore's movies are nothing but a series of edited bits and pieces. His demand of O'Reilly in light of that irrefutable fact is the textbook definition of hypocrisy. But then again, I have often reiterated the maxim that "liberalism is not a social philosophy but instead is a mental disorder"{2} so in that light we really should not be too surprised I suppose.

Notes:

{1} Or should I say he exposed Moore for anyone with a normal intact functioning brain to see. (Something that of course would not include the bulk of those who were at the Jonestown Democratic Convention.)

{2} Credit for this axiom goes to radio talk show host Michael Savage.

Points to Ponder on Ideas

For Our part, We want to wish a happy two year blogging anniversary to Jeff Miller of The Curt Jester.

More on Church Architecture:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

This is published courtesy of Jeff Culbreath's El Camino Real BLOG

The Church in question had been allowed to deteriorate over many years before I came to this Archdiocese. To restore it would cost over five million dollars at a time when we are struggling to maintain a Catholic charities program that serves literally hundreds of thousands of needy New Yorkers, and at a time when the schools that we are struggling to maintain in the inner-city of New York are the only ones whose needy children have any hope of escaping grinding poverty...

...Permit me to close by inquiring if your firm is interested in providing the funds for the restoration about which you write with such zeal.

After reading Mr. Mayer's letter to His Eminence, and then the Cardinal's reply, I went back to check for a request from Mr. Mayer for restoration funds and I did not see any. All Mr. Mayer asked was that the church in question not be allowed to be demolished because of its architectural value in a society which has lost its sense in that area. He also mentioned that the church may qualify as a Historical monument of sorts. In light of the Cardinal's response, going the route of having the church preserved as a Historical monument would seem the most viable option at this time.

Cardinal Egan's concern for the charities that his dioceses funds and redirecting funds from them for church restoration is admirable. However, his lack of careful reading of Mr. Mayer's letter -and imputing to him positions which he did not manifest in said letter- is anything but admirable. Mr. Mayer by what he wrote in the letter does not want the church in question destroyed. This does not constitute requesting diocesan funds to restore it. Frankly, Catholics have just cause for suspicion whenever an old church is going to be "restored" -as indeed such architectural treasures are usually raped of their remaining dignity rather than restored in a manner that retains and magnifies their once ancient splendour which became diminished due to the inexorable ravages of time.

No, if the church in question was to be preserved, I am sure Mr. Mayer and others who share his values could find ways to either maintain it as is or find the funds to restore it. Either way, it would be one less monument to the ages of architectural sanity that did not fall victim to the modern day iconoclast termites whose sole mantra seems to be that of utility for utilities' sake, all other considerations be damned. [LINK]

We need more bishops like Bishop Robert Vasa in American dioceses.

An Open Letter to the Democratic Party by Robert Bennett.

Both of the above links were brought to Our attention by The Catholic Light BLOG.

Two pro-lifers battle it out at Envoy Encore over the proper tactics to take in opposing abortion.

Islam is a Religion of What?