Hand Jive [Un] Doing that Crazy Hand Jive:
(Written by Greg Mockeridge)

The guest editorial you are about to read is the same editorial alluded to in the previous post. Without further ado, let us get to it...

#######

A Long Overdue Indictment of Stephen Hand:

The late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen once said that not even one hundred people hate the Catholic Church, but millions hate what they mistakenly think the Catholic Church is. Undoubtedly, the actions of Catholics themselves have helped create many of these misconceptions. One way such a misunderstanding can be created is to distort the difference between doctrinal imperatives and disciplinary requirements with that of prudential judgments. Those Catholics who make such distortions often ascribe magisterial status to their own opinions and cast aspersions on the fidelity of those who express contrary views. It doesn’t matter whether or not those contrary views are well within the diversity of opinion enjoyed by loyal Catholics. Some of the most common issues where this kind of misunderstanding is perpetrated are waging a just war, application of the death penalty, and economic justice.

One such merchant of confusion is Mr. Stephen Hand, editor of the Traditional Catholic Reflections (TCR) website. I first heard of Mr. Hand about four years ago when I came across his writings on the “traditionalist” movement. My immediate impression of him was that I thought he was a gifted writer. (This is an impression I hold to this day btw.) His monograph "Traditionalists", Tradition, And Private Judgement is, in my view, the best primer on the “traditionalist” movement out there. I would, without hesitation, recommend it highly to anyone looking for a succinct overview of the “traditionalist” movement as a whole.

The TCR website also has good articles on a variety of different subjects.{1} So, it goes without saying that my first impression of Stephen Hand was a positive one. And I held this view despite the fact that he passionately opposed the war in Iraq. (Which I supported then as I do now with equal passion.) As this is an issue that good Catholics could in conscience disagree, I had no problem with Stephen’s position at that time. So it was with great disappointment that I began see things written by Mr. Hand on that site that were highly irrational. As any such assertion made without supporting evidences is properly viewed as suspect, I will list some of the initially troubling points before delving into the substance of this editorial.

To use the analogy of "red flags", the first "red flag" I noticed was the manner with which Mr. Hand defended Cardinal Martino’s outlandish criticism of U.S. treatment of the captured Saddam Hussein.{2} It was clear that his Eminence’s remarks were uncalled for and that he made no attempt take into account the reasons why the U.S. aired that videotape. Nor did Cdl. Martino show similar outrage over the mass graves, uncovered by coalition troops, of Iraqis murdered by Saddam over the twenty-five plus years that the former dictator ruled Iraq. Even those with greater authority in the Vatican diplomatic dicastery in the Curia, who themselves were against the war in Iraq, were dismayed by Martino’s remarks, even going so far as to stuff the proverbial sock in Cardinal Martino’s mouth.{3}

Stephen’s defense of Cardinal Martino was unreasonable to say the least. After all, defense of the Church does not mean that we have to defend members of the Roman Curia when they make absurd remarks. But still, I gave Stephen the benefit of the doubt on that particular point, since I can understand the natural tendency that orthodox Catholics have in defending Church officials, especially those in the Holy See. I myself admittedly have discomfort criticizing Vatican officials, especially in a public forum. So this instinct is (in and of itself) laudable. But unfortunately, that was not all he had to say on the matter.

For in that same musing, Stephen trotted out the tired and stale “George W. Bush used the National Guard to evade the draft” canard: something that I hope has been put to rest once and for all with Rathergate. He did this by citing an obscure web source of controvertible repute. Now, one of the most basic rules of journalistic ethics is to make a painstaking effort to ensure the credibility and veracity of one’s sources. This is especially true for one who is Catholic. Stephen egregiously violated this principle by assuming that the claim made by a rabidly anti-Bush website was true when even Bush’s most ardent detractors in the Democrat party did not make such a claim at the time. And since he is an experienced journalist, raising questions about his objectivity and integrity is certainly within the realm of fair play.

Then there was that hit piece on Karl Keating’s March 2, 2004 e-letter defending a Catholic’s right to support as well as oppose the State’s right to impose the death penalty by TCR staff writer Maggie Hall.(An “attempted” hit piece is more like it, since Ms. Hall’s screed misses the mark by a country mile.) Just the title of the piece (Defending The Faith Through Argument, Not Love Karl Keating on the Death Penalty) is problematic in that it suggests there is a dichotomy between love and arguing in defense of the truths of the faith. This very proposition is absurd on its face.

Truth, after all, is essential to love. For that reason, the reader should be asking themselves how the truth of any issue is going to be known if it is not carefully explained or argued. Ms. Hall reinforces this false dichotomy when she says: “Apologetics sit well with Catholics who feel you best defend the faith through argument rather than love.” Well, in the interests of consistency, she would have to put Jesus himself in the category of those apologists who “defend the faith through argument rather than love” because the Gospels contain many instances where Jesus deals with people, especially the Pharisees, precisely through argument. Besides being Love himself, Jesus was also a master of argumentation: a key point to the Gospel which some of those bereft of proper context tend to miss.

But rather than take my word for it, review for yourself how the following statement from Ms. Hall shows exactly how off-base she is regarding Catholic teaching and legitimate diversity they enjoy regarding the death penalty:

In the March 2 edition of an e-letter, the “Catholic Answers” guru argues that good Catholics can support the death penalty. Unlike abortion, euthanasia, stem-cell research, cloning and marriage between gays (shades of Leviticus!), killing an incarcerated human being is one of those issues in which “good” Catholics are permitted to differ. The poobah of Catholic apologetics ranks the Holy Father’s strong stand against state-supported murder as a “prudential judgment,” as if opposing the death penalty were on the same plane as choosing to wear red socks tomorrow instead of white.

Despite what Hall wanted to lead (or should I say mislead) her reader into believing (i.e. that a good Catholic cannot support capital punishment), Mr. Keating was simply defending a Catholic's freedom within the bounds of orthodoxy to view the pope's judgment on the frequency whereby the death penalty should be applied as an imprudent one. This is a right badly in need of defense today because those Catholics who do happen to support capital punishment within the parameters of Catholic teaching are unfairly marginalized by those like Ms. Hall. Unfortunately, this marginalization extends to even many bishops who use the pope's prudential judgment as a means to characterize such support as less Catholic than a position favoring the abolition of the death penalty. So, by defending such a right, Karl Keating is defending the faith not only through argument but also through love. Having noted that point, let us point the reader towards the contradiction at the very heart of her argument by pointing to the congruence between Mr. Keating's position and one taken by someone Ms. Hall (and her "allies") cannot so easily overlook: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).

For you see, the position expressed by Mr. Keating in the above-cited e-letter is the exact same position as taken by Cardinal Ratzinger when His Eminence laid out guidelines to USCCB on the worthiness to receive communion:

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia. (Emphasis Added)

Again, consistency would demand that Ms. Hall write a hit piece taking Cardinal Ratzinger to task for doing the same thing that Karl Keating does: saying that Catholics can disagree with the Holy Father’s prudential judgment on capital punishment viz. society’s ability to satisfy the ends of punishment without recourse to it. (Not to mention of Mr. Hand pointing his readers to such an article once she wrote it.) But don’t expect those who engage in such emotionally-driven sophistry as Ms. Hall evinces in this article to be consistent.

After writing to Ms. Hall pointing these things out to her, I had e-mailed Stephen inquiring as to why would he allow an article that was so devoid of a fundamental grasp of Catholic teaching and a lack of charity toward Mr. Keating and requested that he remove it from his site. Not only would Stephen not remove the article, he defended it and amplified what Ms. Hall said in her attack on Karl. He buttressed his case (and Ms. Hall’s) by pointing to how many in Europe found capital punishment “regressive.” As the continent of Europe has become a moral sewer that that makes America (its serious moral problems notwithstanding) look like a paragon of virtue, why should anyone care what Europe thinks on matters such as this?

On a related matter, when the jury in the Scott Peterson murder case handing down a death sentence, Stephen wrote a musing about how Scott Peterson is “now toast”. And in that same musing he basically equated the manner with which we administer capital punishment (lethal injection) to euthanasia. I e-mailed him pointing out that the chances of Scott Peterson’s chances of actually being executed are about one in six, and that’s a worst-case scenario if you are opposed to the death penalty. I also objected to his equating capital punishment to euthanasia. His response was that he was following the logic of John Paul II: an absurd notion if ever there was one.

After all, anyone who actually knows what the pope has actually said in this matter is aware that Stephen's dog won’t hunt. The Holy Father never equates capital punishment, something that is not intrinsically evil, with euthanasia and abortion, which are intrinsic evils.

Faced with these incontrovertible facts, the best Stephen can do is send copies of Zenit articles where the pope repeats his prudential judgment regarding capital punishment in the same speech or homily that he speaks of the life issues. One could logically conclude that the pope believes society is able to adequately punish dangerous criminals without recourse to capital punishment and that its use can inadvertently contribute to the culture of death. However, that's a far cry from equating capital punishment to euthanasia or abortion, as Cardinal Ratzinger makes clear in the quote cited above.

Mr. Hand's only response to that was ridicule and condescension, which I take as an unwitting admission that he will not and cannot deal substantively with my objection. (For to do so, he would have to recant his position.) I am not, of course, denying Stephen’s right as a Catholic to oppose the death penalty. In fact, I take an equally harsh view of those Catholics like Peter Miller of The Seattle Catholic who portray the Holy Father’s opposition to the death penalty viz, his prudential judgment as being contrary to traditional Catholic teaching. I have written on the subject of the death penalty several times —including in an an article taking U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to task over his confusing the pope's prudential judgment with his teaching on the matter. What I am taking issue with here is Stephen’s portrayal of support for the death penalty as being less Catholic than that of opposition to the death penalty, that is all.

In truth though, Stephen’s position regarding economic justice consistently follow the same incongruity with the respect for the proper Catholic sense of diversity of opinion that his position on the death penalty does. His lavish praise of Houston Catholic Worker ‘s Mark and Louise Zwick, who viciously and uncharitably attacked respected Catholic scholar Michael Novak as some corporate lackey who helps “big business” exploit the poor, is just one of many examples of how off base Stephen has become on this issue. But Mr. Hand, not being one who is to be outdone in the cheap shot department, fires a few RPGs of his own in the class war. Especially disgusting was his vicious little blurb about Ronald Reagan on the occasion of the former president’s passing:

A lot of people are writing about him as a religious man. Reagan's faith, however, it seems to us, was an old, hard, Puritan faith (no emphasis on the Sermon on the Mount; the poor are not blessed as the rich are in his theology; might is glory; union busting---leaving the workers at the mercy of the Enron execs--- is good etc.) His faith in practically unbridled capitalism had little in common with St. Francis and Catholic Christianity in general.

First of all, it was beyond tasteless to use the occasion of someone’s death as an opportunity to take such a cheap shot at him. Secondly, none of what Stephen says in the above quote has any basis in fact. Contrary to what Stephen says, Reagan did consider the poor to be blessed—so blessed that it he believed that it was below their dignity to be trapped in welfare state that places them at the mercy of an opportunistic bureaucrats and politicians. Reagan understood, as does Church social teaching, that the poor are not lifted up by pitting them against the rich. To note a couple of examples, Pope St. Clement of Rome once said: "[t]he strong must take care of the weak; the weak must look up to the strong. The rich must provide for the poor. The poor must thank God for giving him someone to meet his needs" (Letter to the Corinthians A.D. 96 #38). Along these same lines, Pope John Paul II makes it clear in one of his social encyclicals that the preferential option for the poor “is never exclusive or discriminatory towards other groups” (Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus #57).

In truth, the poor are lifted up by an economic system that encourages and rewards enterprise. The poor are lifted up when solicitude for their needs is not only expressed in providing material succor (which is important, don’t misunderstand me) {4}, but also in providing them the opportunity to build a livelihood for themselves by placing their own talent and labor at the service of the common good. Reagan’s economic policies reflected a sound understanding of this. The Census Bureau{5} records from 1981 to 1991 clearly show that Reaganomics had a transforming effect for the better on the lives of poor Americans, black Americans in particular. Of the 19 million new jobs created by Reagan’s policies, blacks were recipients of 2.4 million of them. Between the end of 1980 and the end of 1988, the unemployment rate amongst blacks dropped a staggering 25%. During this same period, black income exceeded the total GDP of all but ten countries in the world. Black families earning over $50,000 a year more than doubled between 1982 and 1988.

To those who parrot the canard that Reaganomics were about tax-cuts for the rich at the expense of the poor, this ought to stuff a sock in their mouth: before Reagan took office those in top five percent income bracket were carrying less than 38% of the total tax burden. By 1988, the same group was carrying nearly 46%. In the same period, the top ten percent income bracket was paying 57% of all taxes. But, in proportion to their income and tax burden those in lower income brackets benefited the most from Reagan’s tax cuts; those in the lower half of the income group were carrying less than 6% by 1988.

It is also known that Reagan used to personally answer much of the hate mail he received from welfare recipients who were being misled by leftist propaganda with words of encouragement…and even on many occasions a personal check. Therefore, it is more than safe to say that Reaganomics, in keeping with the tradition of American founding principles, is a realization of Catholic economic justice to a proportion unmatched in history, despite what Stephen wishes to lead (Or should I say mislead) his readers to believe.

Of course, I am not saying that one cannot disagree with Reagan's economic policy, but Stephen has demonstrated, by what he says in the above quote and the many other things he has said in regards to socio-economic issues, he is either unable or unwilling to engage in any substantive discussion on the subject of Reagan’s legacy. With all the lamenting Stephen does about the plight of the poor, I am not aware of him ever saying anything about how the present welfare system ala LBJ’s War on Poverty has made otherwise productive people dependent upon the “benevolence” of Washington bureaucrats. Nor has he ever said a word about the behavior that leads to impoverished conditions for many those who are poor and how they need to take responsibility for the sorry state their lives have become other than blaming it America’s “pornosophic culture.”{6}

It is Mr. Hand’s position on the war in Iraq that his imbalance is most startling. Much as he does with his misrepresentations on the issues death penalty and economic justice, Mr. Hand has willingly disrespected the legitimate diversity of opinion that Catholics enjoy in regards to this issue. Towards this end, he is not above misrepresenting the pope’s position. Nor is he above demonizing those who express different opinions from his, even though such opinions fall well within such legitimate diversity.

On the former, I have challenged Mr. Hand to substantiate the claim that support for the war contradicts the actual teachings of JPII on several occasions, but has not yet has been able to do so. The closest thing he has been able to do is come up with is a quote of the Holy Father saying “War, Never Again” which is a repetition of what Pope Paul VI said in his address to the United Nations in 1965. But that is the same Pope Paul VI told former POW and US Senator Jeremiah Denton during a private audience in 1973 that he believed that U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War was just. So, it is safe to conclude that neither Paul VI nor John Paul II intended what Mr. Hand wants to believe they did.

Furthermore, when discussing the parameters of the teaching on Just War, the Catechism of the Catholic Church #2309 states that [t]he evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.” Those who have "responsibility for the common good" are civil governments. Ergo, it is not within the competence of the Church to determine authoritatively whether or not this particular war is just. Here, it bears repeating the quote from Cardinal Ratzinger cited above:

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia. (Emphasis Added)

Mr. Hand’s lack of good sense and charity towards those who support the war in Iraq is best expressed in his vicious (and I believe, sickening) attack on Fr. Frank Pavone:

Fr. Pavone (Finally!) Reveals His Americanist Point of Departure

...and Catholicism for him practically becomes in consequence a subset to an American religion, to manifest destiny summed up in "I pledge allegiance...My country right or wrong..."

Hear the good man sadly declare himself wiser than the Holy Father as he plays fast and loose with the Pope's clear teaching and intent in another matter of life and death:

"Then there are those who claim you cannot support "the war" and still be pro-life. I support the war fully and am fully pro-life. So are countless others. The Pope never told us we had to hold any particular position about "the war in Iraq." As an American citizen I am proud to trust the decisions of those who have the awesome responsibility to make them. And that position is fully consistent with Catholicism." ---Fr. Frank Pavone, Priests for Life

Trust George W ...but not the Pope and Cardinal Ratzinger. It would appear Fr. Pavone was asleep, or turning his face aside, while the Holy Father spoke so clearly about the illegitmacy of this "preemptive" war, and that he cares more for some babies than others. Those below do not qualify...Very sad indeed.

What is "very sad indeed" about all this is how far Mr. Hand is willing to go (and who he is willing to malign in the process) in order to put a Catholic window dressing on his pseudo-pacifistic drivel. By saying Fr. Pavone “cares more for some babies than others” he is casting aspersions on the genuineness of Fr. Pavone’s pro-life commitment. Such insinuation on the part of Mr. Hand does not escape the charge of libel in this writer’s view.

Furthermore, it is not Fr. Frank Pavone who has shown his “Americanist [p]oint of [d]eparture” it is Stephen Hand who has repeatedly shown his ANTI American point of departure over at least the past year and a half, if not longer. One could conclude, by reading his anti-war screeds that it is his belief that President Bush is more of a war criminal than Saddam Hussein. I really hope he doesn’t actually believe this but I do not remember Mr. Hand shedding one drop of ink lamenting all the innocent Iraqi blood shed at the hands of Saddam. Not one word about the rape rooms where even children were raped, tortured, murdered in front of their parents. Not one word about the mass graves uncovering hundreds upon hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of corpses, and the grieving families trying to find the remains of loved ones. But let one report, whether it’s credible or not, of an unintended civilian casualty hit the wires, and Stephen is in full attack mode against the Bush administration and those who support their efforts. He has repeatedly parroted the claim that the war has caused over 100,000 civilian casualties, even though such claim lacks any real credibility, but ignores the fact that the average Iraqi is much safer today in Iraq, despite all that is going on, than he was under Saddam.{7}

Nor did Mr. Hand express any outrage over the fact that countries like France, Russia, and Germany, all of whom opposed military action against Iraq, taking kickbacks vis-à-vis the Oil for Food Program in exchange for their opposition. One would think that if Mr. Hand really cares about the poor and suffering Iraqis (and I'm not saying he doesn't, mind you), that he would express outrage the grounds that these countries committed crimes against the poor alone. After all, the Oil for Food Program was a big gravytrain that ran all over the poor in Iraq. Indeed, to call it an "Oil for Palaces, Weapons and Terrorists Program" would be far more accurate if one is concerned with accuracy of facts in their reporting.

Thus far, it seems that Stephen Hand would prefer to post anything that he thinks will remotely support his position –however contextually, factually, or otherwise inaccurate. In fact, the only outrage he ever expressed over the Oil For Food scandal is this:

· Cheney, Halliburton Helped Saddam Fleece
Oil for Food Program

"But the one company that helped Saddam exploit the oil-for-food program in the mid-1990s that wasn't identified in Duelfer's report was Halliburton, and the person at the helm of Halliburton at the time of the scheme was Vice President Dick Cheney."

Again, this shows how far Stephen is willing to go to (i.e. sacrificing his own journalistic integrity on the altar of pseudo-pacifism) in undermining the war effort. If any of the claims made by the article he cites are true, it is certain that Democrats in the Senate and elsewhere, who have been trying to hang Halliburton for everything else, would have most certainly used that evidence against them. Given the position they have staked out against the administration regarding the war, they would be fools not to.

Stephen Hand’s descent into the abyss of the unreasonable has indeed been a tragic one. It is always painful to see someone who has demonstrated the ability to analyze issues with the clarity that Mr. Hand has with pieces like “Traditionalists", Tradition, And Private Judgement resort to the kind of drivel he has in dealing with issues of such as capital punishment, the war in Iraq{8} and socio-economic justice.

Hopefully, I have made clear that my criticisms of Stephen Hand are not over the fact that he simply disagrees with me on the above stated issues. I have stated more than once in this article that Catholics enjoy a diversity of opinion (within certain limits) on these issues. I will also say that a passionate, intelligent and charitable dialogue and debate can only be healthy and enlightening for both sides. My criticisms are squarely rooted in the fact that he dogmatized his opinions on these issues to the extent of maligning those who hold different views within legitimate Catholic parameters, while those same individuals have gladly extended to him the same courtesy that he has so viciously tried to deny them.

I do not in noting these matters wish to appear as one trying to judge Mr. Hand’s heart. I don’t know why he has chosen to go to the lengths that he has in dishonestly presenting his positions. I believe that his concern for the poor, innocents caught in the crossfire of war, and those on death row is genuine, although I believe his ideas along these lines are misguided and disastrous when put into practice.

In summary, I would like to take this opportunity to appeal to those orthodox Catholic writers out there who are friends of Stephen’s to let him know in no uncertain terms that the conduct he has exhibited over the past two years is unacceptable. After all, friends should not let friends become sophists.

Notes:

{1} Among them are the great articles by Fr. James Schall S.J. on political issues, which include brilliant defenses of the war in Iraq. In fairness to Mr. Hand I would be remiss if I did not mention this. However, this doesn’t even come close to excusing Stephen’s irresponsible rhetoric on the war.

{2} I refer here to the videotaping of a bedraggled, dirty, defeated Saddam.

{3} See Michael Novak’s article “Martino?"

{4} I want to make clear that I am not denying the need to provide material assistance to the poor along with helping them develop marketable skills. Those who run and volunteer their time at homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and the like provide an indispensable service. Here, I would include the mental health facility Mr. Hand works at and the Casa Juan Diego founded by Mark and Louise Zwick in Houston, Texas. I firmly believe that the enterprise and business sector of our economy and the homeless shelter and soup kitchen outreaches are interdependent. Both need to coordinate their efforts. It is in this light that the attacks Stephen Hand and the Zwicks have launched against people like Michael Novak and George Weigel, who promote the entrepreneurial element of Catholic social teaching, are even more destructive.

{5} These figures were taken second hand Michael Novak’s article Reagan and the Poor.

{6} I am not denying nor am I downplaying the destructive influence of the “pornosophic” trends that are all too pervasive in our culture. However, to not hold the poor (or anyone else for that matter) accountable for their actions is not only misdirected compassion, it is also an insult to their dignity.

{7} In November 2004, at which time the U.S. had been in Iraq about nineteen months Seth Leibsohn & Director of Research for Bill Bennett's Morning in America, and Claremont Institute Fellow, cited UNICEF numbers placing the total Iraqi death toll at around 15,000. Under Saddam, around 5000 Iraqis a month were murdered. That’s about five times more than those who have died since the war began in March 2003.

{8} Ironically, Mr. Hand’s rhetoric regarding the war is no different from that of the most unhinged of those pseudo-traditionalists. For my commentary on the article linked to above can be found HERE.

#######

To read a relatively short commentary on the above guest editorial from the webmaster, see this followup thread.

An About Face From John Allen on the New Pope:
(Plus a Minor Prelude to an Upcoming Editorial at Rerum Novarum)

It was recently reported by Christopher Blosser at Against the Grain{1} that John Allen (the Rome correspondent for National Catholic Reporter{2}) has had a change of mind about Cardinal Ratzinger. In a June 2004 address on the subject of dialogue{3} Mr. Allen made the following observations and concessions.

"My 'conversion' to dialogue originated in a sort of 'bottoming out.' It came with the publication of my biography of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, issued by Continuum in 2000 and titled The Vatican's Enforcer of the Faith. The first major review appeared in Commonweal, authored by another of my distinguished predecessors in this lecture series, Fr. Joseph Komonchak. It was not, let me be candid, a positive review. Fr. Komonchak pointed out a number of shortcomings and a few errors, but the line that truly stung came when he accused me of "Manichean journalism." He meant that I was locked in a dualistic mentality in which Ratzinger was consistently wrong and his critics consistently right. I was initially crushed, then furious. I re-read the book with Fr. Komonchak's criticism in mind, however, and reached the sobering conclusion that he was correct. The book - which I modestly believe is not without its merits - is nevertheless too often written in a "good guys and bad guys" style that vilifies the cardinal. It took Fr. Komonchak pointing this out, publicly and bluntly, for me to ask myself, 'Is this the kind of journalist I want to be'? My answer was no, and I hope that in the years since I have come to appreciate more of those shades of gray that Fr. Komonchak rightly insists are always part of the story. [John Allen: From the Common Ground Series (circa June 25, 2004)]

It is pleasing to see such a frank admission of mistakes and poor judgment (within certain parameters) on the part of John Allen viz. what he wrote about Cardinal Ratzinger in his biography published in 2000. (These kinds of admissions are never easy to make after all -particularly publicly.) The question is, will certain parties who were profoundly critical of John Allen's biography also have the same courage Mr. Allen has demonstrated when presented with certain areas where they have made mistakes and executed poor judgment. Time will tell and in short order at that...

Notes:

{1} For those who are interested, Christopher has also written a very evenhanded review of John Allen's biography of Cardinal Ratzinger.

{2} We at Rerum Novarum (for the record, if readers have not figured this out by now) are no fans of the National Catholic Reporter. We do though have a certain affinity for John Allen and feel that he is a knowledgable and reliable Vatican correspondent. (Even though there are some obvious differences of opinion between him and Us.)

{3} The subject of dialogue and its intricacies was written about in an essay by the present writer back in 2003. (See this link for details on the matter.)

On Bolton and Benedict and an Interesting Incongruity in the Positions of So-Called "Progressivists"

Points to Ponder:

[A] great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep. [C.W. Socarides]

Miscellaneous Morning Notes on the Conclave and the Selection of a New Pope

The Aggiornamento of Rerum Novarum Via Ressourcement Methodology:

Another way of saying it is that the weblog has been updated for the first time this year. The archives were extended out to June 18th and it is hoped that they can be put on a separate page upon this weblog being updated again. Right now though, there is neither the time nor the desire to figure out how that is done. Having noted those things, here are the additions by category -any comments from this writer will be in purple font henceforth in this post.


Weblog Special Reports, Commemorations, Retrospectives, Miscellaneous Stuff, Etc.

Musings on the Passing of Johnny Carson (An Audio Post) [>>>]

My Picks for the 2005 "St. Blog's Awards" [>>>]

On "Social Commentary" and St. Blog's "Awards" [>>>]


On Political/Social Subjects in General

Miscellaneous Musings on Double Standards in the Media [>>>]

Miscellaneous Notes on the Upcoming Inaugural, Recent Comments From President Bush About WMD's, and the Reform of Social Security (An Audio Post) [>>>]

On Victor Davis Hanson and the Significance of Donald Rumsfeld [>>>]

Political Potpourri [>>>]

On Condoleeza Rice and Her Speech to the French, "Liberty"/"Equality"/"Fraternity", Etc. (An Audio Post) [>>>]

On the Blogosphere and Mainstream Media Hypocritical Double Standards [>>>]

My Review of Senator Barry Goldwater's Book The Conscience of a Conservative [>>>]

On the Death of Pope John Paul II [>>>]

Notes on Filibusters (An Audio Post) [>>>]


On the US Constitution and the Fundamental Rights of Man

For the "Anniversary" of Roe vs. Wade [>>>]

More on Terri Schiavo and the Fundamental Rights of Man [>>>]

More on Terri Schiavo, an Activist Blogosphere Effort on Her Behalf, Etc. [>>>]

On the Terri Schiavo Situation and the Culture War in General [>>>]

On Terri Schiavo and The Face of Evil [>>>]

An Appeal to Federalist #78 Southern Style [>>>]

Miscellaneous Musings on Key Fundamental Flaws in the Outlook of the "Kill Terri Contingent" (An Audio Post) [>>>]

On Terri Schiavo's Situation, So-Called "Christian Fascism", and Communist Supporters of the Culture of Death [>>>]


On Political Election Topics

On the Washington Governors Heist Race and Other Tidbits [>>>]

On the Recent War and War in General

Briefly on Iraq, WMD's, and Another Pseudo-"Progressivist" War Dogma Bites the Dust [>>>]

A Rerum Novarum Recapitulation of Threads on the Recent War, the Politics Involved, and War in General [>>>]


On Particular Philosophical/Ethical Subjects

Miscellaneous Dyspeptic Morning Mutterings on Attorneys (An Audio Post) [>>>]

Miscellaneous Dyspeptic Morning Mutterings on Attorney's, Politicians, and Tort Reform (An Audio Post) [>>>]

Miscellanous Musings on Accountants, the Accountants Lobby, Reforming the Tax Code, and Washington State Performance Audits (An Audio Post) [>>>]

Miscellaneous Musings on the Death of Terri Schiavo, A Possible "Grace" From This Tragedy, Etc. --Part I (An Audio Post) [>>>]

Miscellaneous Musings on the Death of Terri Schiavo, A Possible "Grace" From This Tragedy, Etc. --Part II (An Audio Post) [>>>]

Prelude to a Potential Dialogue on the Subject of Foundational Presuppositions [>>>]


Of or Pertaining to 'Progressivist' Philosophies (Falsely So-Called)

On the Inaugural Speech, The President's Use of the Word "Freedom", and Self-Styled "Progressivist" Reactions Thereof (An Audio Post) [>>>]

Points to Ponder on Left-Wing Bloggers (Jonah Goldberg) [>>>]


On 'Traditionalism' (Falsely So-Called)

There was a title change with regards to this margin post:

Mr. Smith's Misunderstandings (Parts I-VI)

As this thread is essentially a Rerum Novarum commentary on Humani Generis, the title of the piece has been changed to reflect that. It will henceforth be referred to by some of the title it has long possessed in the threads itself:

Some Errors by a Self-Proclaimed 'Traditionalist' Viz. Understanding Humani Generis (Parts I-IV)

The remaining parts of the original thread were reconfigured into a two part thread titled "Some More Errors by a Self-Proclaimed 'Traditionalist'" and left in the archive.


On 'Traditionalism' (Properly So-Called)

Some Clarifications on Fr. Henri de Lubac and His Views on the Relationship Between Nature and Grace [>>>]

Points to Ponder From Pope John Paul II (On Easter) [>>>]

Points to Ponder From Pope John Paul II (On Liturgical Silence) [>>>]


On Certain Controverted "Hotpoint" Theological Subjects

Points to Ponder From John O'Donahue on the Soul (An Audio Post) [>>>]


On Other Controverted Subjects

Briefly on the Upcoming Conclave [>>>]

On the Conclave and Papal Selections [>>>]

For those who are interested, We were the first to make the call on a Ratzinger papacy. (Though in the interest of fairness, there was a misguessing on Our part that he would select "Leo XIV" for a name.)

Recommended Weblogs:

Some minor name adjustments were made to the weblogs classified under this general heading. Nonetheless, included amongst them now are these weblogs.

The Southern Appeal BLOG [>>>]

We have enjoyed this weblog for a while and been somewhat tardy in adding it to Our scroll. One things is for sure: this writer's animosities towards attorneys would dissipate quickly if there were more of them like the SA crew (and of course Ian McLean).

Gregg the Obscure's Vita Brevis BLOG [>>>]

John Betts' Just Your Average Catholic Guy BLOG [>>>]

The Obscure One and John Betts are back in the blogosphere so their reconstituted weblogs are being readded to Rerum Novarum at the present time.

Jonathan Prejean's Crimson Catholic BLOG [>>>]

For those who remember, the above weblog was Our pick for "best new weblog" in the (now infamous) St. Blog's "Awards."

Recommended* Catholic Websites

Blessed Sacrament Parish and Dominican Priory [>>>]

St. John Cantius Parish [>>>]

The first link was transferred from another category. Frequent readers know that it is the parish that your humble servant attends most frequently.

Ecumenical Jihad Approved* Websites and Weblogs


Rev. Michael J. Pahls' Abbot Gregory Site (Reformed Church of America) [>>>]

Rev. Michael J. Pahls' Bishop's BLOG (Reformed Church of America) [>>>]

It has been noted before that Rev. Pahls has written (in the opinion of this writer) one of the best non-Catholic commentaries on Trent Session VI. The link to that essay was defunct but is not fixed and readily viewable under the Recommended Religious/Theological Articles on Various Subjects classification in this weblog's margin.

Ashli's The SICLE Cell BLOG (Christian) [>>>]

The above weblog has as one of its core themes a vivid testament against the lie of abortion being "liberating."


Approved* Weblogs and Websites of a Predominantly Political Nature

The SoundPolitics BLOG [>>>]

For those following the Washington State Governor's Heist Election, the above link is excellent.

Recommended* Socio-Political Articles on Various Subjects

Our Worst Enemy - Rabbi Daniel Lapin [>>>]

Air America's Lousy Ratings - Michelle Malkin [>>>]

Blogging and Bloggers - Brian Micklethwait [>>>]

Terri Schiavo: Judicial Murder - Nat Hentoff [>>>]

It's a Brave New World After Terri Schiavo Dies - Timothy Birdnow [>>>]

The next two articles were slated for a Miscellaneous Links of Interest post but now they will merely be posted in this update without the originally planned commentary on them. (Though they may be revisited later on for the purpose of commentary.)

Take Back the Word - Joel Engel [>>>]

Our Not-So-Wise Experts - Victor Davis Hanson [>>>]

Recommended Religious/Theological Articles on Various Subjects

Petrine Office and Particular Churches -Fr. Henri de Lubac SJ [>>>]

The Holocaust: What Was Not Said -Fr. Martin Rhonheimer [>>>]

Shawn's Eastern Catholic Corner Approved* Links

The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostrom [>>>]

[:::....Other Approved* Sites or Links of Interest....:::]

This heading was suppressed, the contents moved to other places, and the following subheading (General Magisterial Texts) was put in its place in whote background with darkblue font.

General Magisterial Texts

Humani Generis Encyclical Letter Concerning Some False Opinions Threatening to Undermine Catholic Doctrine (Pope Pius XII) [>>>]

In light of the new Pope Benedict XVI, and a sense of optimism, let us conclude this update with a greater than normal degree of pomp and circumstance...

Wherefore, having noted these additions, amendations, and other adjustments, it is prescribed by the webmaster of Rerum Novarum that the insertions listed above be introduced for a perpetual remembrance all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Prelude to a Potential Dialogue on the Subject of Foundational Presuppositions:

Apparently, a certain dialogual associate of this writer has been producing volumes of recent writing on the subjects of foundational premises that impact a person's presupposational weltanschauung. It therefore seems appropriate to point out for those who are interested in discussing these issues in a profitable manner{1} the necessity of keeping individual discussion threads from wandering away from the core subjects involved. And when you have two or more people who view the world through different "lenses", it helps to try and establish agreed upon points of reference at the outset of any proposed dialogue. In the opinion of the present writer, a discussion on foundational presuppositions that undergird particular paradigms of thought is of particular importance if any of those involved in the dialogue are involved to a larger extent in academic circles.

For those in academia can often have pretentions towards being "learned" while being (at the same time) isolated to a certain extent from reality.{2} Indeed, all too often the Gospel message of being "salt and light" seems to be rendered in academia these days in a manner akin to the following:

You are the light of tiny ivory tower elitists. A city that is set in a valley is easily hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and put it on a lampstand to give light to all who are in the house but instead under a basket away from all but those who have the special gnosis. Do not let your light shine before men, lest they see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven. No, shine your light under the basket and expend its energy on tedious exegesis of 'present participles', 'present active infinitives', and lengthy expositions on epistemological trifles that you may thus be viewed as wise among the ivory tower elitists and that they may give you glory and not your Father in heaven. [Matthew v,14-16 (Revised Ivory Tower Academia Version)]

What good ponderous multivolume cogitations on these subjects have viz a viz being even read (let alone actually assimilated into the thought patterns of others) is a mystery to the present writer. Therefore, in the interest of facilitating genuine "salt and light" dialogues on these matters, your humble servant at Rerum Novarum will launch this proposed dialogue after the conclave is over.{3} Hopefully the particular parties addressed previously at this weblog under the auspices of conducting such a dialogue{4} will respond accordingly and we can have a productive discussion free from overlong bloviations on either side. We shall see...

Notes:

{1} By "profitable", is meant in a manner whereby people can actually understand what is being said. To aid in this, your host will be posting two threads after the conclave to try and establish some reasonable boundaries for not only facilitating such a dialogue but also to increase its likelihood of making viable contributions to the arena of ideas. (For better, more fruitful discussions if you will.)

{2} To note the kind of sheltering from reality that academia allows its presumptive "elites" and "scholars", the following are from a couple of Rerum Novarum posts from 2004:

[So-called "free trade"] is an unfortunate canard of the so-called "neo-conservatives" but even people generally liberal such as Kerry support it. In the case of the liberals, it it is probably because they like the idea of international organizations outside of US sovereignty telling us whom we can trade with and why. The so-called "neo-conservatives" fall for this kind of "voodoo economics" but cannot point to one single example in history where a nation became strong and prosperous due to so-called "free trade" without any recourse to protecting their borders.

The latter constituted the foundation of a challenge I made about twelve years ago to a couple of my business instructors in college who were pro free trade. And despite not being able to answer the challenge, they still uncritically mimicked the "free trade" mantra. My exposing of this canard before the classes I was in -and invariably making my instructors look very bad in the process- probably prevented me from getting the grades I should have gotten in those classes. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 12, 2004)

And again:

[B]oth [political parties] promote (to name one example of several) that boondoggle called "free trade" which is a wonderful academic theory that does not work in reality. I challenged three teachers in my international political economy class in college to name for me these countries that built themselves into powerful and industrious nations using the free trade that two of the three were so avidly promoting. And every example they raised I was able to easily shoot down.[...] Despite their failure to cite supporting evidences for this theory, they still shilled for the idea though. Talk about a classic example of economic solipsism in a nutshell!!!

I extend to you the same challenge with this caveat: my teachers who were well schooled in international political economic theory could not do this so do not think that this will be an easy task for you to do. NAFTA and other so-called "free trade" agreements benefit one class of people only: multinational corporations who like to utilize cheap labour for their products. I think it is absurd that these ivory tower nimrods cannot recognize the concoction that is brewed by (i) the strangling tax code in this country coupled with (ii) high regulatory and environmental restrictions in the US, (iii) no such restrictions to speak of in Mexico, (iv) the ease with which materials can be moved from country to country under this policy, and (v) the dirt cheap non-unionized labour force in places like Mexico which can be exploited. There should be super high tariffs on countries that go to Mexico or other countries to build products to ship them back to the US. That would mitigate against this pattern but do not expect to see that logical policy implemented anytime soon. [...]

If you want to claim that what we are seeing needs to be refined in its approach, then you would be doing with so-called "free trade" what I am doing with the third party political concept. My opposition was not as much to NAFTA in theory (which sounds good I admit) as what I knew it would result in where the rubber meets the road: indeed I predicted what has come to pass before NAFTA was even implemented. History was my teacher here and those who shilled for NAFTA (including some of my college business and law professors) chose to ignore Santayana's dictum and not listen to what the instructor of history reveals. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 11, 2004)]

Another classic example which could be noted is that of communism. Though it has failed in every incarnation it has manifested itself in over the years, the most notorious propagators of communist theory are college professors and others in academia who never have to be held accountable for what their abstract theories actually produce in reality when the rubber meets the road.

{3} See footnote one.

{4} The most recent of these threads is the one located HERE. Hopefully the party being addressed will not presume that general criticisms of academics on the part of the present writer must therefore apply to them personally.

Points to Ponder:

One aspect that we must foster in our communities with greater commitment is the experience of silence. We need silence "if we are to accept in our hearts the full resonance of the voice of the Holy Spirit and to unite our personal prayer more closely to the Word of God and the public voice of the Church"[...]. In a society that lives at an increasingly frenetic pace, often deafened by noise and confused by the ephemeral, it is vital to rediscover the value of silence. The spread, also outside Christian worship, of practices of meditation that give priority to recollection is not accidental. Why not start with pedagogical daring a specific education in silence within the coordinates of personal Christian experience? Let us keep before our eyes the example of Jesus, who "rose and went out to a lonely place, and there he prayed" (Mk 1: 35). The Liturgy, with its different moments and symbols, cannot ignore silence. [Pope John Paul II: Apostolic Letter Spiritus et Sponsa §13 (c. 2003)]

On the Conclave and Papal Selections Redux:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

This is a continuation thread of sorts to the previous post on the conclave.

I kinda have a feeling that a Cardinal that was made in 2003 will be Pope. Maybe Bertone? It's kinda "fun" guessing. Just wished it wasn't as serious as which person would be the next vicar of Christ, who has the responsibility of making sure that when Christ comes, there will be faith in the world.

Hi XXXXXXXX:

It is very difficult for me to see how a newly minted cardinal will be elected. History does not countenance it and the latter is instructive of the likely patterns that this conclave will follow. To start with, you have to have some cardinal experience as a rule first. (I will get to the exceptions in a moment.) It also does not hurt to trace out the recent history of who was elected to learn from the past. With that in mind, consider the past as a reference point:

--In 1978, Cardinal Wojtyla had been cardinal for eleven years, archbishop for fifteen years, and bishop for twenty years. He had also made a presence on the world stage since the third and fourth sessions of Vatican II -became close to Paul VI, and even preached the Lenten retreat for the Vatican in 1976. In short, he had made his presence known but even then, he would not have been elected if an Italian candidate (whose name I cannot recall at the moment){1} did not indicate after he became the conclave favourite that he would not accept if elected.{2}

--In 1963, Cardinal Montini had been a cardinal for five years. He had rejected the red hat in 1953 when Pius XII offered it to him and Tardini for their services in the Secretariat of State. I note this because actual history (as if often does) contradicts contra various so-called "traditionalist" lies about animosity between Pacelli and Montini.

Furthermore, by 1958, Montini had already built a reputation. He did this initially in the Curia as a future papablile -including as one half of the Montini-Tardini dream team in the secretariat who were influential for twenty-eight years as a duo.{3} Montini was also a very successful Archbishop of Milan (the second largest dioceses in Italy) for nearly nine years. He was the heavy favourite going in but it still took six ballots to elect him.

--In 1958, Cardinal Roncalli had been a cardinal since 1953, had long served in a variety of diplomatic posts from Propaganda Fide under Benedict XV to Nuncio of Bulgaria under Pius XI and as Patriarch of Venice under Pius XII. He was elected as a compromise candidate on the seventh ballot but would not have been elected if the Armenian Cardinal Peter Agagianian (one of the initial favourites in 1958) had not been viewed as being of too poor a health to serve.{4}

--In 1939, Cardinal Pacelli had been cardinal for ten years. He had also served in several posts of responsibility including as Secretary of Extraordinary Affairs at the Secretariat of State (the same position that Montini served in), as Cardinal Gasparri's right hand man in codifying the 1917 Code of Canon Law under Pius X, as nuncio of Belgium and then of Germany under Benedict XV, as Assistant Secretary of State to Cardinal Gasparri under Pius XI, and then as Secretary of State under Pius XI. He was also cardinal camerleno of the 1939 conclave and the heavy favourite -elected on the fourth ballot.{5}

--In 1922, Cardinal Ratti had been a cardinal for only a year. But do not let that deceive. Prior to that, he had had several posts with the Ambrosian Library and also the Vatican Library (he was eventually prefect of both), was apostolic visitor to Lithuania and Poland and then nuncio of Poland. He followed this up with a year as Archbishop of Milan. In the stormiest conclave of modern times, it took fourteen ballots to elect him for various reasons -which is too much to go into here.

--In 1914, Cardinal della Chiesa had been cardinal only three months. But again, he had a long career in service to the Holy See. He had served many years in the Secretariat of State much as Pacelli and Montini before him had. He also was assistant to Secratary of State Rampolla in the pontificate of Leo XIII from 1877-1901, was a consultant to the Holy Office from 1901-1906, and was Archbishop of Bologna for seven years after that.

Della Chiesa was elected after one of the stormiest conclaves in recent history{6} was accused of nasty crimes such as voting for himself and violating the rules of the conclave by those partisans of Pius X who did not like the fact that he was a student of Cardinal Rampolla and was of the Leo XIII outlook instead of the Pius X outlook. Nonetheless, it took eight ballots (if I recall correctly) ten ballots to elect him.

--In 1903, it took six ballots to elect Cardinal Sarto after the Austrian emperor vetoed the selection of Cardinal Rampolla (who was building momentum and was growing more likely of being elected). Cardinal Sarto had spent a good chunk of his earlier career in the dioceses of Treviso until 1884 when he was consecrated and appointed Bishop of Mantua. Upon being appointed cardinal in 1893, he was transferred to the patriarchial see of Venice which he held until he was elected pope.

--In 1878, Cardinal Pecci had been a cardinal for twenty-five years. He had a career of diplomatic posts and a few episcopal sees under Gregoru XVI who transferred him in 1846 to the see of Perugia. He was given the red hat in 1853 and was an influential cardinal for years prior to his election.{7} He was cardinal camberleno of the 1878 conclave that elected him.

--In 1846, Cardinal Feretti had been cardinal for six years.{8} He had consecrated to the bishopric of Spoleto in 1827 and was transferred to the see of Imola in 1832. (Interestingly enough, after Cardinal Feretti had been elected and had taken the name "Pius IX", the Austrian emperor's delegate arrived with his veto to the 1846 conclave against the very same Cardinal Feretti.)

As we trace the modern papacy out -and Pius IX was to some extent the first of the modern popes albeit he was a transitional pope ala Pius XII later on- a few things become quite clear. First of all, there usually has to be a long trackrecord of having status in the church before one is elected. Clerics from the Secretariat (as Benedict XV, Pius XII, and Paul VI were) have risen to be pope in the last hundred and fifty years. Likewise, Holy See nuncios (Leo XIII, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII) are good picks as well as cardinal camerlengos of contemporary conclaves (Leo XIII, Pius XII). And of course the archbishops of major sees such as Venice (Pius X, John XXIII, John Paul I), Imola (Pius IX),{9} and Milan (Pius XI, Paul VI).

With Italian picks (and everyone has to agree that Italians are to be favoured at the conclave), it has to be someone akin to the above position wise. That is why I picked as my default Italian pick the vicar of Rome Cardinal Camillo Ruini after Cardinal Ratzinger who as I noted previously is my non-Italian European pick and number one choice).

In the case of the pick of Cardinal Ratzinger, he was Prefect of CDF for 24 years and Archbishop of Munich (one of Germany's largest sees) for four years prior to that. I do not see it as likely that we will have a non-European this time around but if we did, I doubt it would be Cardinal Pell. The reason is because of where he is stationed (Australia) which is the smallest continent and much more remote than either Africa or South America which are themselves long shots even though they have the most cardinals voting in the conclave.

I know you can point to John Paul I as being a conclave surprise and indeed he was. But he had already been a cardinal for five years and he was patriarch of a major see -one that had seen two popes in the past hundred and fifty years elected. (Pius X and John XXIII.) It is also true that he was elected in four ballots as Pius XII was in 1939 (and this is akin to acclimation if you know the process) but a huge part of the reason was that the main pope maker in the conclaves of 1978 (Cardinal Benelli) just happened to find out that one of his ideological enemies (Cardinal Felici) was favouring Cardinal Luciani.

In other words, it happened to be a case of two ideological opposites with conclave influence viewing from the beginning the same candidate for different reasons. In the case of Benelli, he probably viewed Luciani as a holy man who would make a good pope -and someone he could manipulate to some extent. In the case of Felici, Luciani was a good friend of his (personally much more so than ideologically) and he probably viewed it as a case of "having the pope's ear." This was also a situation of manipulation yes but more of the classical Italian indirect kind of persuasion than that of Benelli who was viewed by many in the first conclave of 1978 as quite papabile: something that he destroyed before the second conclave for various and sundry reasons.{10}

On the other side of the spectrum (to use the woefully inadequate "spectrum" analogy), Felici was of the same general outlook as Siri and Ottaviani to some extent.{11} That contingent had long been able to manipulate Paul VI when the latter was undecided about something by appeals to "inviolable tradition." Usually this was merely them dressing their own whims and personal preferences up as "unviolable tradition" but that did not matter: it was a psychological manipulating of Pope Paul VI who for all of his innovations never sought to compromise tradition. (Felici and his allies knew this and used it to their advantage on the occasions where Paul was undecided to get their way.)

For those reasons, there was a four ballot election which as I noted already is as close to an acclimation as one can get in a conclave considering the diplomatic overtures and respect that have to be shown in the process to prepare the way for building a consensus for a candidate.

For example, the first ballot of conclave one in 1978 contained a large courtesy vote by some cardinals for Cardinal Siri out of respect for his age and consequent stature in the college.{12} This was also something that repeated itself in the second conclave of 1978 where Cardinal Wojtyla was elected on the eighth ballot. Those kinds of overtures were (and are) necessary to pave the way for consensus building in the conclave. It is highly unlikely in light of the polarization in the church today that you will have ideological opposites of great conclaval power starting off supporting the same candidate or limited pool of candidates.

Nonetheless, we will probably have a six to ten ballot election in the conclave. The media has made a big deal of the thirty-first (or thirty-fourth: I cannot recall offhand which it is) ballot being simple majority. Howeverm, the odds of getting that far without a candidate are darn slim if you know how the mechanics of the conclave tend to work. Anyway, these are just some points to ponder.

Notes:

{1} [Update: It was Cardinal Giovanni Columbo, Archbishop of Milan. -ISM]

{2} I note this for those who think a non-Italian is a given after the present papacy: the latter will still be a long shot for decades to come.

{3} From 1944-1954 they were the actual Secretaries of State contra the pious but inaccurate common assertions that Pius XII was his own secretary of state during that time.

{4} He outlived Roncalli by about eight years interestingly enough.

{5} The shortest papal conclave until the one which elected Luciani in 1978 which was also a four ballot election.

{6} And certainly among the nastiest along with the one in 1963.

{7} He is believed to have compiled many of the propositions that later made it into the 1864 Syllabus of Errors.

{8} He was reserved in peccatore at the 1839 consistory and this was published in 1840.

{9} Imola has not been a major player in the modern papal elections; however historically it had been prior to the election of Pius IX.

{10} Plus, let us not forget that Benelli was Pope Paul VI's hatchetman for ten years -before being shipped off to Milan and given the red hat- and thus was accustomed to getting his way.

{11} A gamut that ran from uncomfortable to downright hostile to the Second Vatican Council.

{12} Siri had been cardinal for twenty-five years and was the only cardinal to have partipated in the conclaves that elected John Paul I's two predecessors. Some have even opined that he was actually elected pope in 1958 before Roncalli. These run the gamut from those who think he was compelled to step aside for Roncalli (the crackpot fringe of the so-called "traditionalists") and those who believe he refused on account of viewing himself at the time as too young and the church needing an interim caretaker pope after the long reigns of Pius XI and Pius XII. (The latter is a theory that has been advanced to me by parties that on the surface veteran readers of this weblog may find surprising to say the least.)

Nonetheless, Siri was the senior cardinal at the conclaves of 1978 and protocol to some extent required that he be respected with a strong first ballot showing out of respect. (Something I might add that he got both times.)

"The Framers Know Best" Dept.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Note: This post was written in late March in the days prior to the death of Terri Schiavo -ISM]

It bears noting that the United States of America may well be a "nation of laws" but that many of the so-called "laws" promulgated in the name of "the law of the land" are in fact pseudo-"laws." For this reason, they are a gross perversion of the very notion of law in a just society. However, in this age of an increasingly poll driven public square, it needs to be noted that not only the law is perverted in this culture but also foundational perceptions which permeate the arena of ideas. The purpose of this post is to address one of these perceptions and set the record straight on it. In light of the national tension over the Terri Schiavo incident,{1} it seems particularly opportune to do this since so much of the opposition to her life being spared comes came from a flawed pair of societal lenses that her enemies happen[ed] to be wearing. These lenses skew the notion of the proper role of law in a just society, the proper role of the judiciary, and also the role of public opinion in the matrix. It is the latter that We want to focus on in this post at the present time.

For at Rerum Novarum the subject of judicial perversion has been discussed possibly more than any subject except the subject of the war on terror and war in general.{2} Nonetheless, as the "Kill Terri Contingent" (KTC) is trying to sought to spin this subject as a case of "most people" supporting her killing, it seems appropriate to note here two things (i) polling data can easily be manipulated and (ii) truth is not (and cannot be) determined by polls. And in dealing with the latter point, it seems appropriate to once again point out that this country is not a democracy but instead it is a representative republic -both in fact and also by the design of its Founders.

Now previously this was admittedly done in passing at this weblog.{3} However, at the current time, it seems appropriate to revisit this subject with a followup to the Framers Know Best series inaugurated on July 1, 2003 and (for a variety of reasons) not followed up with additional installments in the weeks and months subsequent to that initial installment.{4} The current circumstances dictate that the aforementioned series be resumed to settle this point at the present time; therefore, without further ado, let us get to it.

To start with, a consideration of the particular individuals whose views will be consulted seems to be in order. As one who believes in going back to the sources whenever possible,{5} this has been done with reference to an authoritative source often neglected today by those with pretentions to being knowledgable on these matters. We refer here of course to The Federalist Papers which were written by three of the most influential men in the history of the United States.{6} And two of those are the men to whom we will appeal on the subject of whether the United States of America was or was not a democracy -starting with Alexander Hamilton:

I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars: -- The utility of the UNION to your political prosperity -- The insufficiency of the present Confederation to preserve that Union -- The necessity of a government at least equally energetic with the one proposed, to the attainment of this object -- The conformity of the proposed Constitution to the true principles of republican government -- Its analogy to your own state constitution -- and lastly, The additional security which its adoption will afford to the preservation of that species of government, to liberty, and to property.

In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention. [Alexander Hamilton: From Federalist #1 (circa October 27, 1787)]

Now then, for those who do not know of him, Alexander Hamilton (i) proposed the first Constitutional Convention to meet in May of 1787 where he and Jay were two of New York's three representatives, (ii) served as President Washington's first Secretary of the Treasury, (iii) was the primary influence behind the tiebreaking vote that determined the presidency of Thomas Jefferson in 1800, and (iv) was perhaps the most vigorous defender of the new Constitution among the original framers -equalled only by one of the other contributors to The Federalist Papers.

Alexander Hamilton defended the Constitution with a passion that few will ever remotely approach. As far as he was concerned, he saw the proposed Constitution{7} as (i) conforming to the true principles of republican government as well as (ii) as additional security of this very form of government. For these reasons, it is impossible to credibly argue that the first Secretary of the Treasury (and one who was not only involved in the drafting of the Constitution but was arguably its fiercest defender) saw that document as a governing instrument for a United States founded as a democracy. Now let us consider the view of James Madison:

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:

In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.

...

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists. [James Madison: From Federalist #10 (circa November 22, 1787)]

In the above text, we have James Madison who (i) was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, (ii) served as the fourth President of the United States, (iii) is often referred to as "the Father of the Constitution", and (iv) is the only Framer with whom one could argue was a more zealous a defender of the Constitution than Alexander Hamilton was.

Essentially, there is no credible way to misconstrue what James Madison says about the proposed Constitution -his words on this matter are clear and unambiguous. For those who may believe that We have misconstrued the views of Alexander Hamilton in the short extract from Federalist #1, the following from an address he gave encouraging the state of New York to ratify the proposed Constitution should remove any doubts on the matter. And with that, on the subject of whether the framers of the Constitution (represented here in the two most zealous defenders of the proposed Constitution) saw the nation it was to serve as a democracy or as a republic, We as the prosecution opposing Ourselves to this common (but erroneous) presumption, will now rest.

I am persuaded, Mr. Chairman, that I in my turn shall be indulged in addressing the committee. We all in equal sincerity profess to be anxious for the establishment of a republican government on a safe and solid basis. It is the object of the wishes of every honest man in the United States, and i presume that I shall not be disbelieved when I declare that it is an object of all others the nearest and most dear to my own heart. The means of accomplishing this great purpose become the most important study which can interest mankind. It is our duty to examine all those means with peculiar attention and to choose the best and most effectual. It is our duty to draw from nature, from reason, from examples, the best principles of policy, and to pursue and apply them in the formation of our government. We should contemplate and compare the systems which in this examination come under our view; distinguish with a careful eye the defects and excellencies of each, and, discarding the former, incorporate the latter, as far as circumstances will admit, into our Constitution. If we pursue a different course and neglect this duty we shall probably disappoint the expectations of our country and of the world. [Alexander Hamilton: To the State of New York on the Adoption of the Constitution circa June 24, 1788)]

Notes:

{1} As this post was pretty much written prior to the death of Terri Schiavo, please excuse any present tense parts that were overlooked in retouching what was written then for posting at this time.

{2} A subject recently recapitulated at Rerum Novarum was that of the various war related threads which have been blogged at this humble weblog. Though not all of the threads were listed; nonetheless, the sixty-two that were give a good outline of how this writer has approached the subject of war in general as well as the war in Iraq. As it did not seem fitting to post this thread during the week leading up to Easter, it was "backdated" if you will to March 20th -a spot where a duplicate draft of a previous post happened to be located.

For those who wonder what else at this weblog has been "backdated" in posting, it was noted in that thread that this constitutes only the first time in two and a half years that your host can recall any post being "backdated" at Rerum Novarum. (With the exception of the occasional audiopost which posts a day or two after it was recorded. In the latter cases, this writer tries to backdate in those situations as close to the day and time of its recording as can be recalled.)

{3} We can only do so much at any one time here unfortunately.

{4} Essentially it was a private discussion thread that was formatted for posting to Rerum Novarum. The intention there was merely to make the point, not argue it with much in the way of evidences from founding sources.

{5} For a brief sketch of what is meant by the term ressourcement, see the post located HERE.

{6} To start with, all three were contributors to The Federalist Papers which (along with the writers themselves) were influential on the development and eventual ratification of the US Constitution. As it is, John Jay wrote only a few of the papers and in none of them touched on the subject we are currently discussing.

{7} The term "proposed Constitution" is used here because the Constitution would not be formally adopted as the law of the land until 1789. (The writings making up what is called The Federalist Papers were all penned in 1787 and 1788.)

On the Conclave and Papal Selections:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Prefatory Note: The following with a few minor adjustments are from a private discussion thread and were originally written prior to this weblog post. While more than just this has been disclosed privately to select individuals, at the present time this writer is not certain how much of the other stuff will be blogged here at Rerum Novarum. Nonetheless, the following post will make clear the outlines of how this writer views the upcoming conclave as well as his picks to be the next pope. -ISM]

To start with, this writer is not sure the Church is ready for an African pope yet. It seems much more probable that they will elect an older pope this time -hopefully a non-Italian again. Our Italian brethren had four and a half centuries in a row and we need to make it clear in the coming decades that the Church is not Europe as much as some in the past opined that it was (i.e. Belloc). However, as it is doubtful that it will be a non-European this time around -and further as Europe is in the worst shape of all the continents faithwise- it will probably (and should probably) be a European though hopefully not an Italian.

Interestingly enough, while there has been only two curialists elected pope in the past hundred and fifty years (Paul VI and Pius XII) and only one who went straight to the papacy from the Curia (Pius XII), it is the sense of this writer that we may see an interim older pope from Europe but not Italy -and perhaps a curialist.

For Our part, We at Rerum Novarum would love to see Joseph Ratzinger be that pope because he was intimately involved with the papacy of Pope John Paul II and his strong interest in liturgical matters would make him likely to implement the new missal translations and enforce Redemptiones Sacramentum as they need to be done.

Futhermore, who better than a Pope Ratzinger (or "Leo XIV" perhaps) to:

---Put a first calibre theologian in the chair who could then slap the pseudo-"theologians" around with papal authority{1}

---Turn his supposed "theological opinion" about how to properly understand Ordinatio Sacerdotalis into an authoritative papal position by reiteration of it{2}

---Provide papal as opposed to merely theological weight to many of the positions he took in the 1998 CDF Doctrinal Commentary -particularly in the modern climate the subject of Anglican orders being invalid{3}

---Give papal as opposed to theological weight to many of his liturgical observations

---Put on the papal cathedra another highly influential prelate from the Second Vatican Council to assist in completing the implementation of said Council

---Put him over the wayward German episcopate (particularly Cardinal Kasper) who were continually snubbing JP II who was too nice to slap them around in his later years where they needed it{4}

---Give one final window of grace for the SSPX to straighten up and fly right by reconciling with the Church{5}

---Scare the hell out of all those pansy so-called "progressivists" who were scared of him as Chief Inquisitor ;-)

It helps to remember that Ratzinger has demonstrated an amiable personality in recent years which clashes with the stereotypes that were common in the first decade plus of his role at CDF. So it would not be a case of an unpersonable person succeeding Pope John Paul II. And as John Paul II's implementation of Vatican II remains incomplete, who better to give force to the documents of the pope's final years (including Dominus Iesus in the ecumenical sphere and Redemptiones Sacramentum in the liturgical sphere) than his right hand man for 24 of his 26 years.

Cardinal Ratzinger is 77 so we would probably have (if the past is an indicator) about seven years of papacy from him and then the path would be set for a non-European pope (such as a Cardinal Arinze) to reign. (The next pope will probably be a transitional one with a shorter reign than JP II or Paul VI.) Of course if Arinze is elected, We would hardly be disappointed of course -though if it is a Walter Kasper sort, Our mood would be anything but enthused to put it mildly.

In closing, a good friend of this weblog (Pete Vere) reminded the present writer on the Saturday after the papal funeral of the "glory of the olive" prediction of Malachy and has predicted that the next pope will be Cardinal Martini ;-)

Notes:

{1} While JP II was an excellent theologian, he was first and foremost a philosopher. Ratzinger by contrast is first and foremost a theologian and a non-Thomist theologian at that. On this front, the reissuing of the CDF Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian in the form of a papal apostolic letter would not hurt in Our opinion.

{2} This would also help to also undercut the attempts of those who sought to claim that Ratzinger's responsum on women priests was incongruent with the manifested intention of the previous pope. (The fact that they collaborated on the original apostolic letter and John Paul II gave explicit approval of His Eminence's interpretation of that text notwithstanding of course.)

{3} If the Anglicans want to continue to make dialogue difficult on their side, let us reaffirm Leo XIII's judgment in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae that they indeed are not valid priests. Certainly in light of the recent promotion on their part of an openly gay "clergy", it seems appropriate to give a swift kick of this sort to their pretentions of "apostolicity."

{4} Not to mention the rest of the European episcopate who are presiding over a dying Europe.

{5} This writer senses that anyone but Cardinal Ratzinger (or another cardinal involved with Ecclesia Dei) will seal the casket on any future reconciliation of the SSPX. For pastoral as well as personal reasons, We do not (at the present time) want to see that happen.

Addendum:

We should further add that in light of Italian dominance of the papacy in recent centuries that anyone going with a non-Italian should have one Italian as their choice in the event that recent history repeats itself. Ergo, while We have selected Our European non-Italian transitional pope to bridge pontificates of John Paul II and a future Arinze papacy, if that does not happen, Our Italian selection is Cardinal Ruini. For those not familiar with him, here are some articles from Sandro Magister's archive:

Exclusive Interview with Cardinal Camillo Ruini: "My Battle for Man"

The Religious Geopolitics of Cardinal Ruini

The Pope and His Two Consuls

Let it be noted that the "two consuls" in the above link were Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Ruini. It should go without saying that if either of the two are elected, it is Our hope the other one serves as CDF prefect for the new pope. (If Cardinal Christoph Schönborn OP is not selected to fill that role of course.)

Notes on Filibusters

"Tales From the Mailbag" Dept.
(On the Upcoming Conclave)

The words of my interlocutor will be in shale font.

Shawn,

Hello XXXXXXX:

As inappropriate as it may be, I can't help but be totally fascinated by the run up to the conclave and I cannot get away from speculating on whom our next pontiff will be. As a long-time Rerum Novarum fan, I would be very interested in knowing your take on the whole matter.

Well, I have been publicly silent on the matter up to now.

Of course, I certainly would understand if you had no interest in sending your thoughts out to just any unknown fan of your blog.

Most fans of a site are "unknown" to a certain extent initially. And many of the dialogues I have posted in the side margin and/or in the archives at Rerum Novarum are from people who were at one point "unknown" to me. A lot of what gets posted depends on my mood and what I want to discuss at a given time -though current events to some extent drive that determination. And as we have a conclave upon us, my thoughts have been on it in the days since the passing of Pope John Paul II (RIP).

For what it's worth, here's my quick and dirty take on the whole matter. Ratzinger is by far the best man for the job. However, his age may be an issue. The next Pope will have quite a load of work to accomplish, and Ratzinger may not have the strength to do it. I do not expect to see an Asian, African, or Latin American Pope yet. Maybe down the road, but not now. My guess is that the next Pope will likely be an Italian, not too old, not too young, intellectual, orthodox, with some working knowledge of both Eastern Orthodoxy and Islam. And so, I think Angelo Scola stands out as a very strong possibility.

Interesting analysis.

I think that many of the "top contenders" such as Tettamanzi, Hummes, Bergoglio, and Maradiaga really are not as strong as some seem to think. If I had to pick a Latin American, I would say Hoyos has the best shot. Arinze remains a strong candidate, but I wonder if his bluntness has turned some off. And as for the libs like Daneels, Kasper, et al., I don't think there's much of a chance. I doubt someone like Daneels could win even with a simple majority. Way too much of a loose cannon, and the Cardinals know it.

I do not see Danieels or Kasper being elected in this conclave. The latter has clearly been doing the kind of indirect "campaigning by not campaigning" in recent months. But he has too many public utterances that he has not distanced himself from (or qualified the context of) to be a likely heavyweight in this competition.

Of course these views are subject to frequent and radical change between now and the election of a new pontiff.

That is true. There is an old dictum that "whomsoever enters the conclave a pope leaves it a cardinal." But as there are 117 voting in the election (and even more who can be elected pope) so one of them has to be elected. The dictum though is worth considering because there have probably been more darkhorses elected historically than favourites.

Having noted all of that, though I had previously noted a probability of posting my previously enunciated private musings on this matter to Rerum Novarum after the election of the new pope, I will instead post at least some of them on Friday or Saturday. on or prior to Friday or Saturday. As they have been witnessed to by not a few people already, I could hardly pull a fast one by changing them now even if I wanted to.

All the best. Keep up the fine work on RN.

Thankyou XXXXXX for the thought-provoking analysis on the upcoming conclave. (And of course I extend to you and yours my best as well.)

I do not intend to say much on this weblog between now and the election of a new pope. Predictions of whom the new pope will be or will not be will be swirling about for a while -not to mention a predicted propaganda frenzy by so-called "progressivists" after this pope is buried to try and influence the election of his successor.{2} Much could be said and I will probably release my privately-circulated predictions (with accompanying rationale) on this subject after the election. For those who think I will only post it if I am right, worry not, being right would not be the determining factor in whether or not those predictions are blogged here.{3}

Also, your host would be remiss in not rectifying a long lacuna{4} of gratitude to Christopher Blosser of Against The Grain for noting what this weblog has been saying on the entire subject of fundamental rights in various strains of the culture war context.

Finally, this blog returns to quasi-dormant status for the time being but not before wishing a happy (recent) third blogoversery to Chris Burgwald of Veritas all things considered. Which reminds me...

[Lord] remember Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II). In baptism he died with Christ: may he also share his resurrection, when Christ will raise our mortal bodies and make them like his own in glory. [Eucharistic Prayer III: From The Roman Missal under Masses for the Dead]



Notes:

{1} Though I may yet persuade a friend to write a complete overview of this pope's accomplishments, personality, and the like in that timespan.)

{2} Political machinations in these situations are of course to be expected. (Particularly for those to whom politics is their religion.)

{3} Though of course in the event of being right, I may have a bit more trumpet fanfare in blogging my predictions and analysis of course :)

{4} Yes it has been about five weeks but in the blogosphere and alternative media, five weeks is a long time.

Points to Ponder:

With the passing of Pope John Paul II a few hours ago, it seems fitting to post some of his words as the 140th installment of the "points to ponder" series at Rerum Novarum. With that in mind, here is the text from his final Easter message (delivered for him by Cardinal Angelo Sodano) circa March 27, 2005:

"Mane nobiscum, Domine!" Stay with us, Lord! (cf. Luke 24:29). With these words, the disciples on the road to Emmaus invited the mysterious Wayfarer to stay with them, as the sun was setting on that first day of the week when the incredible had occurred. According to his promise, Christ had risen; but they did not yet know this. Nevertheless, the words spoken by the Wayfarer along the road made their hearts burn within them. So they said to him: "Stay with us." Seated around the supper table, they recognized him in the "breaking of bread" -- and suddenly he vanished. There remained in front of them the broken bread. There echoed in their hearts the gentle sound of his words.

Dear brothers and sisters, the Word and the Bread of the Eucharist, the mystery and the gift of Easter, remain down the centuries as a constant memorial of the passion, death and resurrection of Christ! On this Easter Day, together with all Christians throughout the world, we too repeat those words: Jesus, crucified and risen, stay with us! Stay with us, faithful friend and sure support for humanity on its journey through history! Living Word of the Father, give hope and trust to all who are searching for the true meaning of their lives. Bread of eternal life, nourish those who hunger for truth, freedom, justice and peace.

Stay with us, Living Word of the Father, and teach us words and deeds of peace: peace for our world consecrated by your blood and drenched in the blood of so many innocent victims: peace for the countries of the Middle East and Africa, where so much blood continues to be shed; peace for all of humanity, still threatened by fratricidal wars. Stay with us, Bread of eternal life, broken and distributed to those at table: give also to us the strength to show generous solidarity towards the multitudes who are even today suffering and dying from poverty and hunger, decimated by fatal epidemics or devastated by immense natural disasters. By the power of your Resurrection, may they too become sharers in new life.

We, the men and women of the third millennium, we too need you, Risen Lord! Stay with us now, and until the end of time. Grant that the material progress of peoples may never obscure the spiritual values which are the soul of their civilization. Sustain us, we pray, on our journey. In you do we believe, in you do we hope, for you alone have the words of eternal life (cf. John 6:68). "Mane nobiscum, Domine!" Alleluia! [Pope John Paul II (1920-2005 RIP)]

Miscellaneous Musings on the Death of Terri Schiavo, A Possible "Grace" From This Tragedy, Etc. --Part II

Miscellaneous Musings on the Death of Terri Schiavo, A Possible "Grace" From This Tragedy, Etc. --Part I

Miscellaneous Mutterings:
(On Terri Schiavo's Situation, So-Called "Christian Fascism", and Communist Supporters of the Culture of Death)

It is good at the very least that Monsignor Malanowski was able to not only give Terri Schiavo Viaticum the other day but also the Sacrament of Anointing according to a recent piece by David Sommer. Let us pray that she is able to be saved before it is too late.

In other news, it seems that those who are protesting the treatment of Terri Schiavo have attracted people who are protesting them. To quote from Sommers' article briefly:

A handful of counterdemonstrators holding signs touting the ``Revolutionary Communist Party'' decried what they said was ``Christian fascism.''

As these vestiges of human debris parrot the common notion of fascism being the opposite of communism, it seems appropriate to remind the readers of Rerum Novarum that your host destroyed this putrid prevarication last year in a post to this very weblog. That point being noted, let us make a few more notations on this subject of so-called "Christian Fascism."

---There is nothing whatsoever that is "fascistic" about protesting the killing of an innocent human being.

---There is nothing whatsoever that is "fascistic" about a government seeking to protect the life of an innocent and defenseless person.

Indeed, though the Men Behind Hitler series was suspended at this weblog, the readers are reminded that what was covered already from that series is adequate to refute the kinds of idiocies being parrotted by the brainless twits of the Revolutionary Communist Party.

In reality, the only thing resembling fascism is the brownshirt brigage of judicial termites and judicial whores who are out to kill an innocent and defenseless woman. And that sort of violence to advance a cultural agenda happens to be the very raison_d'etre of communism and socialism which is communism before it reaches full development.{1} And as communism has failed every time it has been tried -and it only succeeds for a time by the violent destruction of those who are viewed as political "enemies", it makes perfect sense that these Revolutionary Communist Party sorts (who are worshippers of a cult of death) would be protesting those who would protest the killing of an innocent and defenseless woman!!! This writer cannot think of a more damning indictment than that so no more will be said on it at the present time.

Note:

{1} [P]rotectionism, socialism, and communism are basically the same plant in three different stages of its growth. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: From The Law (circa 1850)]

Miscellaneous Threads of Possible Interest:

Terri Schiavo: Judicial Murder (Nat Hentoff circa March 29, 2005)

Nat Hentoff of The Village Voice explains precisely what we are dealing with in the Terri Schiavo case: judicial murder. While We at Rerum Novarum have differences with Mr. Hentoff on some other issues; nonetheless, it is pleasing to see him in such fine form on this issue. For that matter, this writer would be remiss in not noting that Democratic Senator Harry Reid of Nevada (Minority Leader in the Senate), Ralph Nader, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr., Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., Senator Joe Lieberman, and Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa are among those whom are often are at odds with the present writer but nonetheless he is pleased to have as allies in this fight.

Terri Schiavo, Requiescat in Pacem (By John Armor circa March 26, 2005)

It is practically a formality now; nonetheless, John Armor's article is also well worth a read.

Neurologists Say: Recording of Terri Shows She's Not PVS (By Rev. Reverend Robert Johansen circa March 25, 2005)

Please read Fr. Rob's most recent weblog posting above. Basically, he outlines why the assertion that Terri was in a "persistive vegetative state" (PVS) -something that the MSM asserted as a matter of fact throughout this whole ordeal- is a bald faced lie. While not the occasion to crow at yet another piece of evidence which discredits the MSM{1}, nonetheless this is something that cannot go without at least a mention in passing.

It's a Brave New World After Terri Schiavo Dies (By Timothy Birdnow circa March 28, 2005)

The above article{2} (courtesy of Kevin Tierney) points out certain movements which are remarkably silent in the face of what is happening to Terri Schiavo: movements that should be supporting her if they are interested in what they claim to be interested in.

And finally, The Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG has been updated as of today. The subject covered in that new thread pertains to the Terri Schiavo case in a more indirect manner. Nonetheless, what is covered there is common to the kind of solipsisms which are put forward by so-called "progressivists" to justify their appeal to illogical emotional premises over and above fundamental logic and reasonable argumentation. For that reason, it seemed appropriate to deal with it at the present time.

In the coming days, there will be a new installment of the Framers Know Best thread (the first since July of 2003) added to Rerum Novarum along with an audipost on the Terri Schiavo situation and a few other tidbits as time allows for them.

Notes:

{1} To everything there is a season and this is not the season for celebrating more evidence of the MSM's slide into irrelevancy.

{2} The fact that Aldous Huxley saw Brave New World as being an increasing concrete reality in the 1950's (ergo his 1958 sequel Brave New World Revisited) aside for a moment of course.

Miscellaneous Musings on Key Fundamental Flaws in the Outlook of the "Kill Terri Contingent" (a duplicate of the audiopost from March 26, 2005)

Points to Ponder:
(From a fellow student of Claude Frederic Bastiat's The Law)

The first principle of a free society is that each person owns himself. You are your private property, and I am mine. Most Americans probably accept that first principle. Those who disagree are obliged to inform the rest of us just who owns us, at least here on earth.

This vision of self-ownership is one of those "self-evident" truths to which the Founders referred to in the Declaration of Independence, that "All Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Like John Locke and other philosophers who influenced them, the Founders saw these rights as preceding government, and they said, "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted."

The Framers of the Constitution recognized that while government was necessary to secure liberty, it was also liberty's greatest threat. Having this deep suspicion of government, they loaded our Constitution with a host of anti-congressional phrases, such as: "Congress shall make no law," "shall not be infringed" and "shall not be violated."

Once one accepts the principle of self-ownership, what's moral and immoral becomes self-evident. Murder is immoral because it violates private property. Rape and theft are also immoral -- they also violate private property.

Here's an important question: Would rape become morally acceptable if Congress passed a law legalizing it? You say: "What's wrong with you, Williams? Rape is immoral plain and simple, no matter what Congress says or does!"


If you take that position, isn't it just as immoral when Congress legalizes the taking of one person's earnings to give to another? Surely if a private person took money from one person and gave it to another, we'd deem it theft and, as such, immoral. Does the same act become moral when Congress takes people's money to give to farmers, airline companies or an impoverished family? No, it's still theft, but with an important difference: It's legal, and participants aren't jailed. [Dr. Walter E. Williams (circa May 7, 2003)]