On the Subject of America's Founding:
(With Christopher Blosser and David Jones--Part III of III)
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE. To start from the beginning of this thread, please go HERE.
It seems appropriate at this time to review some basics on laws in general and what is required for a violator of a law to be punished needs to be considered. Among the sources to be used in exploring that point is the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia and its article on canon law:
Laws in general, and irritant laws in particular, are not retroactive, unless such is expressly declared by the legislator to be the case. The publication or promulgation of the law has a double aspect: law must be brought to the knowledge of the community in order that the latter may be able to observe it, and in this consists the publication. But there may be legal forms of publication, requisite and necessary, and in this consists the promulgation properly so called (see PROMULGATION). [Catholic Encyclopedia: From the Article Canon Law (c. 1913)]
In other words, a law must be brought to the attention of those who are expected to comply with it. This is done by promulgating the law locally and this is a function of a diocesan or metropolitan bishop for their particular area. For this reason, a law is not considered binding until it has been promulgated. And since a law requires promulgation to be valid (and further, as bishops back then had more autonomy than they do now on these matters), David's interpretation of these events shows an evidently anti-historical perspective. And of course in the event of a doubt as to the applicability of particular laws, Bishop Carroll's practicing of the Jesuit probabilism mentioned earlier{1} would be utilized and be considered morally permissible by the Vatican.
Because of the confusion on this matter which was still present in the Church in the late 1700's, the bishops would have to assess the matter to the best of their abilities taking into account the circumstances involved, etc. To remind David and others of the span of authority of the diocesan bishops:
Bishops, Jurisdiction of. Bishops are the successors of the Apostles and by divine institution rule their dioceses with ordinary power under the authority of the pope. They have legislative, juridical, and executive power... [A] bishop can enact those laws which he considers for the good of his dioceses and he is a judge in the first instance in all ecclesiastical trials; he can punish lay people with censures and clerics by deprivation of offices or censures (qv). He has supreme direction of the clergy, the conduct of divine worship, administration of ecclesiastical property, building of churches, etc. [Catholic Encyclopaedic Dictionary: Donald Attwater General Editor, tenth edition, pg. 62 (c. 1941)]
As the first bishop on the American continent (and probably for a time the only bishop),{2} John Carroll would have had to make sense of the conflicting approaches to masonry on the continent as well as the lack of recent papal statements on the matter making it clear that the ban was intended to be universal. There is also the subject of prudence and if Bishop Carroll in taking a hardline approach in America (where the nation was in its infancy) would not have caused more problems than less. This was after all not a case of dealing with masonry in a well-established nation as in France, England, Germany, Spain, etc. For this reason, prudence was even more important because as noxious a weed as masonry was, things would only have been compounded if it was handled too rashly by the ecclesiastical authorities. Or as the spiritual masters note on the difference between prudent and imprudent zeal:
In every home there grows some thorn, something, in other words, that needs correction; for the best soil is seldom without its noxious weed. Imprudent zeal, by seeking awkwardly to pluck out the thorn, often succeeds only in plunging it farther in, thus rendering the wound deeper and more painful. In such a case it is essential to act with reflection and great prudence. There is a time to speak and a time to be silent, says the Holy Spirit. (Ecclesiastes III., 7.) Prudent zeal is silent when it realizes that to be so is less hurtful than to speak. [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Spiritual Instruction on Zeal Part I (circa September 29, 2002)]
Perhaps Bishop Carroll judged that it would have been more hurtful to the Catholic cause in America to enforce the masonry ban in the decades after America's founding. Certainly, as long as the ban itself was not universally recognized at the time, his hesitancy on the matter cannot be faulted him. Or (to rephrase it), a Catholic with a proper approach to spiritual matters would not fault him. But that point aside, there is more to consider about Bishop Carroll.
For example, John Carroll's non-promulgation of the masonic ban in America did not prevent Pope Pius VI (r. 1775-1799) from appointing him Bishop of Baltimore in the 1780's and Pope Pius VII (r. 1800-1823) from raising him to Archepiscopal standing in 1809. David by his comments would presume to judge John Carroll in a fashion not judged by the popes of his time. More could be noted but that suffices for now to shoot some holes in the bottom of the boat of David's theories on these matters. Hopefully it is clear that once again there are complexities to these things of no small detail that fundy readings like David's do not take proper stock of. And (as always) God is in the details often overlooked.
"Meanwhile, Chris Burgwald writes an interesting post. Would be curious as to your thoughts or possibly even your participation on this thread, especially since nothing is prohibiting you from commenting.
Chris' thread reads good.
it does touch on the David Schindler vs. Fr. Neuhaus debate, if you haven't read the relevant links I can provide them.
Please do. In the meantime, these threads will be wrapped up with a final citation from William Walen's article on papal condemnations of the lodge:
It is correct that Daniel Carroll, brother of Bishop (later Archbishop) John Carroll of Baltimore was both an active (and devout) Catholic and Mason. While this might seem an impossible contradiction, it is important to know the details of the Church's condemnation of Freemasonry in the 18th century. The first official Grand Lodge was established in London in 1717, and membership spread gradually throughout Europe and even more slowly to the British Colonies. The Church made its first official statement about Freemasonry only in 1738, when Pope Clement XII (r. 1730-40) condemned the practices of the Lodges that were then multiplying in Catholic lands. His condemnation was followed by that of Pope Benedict XIV (1740-58) in a 1751 bull. The pontiff also persuaded Empress Maria Teresa of Austria to close the lodges in her empire.
It took many years for the full weight of the papal condemnations to reach every diocese of the Church. The bulls were sometimes never promulgated by some bishops who saw no need; others never understood their import; and still more never received the decree. In Ireland, for example, priests and laypeople were members for decades after the bulls were promulgated out of ignorance of the condemnation. Indeed, a Catholic, Lord Robert Edward Petre (d. 1801) was grand master of the English Lodge as late as 1772. In the Colonies, a similar situation existed, so it is possible to see how Daniel Carroll might be a member without being aware of the prohibition. In the early 19th century, starting with Pope Pius [VII] (r. 1800-23), the popes issued numerous condemnations and made much more clear the Church's opposition to the secret society. [William J. Whalen: Excerpt from the Article Papal Condemnations of the Lodge (circa 1955-1958)]
The third papal pronouncement against masonry was made by Pope Pius VII in 1821 and made it eminently clear that the ban was to be universally applicable. Subsequent confirmations by Pope Leo XII (1826), Pope Pius VIII (1829), and Pope Gregory XVI (1832) were made along with popes subsequent to them. However, there was confusion on this prior to Pius VII's time viz. the scope of the ban. Someone who was honestly seeking to learn from history rather than involve themselves in ideological anachronistic interpretations would approach these things with care. And in fact, that is the underlying thread that permeates all three of these posts -something your host will touch on briefly and then conclude this series.
Unfortunately, David has failed time and again to account for numerous threads in the mosaic of the history of the period under discussion (circa 1775-1815). For this reason, he has made no small number of errors in his reading of the historical record. But then again, if he was familiar with how history should be approached, he would not act in this fashion.{3} In the latter subject, some words from Pope John Paul II on the one hundreth anniversary of the death of Pope Leo XIII come to mind which will be used in concluding this thread.
[I]n the study of history it is impossible to apply automatically to the past criteria and values acquired only in the course of the centuries. Rather, it is important first of all to make the effort to return to the social-cultural context of the period, to understand what occurred on the basis of the motivations, circumstances and implications of the period under examination. Historical events are the result of a complex interaction between human freedom and personal and structural conditioning. All this should be borne in mind. [Pope John Paul II: Excerpt from his Message on the 100th Anniversary of the Death of Pope Leo XIII (c. 2003)]
And indeed your host has borne the above advice of Pope John Paul II in mind throughout this response. Hopefully in time, David Jones and his ideological allies will learn to act in like manner.
Addendum - For Further Reading
Catholics and the Republic (Fr. Christopher Hunter -SSPX)
With the exception of a particular bit about George Washington converting on his deathbed (this by all appearances appears to be an urban legend of sorts) and one or two other minor issues (such as the organization of the SSPX itself), I recommend the above article from my former pastor wholeheartedly.
Notes:
{1} Probabilism is something Bishop John would have learned as a Jesuit and which his brother Daniel would probably be familiar with from his six years of study at the Jesuit college in Flanders.
As far as what is and is not "binding", there was a question in the eighteenth century as to whether the nature of masonry in America was the same as masonry in Europe. This matter was later clarified in the nineteenth century but during the lifetime of Daniel Carroll, it was not so clear and failure to take this into account is for David to do Daniel and John Carroll a monumental injustice.
{2} To briefly remind readers of the authority and obligations of a diocesan bishop:
The bishop [has] obligations regarding the Holy See. Throughout his entire administration he must conform to the general legislation of the Church and the directions of the pope. [Catholic Encyclopedia: From the Article Bishops (c. 1913)]
And as Bishop Carroll made it clear in 1794 that he did not see the ban as being among the general legislation of the Church, readers should be very cautious to impute evil motives to a prelate whom the American hierachy (and not a few popes) had high praise for.
{3} Two "points to ponder" threads on the role of the historian and potential biases of certain approaches to history may prove instructional on this point:
Points to Ponder on the Role of the Historian (circa October 14, 2005)
Readers can note that my approach to this whole subject has been in accordance with the proper approach as outlined by the twentieth century British historical philosopher Herbert Butterfield...the first paragraph outlines my approach to historical issues and the second one outlines the approach of David Jones. But there is more:
Points to Ponder on the Myopic View of the Whig Historian (circa October 17, 2005)
While the example Buttefield uses in the above thread to illustrate the problematical limitations of the Whig approach to history does not apply to David Jones, the method being criticized (via the examples given) unquestionably does. There is nothing authentically ressourcement oriented in David Jones' approach to the subject in question whatever pretentions his posting them on a weblog which deals (supposedly) with ressourcement methodology may appear to imply. But that is a subject for perhaps another time.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Points to Ponder:
(On the Sanctity of Human Life and Nazi Atrocities)
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE.
The Penal Code lays down in section 139: 'He who receives credible information concerning the intention to commit a crime against life and neglects to alert the authorities or the person who is threatened in time...will be punished.'
When I learned of the intention to transport patients from Marienthal in order to kill them, I brought a formal charge at the State Court in Münster and with the Police President in Münster by means of a registered letter which read as follows: "According to information which I have received, in the course of this week a large number of patients from the Marienthal Provincial Asylum near Münster are to be transported to the Eichberg asylum as so-called 'unproductive national comrades' and will then soon be deliberately killed, as is generally believed has occurred with such transports from other asylums.
Since such an action is not only contrary to the moral laws of God and Nature but also is punishable with death as murder under section 211 of the Penal Code, I hereby bring a charge in accordance with my duty under section 139 of the Penal Code, and request you to provide immediate protection for the national comrades threatened in this way by taking action against those agencies who are intending their removal and murder, and that you inform me of the steps that have been taken."
I have received no news concerning intervention by the Prosecutor's Office or by the police...Thus we must assume that the poor helpless patients will soon be killed. For what reason?
Not because they have committed a crime worthy of death. Not because they attacked their nurses or orderlies so that the latter had no other choice but to use legitimate force to defend their lives against their attackers. Those are cases where, in addition to the killing of an armed enemy in a just war, the use of force to the point of killing is allowed and is often required. No, it is not for such reasons that these unfortunate patients must die but rather because, in the opinion of some department, on the testimony of some commission, they have become 'worthless life' because according to this testimony they are 'unproductive national comrades.' The argument goes: they can no longer produce commodities, they are like an old machine that no longer works, they are like an old horse which has become incurably lame, they are like a cow which no longer gives milk.
What does one do with such an old machine? It is thrown on the scrap heap. What does one do with a lame horse, with such an unproductive cow?
No, I do not want to continue the comparison to the end--however fearful the justification for it and the symbolic force of it are. We are not dealing with machines, horses and cows whose only function is to serve mankind, to produce goods for man. One may smash them, one may slaughter them as soon as they no longer fulfil this function.
No, we are dealing with human beings, our fellow human beings, our brothers and sisters. With poor people, sick people, if you like unproductive people. But have they for that reason forfeited the right to life?
Have you, have I the right to live only so long as we are productive, so long as we are recognized by others as productive? If you establish and apply the principle that you can kill 'unproductive' fellow human beings then woe betide us all when we become old and frail! If one is allowed to kill the unproductive people then woe betide the invalids who have used up, sacrificed and lost their health and strength in the productive process. If one is allowed forcibly to remove one's unproductive fellow human beings then woe betide loyal soldiers who return to the homeland seriously disabled, as cripples, as invalids.
To be Continued...
(On the Sanctity of Human Life and Nazi Atrocities)
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE.
The Penal Code lays down in section 139: 'He who receives credible information concerning the intention to commit a crime against life and neglects to alert the authorities or the person who is threatened in time...will be punished.'
When I learned of the intention to transport patients from Marienthal in order to kill them, I brought a formal charge at the State Court in Münster and with the Police President in Münster by means of a registered letter which read as follows: "According to information which I have received, in the course of this week a large number of patients from the Marienthal Provincial Asylum near Münster are to be transported to the Eichberg asylum as so-called 'unproductive national comrades' and will then soon be deliberately killed, as is generally believed has occurred with such transports from other asylums.
Since such an action is not only contrary to the moral laws of God and Nature but also is punishable with death as murder under section 211 of the Penal Code, I hereby bring a charge in accordance with my duty under section 139 of the Penal Code, and request you to provide immediate protection for the national comrades threatened in this way by taking action against those agencies who are intending their removal and murder, and that you inform me of the steps that have been taken."
I have received no news concerning intervention by the Prosecutor's Office or by the police...Thus we must assume that the poor helpless patients will soon be killed. For what reason?
Not because they have committed a crime worthy of death. Not because they attacked their nurses or orderlies so that the latter had no other choice but to use legitimate force to defend their lives against their attackers. Those are cases where, in addition to the killing of an armed enemy in a just war, the use of force to the point of killing is allowed and is often required. No, it is not for such reasons that these unfortunate patients must die but rather because, in the opinion of some department, on the testimony of some commission, they have become 'worthless life' because according to this testimony they are 'unproductive national comrades.' The argument goes: they can no longer produce commodities, they are like an old machine that no longer works, they are like an old horse which has become incurably lame, they are like a cow which no longer gives milk.
What does one do with such an old machine? It is thrown on the scrap heap. What does one do with a lame horse, with such an unproductive cow?
No, I do not want to continue the comparison to the end--however fearful the justification for it and the symbolic force of it are. We are not dealing with machines, horses and cows whose only function is to serve mankind, to produce goods for man. One may smash them, one may slaughter them as soon as they no longer fulfil this function.
No, we are dealing with human beings, our fellow human beings, our brothers and sisters. With poor people, sick people, if you like unproductive people. But have they for that reason forfeited the right to life?
Have you, have I the right to live only so long as we are productive, so long as we are recognized by others as productive? If you establish and apply the principle that you can kill 'unproductive' fellow human beings then woe betide us all when we become old and frail! If one is allowed to kill the unproductive people then woe betide the invalids who have used up, sacrificed and lost their health and strength in the productive process. If one is allowed forcibly to remove one's unproductive fellow human beings then woe betide loyal soldiers who return to the homeland seriously disabled, as cripples, as invalids.
To be Continued...
On the Subject of America's Founding:
(With Christopher Blosser and David Jones--Part II of III)
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE.
It is important in starting the second part of this thread to note the issue of the extent of the ban so promulgated as well as the situation in America being different in many respects from Europe. For example, the 1738 pronouncement of Pope Clement XII (In Eminenti ) was sent to certain royal leaders who had actively sponsored Masonic lodges. A year after it was promulgated, it was extended throughout all the papal states by an edict of Cardinal Ferrao on January 14, 1739.
As far as why this announcement was not immediately apparent to the Catholic world at large, there are a number of reasons why. For example:
Communications in 1738 did not encompass the daily newspapers, magazines, radio, TV, and motion pictures of today, and hence the Catholic world did not immediately know of the contents of the bull. According to ancient Church practice a bull was not promulgated in a given diocese until it is posted and means are obtained to enforce it. Where Masonry was not yet a problem or where secular authorities prevailed upon individual bishops the promulgation was delayed for many years. To add to the confusion a bogus bull was circulated which asked the faithful to support the lodges whenever possible! [William J. Whalen: Excerpt from the Article Papal Condemnations of the Lodge (circa 1955-1958)]
In light of what was noted above including (i) the lack of certainty as to the scope the bull of Clement XII and (ii) the presence of a bogus bull asserting a contrary position, this created a climate of confusion. And in light of that fact, the aforementioned probabilistic approaches could be undertaken without concern for disobedience to ecclesiastical authority.
To remind David what probabilism is, the Catholic Encyclopedia explains it as follows:
Probabilism is the moral system which holds that, when there is question solely of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an action, it is permissible to follow a solidly probable opinion in favour of liberty even though the opposing view is more probable.
The view in favour of liberty in this case would be the freedom to join the lodges. Indeed this was not uncommon in Europe throughout the eighteenth century. As William Walen noted in his article on papal condemnations of the lodge:
Consequently we find that some Catholics, particularly in Ireland, continued to join the lodge after the papal pronouncement. Some served as Worshipful Masters and some lodges were composed entirely of Catholic priests and laymen. Even the Irish patriot Daniel O'Connell served as Master of Dublin Lodge No. 189 after his initiation in 1799. In 1837 he testified that he had renounced the lodge some years before. Lord Petre, a prominent Roman Catholic, became Grand Master of the English lodge in 1772 and served in this capacity for five years. [William J. Whalen: Excerpt from the Article Papal Condemnations of the Lodge (circa 1955-1958)]
If such situations could happen in a country like Ireland (which was long known for its solidity in the Catholic faith) why would someone expect something differently with the upstart American republic which was in the process of struggling to be born from British tyranny???
As in some European nations, there were Catholics in America who became involved with the masons...one of which was Daniel Carroll who was among the Framers of the US Constitution. William Walen freely admits to this in the aforementioned article on papal condemnations of the lodge:
Daniel Carroll, brother of the first American bishop, was active in Masonry and apparently Bishop Carroll did not consider the papal ban applicable to this country until sometime after 1800. For example, the bishop discussed the various censures of the Holy See on the lodge question in a letter to a layman in 1794. He added, "I do not pretend that these decrees are received generally by the Church, or have full authority in this diocese." A convent of nuns in Nantes sent a Masonic apron to George Washington as a present. Masons laid the cornerstone for St. Mary's church, first Catholic church in Albany and first cathedral of that diocese. Catholics in the Louisiana Territory were likely to be members of the lodge and Father Sedella, pastor of the New Orleans cathedral, was buried in Masonic regalia. [William J. Whalen: Excerpt from the Article Papal Condemnations of the Lodge (circa 1955-1958)]
As far as the statement that [a]ccording to ancient Church practice a bull was not promulgated in a given diocese until it is posted and means are obtained to enforce it goes, it will be addressed later in this response.{1} In the meantime, it bears noting that on the European continent, the practice of Catholics involving themselves in masonry continued after 1738. This can either be chalked up to deliberate disobedience or as a result of an unfamiliarity with the papal constitution containing the ban or the intended scope of that constitution (along with other elements touched on above). Let us touch a bit on the latter as the more probable of the two in most cases to avoid imputing evil motives to the Carrolls as some seem intent upon doing for (apparently) ideological purposes.{2}
Pope Benedict XIV's 1751 papal constitution Providas (which included within it the 1738 constitution of Pope Clement XII) was published at the request of a couple of European kings (Spain and Naples). Because it was published by their request, the possibility of confusion as to the extent of the ban continued. It does not hurt to point out that Pope Benedict XIV noted in his constitution that some had argued that Pope Clement XII's ban had lapsed because Pope Benedict XIV had not himself confirmed it. And in reiterating the policies of Pope Clement XII, Pope Benedict XIV noted in his constitution Providas that this was a problem in some areas:
[T]here have been some who have not hesitated to declare and to boast openly that the stated penalty of excommunication imposed by Our Predecessor, as is shown above, no longer carries any force, because of the fact that the very Constitution before introduced has not been confirmed by Us, as if in fact, express confirmation of a Pontifical Successor were required for the continuation of Apostolic Constitions published by a Predecessor. [Pope Benedict XIV: Constitution Providas (c. 1751)]
Those who would find this puzzling need to remember that there are differences between papal letters and papal epistles. The latter do not necessarily involve the universal church -particularly on papal directives. And as the delineation between the two was not made as commonly in earlier periods of church history, this needs to be accounted for as well.
Church history shows that the papal condemnations of masonry took some time to become known throughout the Church. Certainly they were not universally observed in Europe in the eighteenth century. But to understand part of the reason why, a short review of laws in general and what is required for a violator of a law to be punished needs to be considered. That is what will be dealt with next.
To be Continued...
Notes:
{1} It is important to remember that prior to the nineteenth century, bishops had a greater degree of autonomy in governing than they later had...though not as much as bishops of the earliest periods of time (read: first millennium). David also fails to take this into account and therefore engages in errors of anachronism in his reading of history yet again.
{2} This approach is undertaken to be in conformity with the instructions of the spiritual masters of the Catholic tradition viz. how as a rule the controverted actions of someone else are to be approached:
Always be ready and willing to excuse the faults of your neighbour, and never put an unfavourable interpretation upon his actions. The same action, says St. Francis de Sales, may be looked upon under many different aspects: a charitable person will ever suppose the best, an uncharitable person will just as certainly choose the worst. [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Spiritual Instruction on Charity (circa January 24, 2004)]
(With Christopher Blosser and David Jones--Part II of III)
The previous installment of this series can be read HERE.
It is important in starting the second part of this thread to note the issue of the extent of the ban so promulgated as well as the situation in America being different in many respects from Europe. For example, the 1738 pronouncement of Pope Clement XII (In Eminenti ) was sent to certain royal leaders who had actively sponsored Masonic lodges. A year after it was promulgated, it was extended throughout all the papal states by an edict of Cardinal Ferrao on January 14, 1739.
As far as why this announcement was not immediately apparent to the Catholic world at large, there are a number of reasons why. For example:
Communications in 1738 did not encompass the daily newspapers, magazines, radio, TV, and motion pictures of today, and hence the Catholic world did not immediately know of the contents of the bull. According to ancient Church practice a bull was not promulgated in a given diocese until it is posted and means are obtained to enforce it. Where Masonry was not yet a problem or where secular authorities prevailed upon individual bishops the promulgation was delayed for many years. To add to the confusion a bogus bull was circulated which asked the faithful to support the lodges whenever possible! [William J. Whalen: Excerpt from the Article Papal Condemnations of the Lodge (circa 1955-1958)]
In light of what was noted above including (i) the lack of certainty as to the scope the bull of Clement XII and (ii) the presence of a bogus bull asserting a contrary position, this created a climate of confusion. And in light of that fact, the aforementioned probabilistic approaches could be undertaken without concern for disobedience to ecclesiastical authority.
To remind David what probabilism is, the Catholic Encyclopedia explains it as follows:
Probabilism is the moral system which holds that, when there is question solely of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an action, it is permissible to follow a solidly probable opinion in favour of liberty even though the opposing view is more probable.
The view in favour of liberty in this case would be the freedom to join the lodges. Indeed this was not uncommon in Europe throughout the eighteenth century. As William Walen noted in his article on papal condemnations of the lodge:
Consequently we find that some Catholics, particularly in Ireland, continued to join the lodge after the papal pronouncement. Some served as Worshipful Masters and some lodges were composed entirely of Catholic priests and laymen. Even the Irish patriot Daniel O'Connell served as Master of Dublin Lodge No. 189 after his initiation in 1799. In 1837 he testified that he had renounced the lodge some years before. Lord Petre, a prominent Roman Catholic, became Grand Master of the English lodge in 1772 and served in this capacity for five years. [William J. Whalen: Excerpt from the Article Papal Condemnations of the Lodge (circa 1955-1958)]
If such situations could happen in a country like Ireland (which was long known for its solidity in the Catholic faith) why would someone expect something differently with the upstart American republic which was in the process of struggling to be born from British tyranny???
As in some European nations, there were Catholics in America who became involved with the masons...one of which was Daniel Carroll who was among the Framers of the US Constitution. William Walen freely admits to this in the aforementioned article on papal condemnations of the lodge:
Daniel Carroll, brother of the first American bishop, was active in Masonry and apparently Bishop Carroll did not consider the papal ban applicable to this country until sometime after 1800. For example, the bishop discussed the various censures of the Holy See on the lodge question in a letter to a layman in 1794. He added, "I do not pretend that these decrees are received generally by the Church, or have full authority in this diocese." A convent of nuns in Nantes sent a Masonic apron to George Washington as a present. Masons laid the cornerstone for St. Mary's church, first Catholic church in Albany and first cathedral of that diocese. Catholics in the Louisiana Territory were likely to be members of the lodge and Father Sedella, pastor of the New Orleans cathedral, was buried in Masonic regalia. [William J. Whalen: Excerpt from the Article Papal Condemnations of the Lodge (circa 1955-1958)]
As far as the statement that [a]ccording to ancient Church practice a bull was not promulgated in a given diocese until it is posted and means are obtained to enforce it goes, it will be addressed later in this response.{1} In the meantime, it bears noting that on the European continent, the practice of Catholics involving themselves in masonry continued after 1738. This can either be chalked up to deliberate disobedience or as a result of an unfamiliarity with the papal constitution containing the ban or the intended scope of that constitution (along with other elements touched on above). Let us touch a bit on the latter as the more probable of the two in most cases to avoid imputing evil motives to the Carrolls as some seem intent upon doing for (apparently) ideological purposes.{2}
Pope Benedict XIV's 1751 papal constitution Providas (which included within it the 1738 constitution of Pope Clement XII) was published at the request of a couple of European kings (Spain and Naples). Because it was published by their request, the possibility of confusion as to the extent of the ban continued. It does not hurt to point out that Pope Benedict XIV noted in his constitution that some had argued that Pope Clement XII's ban had lapsed because Pope Benedict XIV had not himself confirmed it. And in reiterating the policies of Pope Clement XII, Pope Benedict XIV noted in his constitution Providas that this was a problem in some areas:
[T]here have been some who have not hesitated to declare and to boast openly that the stated penalty of excommunication imposed by Our Predecessor, as is shown above, no longer carries any force, because of the fact that the very Constitution before introduced has not been confirmed by Us, as if in fact, express confirmation of a Pontifical Successor were required for the continuation of Apostolic Constitions published by a Predecessor. [Pope Benedict XIV: Constitution Providas (c. 1751)]
Those who would find this puzzling need to remember that there are differences between papal letters and papal epistles. The latter do not necessarily involve the universal church -particularly on papal directives. And as the delineation between the two was not made as commonly in earlier periods of church history, this needs to be accounted for as well.
Church history shows that the papal condemnations of masonry took some time to become known throughout the Church. Certainly they were not universally observed in Europe in the eighteenth century. But to understand part of the reason why, a short review of laws in general and what is required for a violator of a law to be punished needs to be considered. That is what will be dealt with next.
To be Continued...
Notes:
{1} It is important to remember that prior to the nineteenth century, bishops had a greater degree of autonomy in governing than they later had...though not as much as bishops of the earliest periods of time (read: first millennium). David also fails to take this into account and therefore engages in errors of anachronism in his reading of history yet again.
{2} This approach is undertaken to be in conformity with the instructions of the spiritual masters of the Catholic tradition viz. how as a rule the controverted actions of someone else are to be approached:
Always be ready and willing to excuse the faults of your neighbour, and never put an unfavourable interpretation upon his actions. The same action, says St. Francis de Sales, may be looked upon under many different aspects: a charitable person will ever suppose the best, an uncharitable person will just as certainly choose the worst. [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Spiritual Instruction on Charity (circa January 24, 2004)]
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
On the Subject of America's Founding:
(With Christopher Blosser and David Jones--Part I of III)
It is inevitable that when this subject is discussed that the subjects of the so-called "enlightenment" and elements pertaining to that particular weltanschauung will be brought forward by certain quarters. And while your host is debating on whether or not to write on the subject of conservatism, republicanism, and democracy before the end of the year{1}, at the moment he wants to briefly deal with common misperceptions of America's founding. The words of Christopher Blosser will be in blue font. The words of the party who questions the American founding (David Jones) will be in darkgreen font and any sources referenced by your host will be in darkblue font. Without further ado...
Tim delivers a necessary correction to David Jones on Masonry and the American republic:
This is an interesting bit from David:
First, the Masonic Lodge is a secret organization, a secret society.
So was the Catholic Church prior to Constantine. If being part of a secret society is ipso facto a problem, then we as Catholics are in heap big trouble.
For a Catholic to be an active Mason is to incur automatic excommunication.
We know that now beyond any shadow of doubt.
Therefore secrecy in this case is especially necessary. His resistance to apply this automatic excommunication in the United States is evidence of the close relationship Masonry had with the Carroll family. It would have resulted in his own brother being excommunicated…
This is a surprisingly uncharitable reading of things by David.{2} If he was not approaching this in such a facile and anachronistic fashion, he may realize that the Carrolls were both influenced by the Jesuits and thus were following with all likelihood the moral system of probabilism.{3} This well explains why if they actually were active Masons that their approach to the mason question was in line with probabilist moral principles. The popes have never condemned probabilism -indeed as the Catholic Encyclopedia noted, they have actually implied it at times:
The prevailing theory amongst Probabilists holds that if five or six theologians, notable for prudence and learning, independently adhere to an opinion their view is solidly probable, if it has not been set aside by authoritative decisions or by intrinsic arguments which they have failed to solve. Even one theologian of very exceptional authority, such as St. Alphonsus Liguori, is able to make an opinion solidly probable, as we know from the official declarations of the Holy See. All moralists agree that mere flimsy reasons are insufficient to give an opinion solid probability, and also that the support of many theologians who are mere collectors of the opinions of others is unable to give solid probability to the view which they maintain. [The Catholic Encyclopedia: From the Article Probabilism (c. 1913)]
The same article makes note of two moral approaches to subjects which the magisterium has condemned - rigorism and laxism:
Rigorism, or, as it is frequently called, Tutiorism held that the less safe opinion should be most probable, if not absolutely certain, before it could be lawfully put into practice, while Laxism maintained that if the less safe opinion were slightly probable it could be followed with a safe conscience.[ibid]
Hopefully, some of the intricacies involved in the subject matter under discussion are becoming clearer to the reader with what is noted above.
What we do know (historical fact) is that his brother was a very active Mason.
As is usually the case, there are details in even the "historical facts" that such a simplistic reading as that fail to take into account.
His resistance to apply this automatic excommunication is also evidence of an early form of American "cafeteria Catholicism" to pick and choose what they like or dislike from Rome.
David's ignorance of Jesuit probabilism is glaringly apparent in the above statement. But that is not all that can be said about the comment and its evident lack of charitable interpretation.{4}
From here, David attempts to engage in non-sequitur argumentation by placing this matter on the same level as abortion and the like which have a much more unambiguous status both now as well as then. David also noted that there were about fourteen papal pronouncements on the matter but what he does not realize (apparently) is that the third such pronouncement was in 1821 after the deaths of both Daniel Carroll (+1796) as well as Archbishop John Carroll (+1815). Prior to the third pronouncement in 1821, there were two pronouncements (1738 and 1751) and they were issued decades before America's founding. Furthemore, they were issued in response to masonry as it found itself on the European continent. To transfer these condemnations wholesale to the American continent of three decades later is to engage in a logical fallacy of context-switching for reasons which will not be delved into here.{5}
To be Continued...
Notes:
{1} Whether or not this is done will depend on many factors including if there is time to finish formatting those threads for posting. (They are already written.)
{2} Always be ready and willing to excuse the faults of your neighbour, and never put an unfavourable interpretation upon his actions. The same action, says St. Francis de Sales, may be looked upon under many different aspects: a charitable person will ever suppose the best, an uncharitable person will just as certainly choose the worst. [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Spiritual Instruction on Charity (circa January 24, 2004)]
{3} This is a moral/ethical approach that was once very common to the Jesuits...whether it still is or not your host is not sure.
{4} See footnote two.
{5} As far as awareness of the statements go, it was not until the nineteenth century and the pronouncement of Pope Pius VII (1821) that the position of the popes on freemasonry with regards to the scope of the prohibition was reasonably clear as prior to that, there was a degree of controversion on the matter for various and sundry reasons. But the further proscriptions by Pope Leo XII (1825), Pope Pius VIII, (1829) and Pope Gregory XVI (1832) were clearly universal in scope. This is why there were devout Catholics in many countries (including Ireland and America) who were involved with the masons at times prior to the early nineteenth century. However puzzling this may be, for one who understands the background on the matter, it is not the problem that many with anachronistic interpretations on the matter would lead people to believe.
(With Christopher Blosser and David Jones--Part I of III)
It is inevitable that when this subject is discussed that the subjects of the so-called "enlightenment" and elements pertaining to that particular weltanschauung will be brought forward by certain quarters. And while your host is debating on whether or not to write on the subject of conservatism, republicanism, and democracy before the end of the year{1}, at the moment he wants to briefly deal with common misperceptions of America's founding. The words of Christopher Blosser will be in blue font. The words of the party who questions the American founding (David Jones) will be in darkgreen font and any sources referenced by your host will be in darkblue font. Without further ado...
Tim delivers a necessary correction to David Jones on Masonry and the American republic:
This is an interesting bit from David:
First, the Masonic Lodge is a secret organization, a secret society.
So was the Catholic Church prior to Constantine. If being part of a secret society is ipso facto a problem, then we as Catholics are in heap big trouble.
For a Catholic to be an active Mason is to incur automatic excommunication.
We know that now beyond any shadow of doubt.
Therefore secrecy in this case is especially necessary. His resistance to apply this automatic excommunication in the United States is evidence of the close relationship Masonry had with the Carroll family. It would have resulted in his own brother being excommunicated…
This is a surprisingly uncharitable reading of things by David.{2} If he was not approaching this in such a facile and anachronistic fashion, he may realize that the Carrolls were both influenced by the Jesuits and thus were following with all likelihood the moral system of probabilism.{3} This well explains why if they actually were active Masons that their approach to the mason question was in line with probabilist moral principles. The popes have never condemned probabilism -indeed as the Catholic Encyclopedia noted, they have actually implied it at times:
The prevailing theory amongst Probabilists holds that if five or six theologians, notable for prudence and learning, independently adhere to an opinion their view is solidly probable, if it has not been set aside by authoritative decisions or by intrinsic arguments which they have failed to solve. Even one theologian of very exceptional authority, such as St. Alphonsus Liguori, is able to make an opinion solidly probable, as we know from the official declarations of the Holy See. All moralists agree that mere flimsy reasons are insufficient to give an opinion solid probability, and also that the support of many theologians who are mere collectors of the opinions of others is unable to give solid probability to the view which they maintain. [The Catholic Encyclopedia: From the Article Probabilism (c. 1913)]
The same article makes note of two moral approaches to subjects which the magisterium has condemned - rigorism and laxism:
Rigorism, or, as it is frequently called, Tutiorism held that the less safe opinion should be most probable, if not absolutely certain, before it could be lawfully put into practice, while Laxism maintained that if the less safe opinion were slightly probable it could be followed with a safe conscience.[ibid]
Hopefully, some of the intricacies involved in the subject matter under discussion are becoming clearer to the reader with what is noted above.
What we do know (historical fact) is that his brother was a very active Mason.
As is usually the case, there are details in even the "historical facts" that such a simplistic reading as that fail to take into account.
His resistance to apply this automatic excommunication is also evidence of an early form of American "cafeteria Catholicism" to pick and choose what they like or dislike from Rome.
David's ignorance of Jesuit probabilism is glaringly apparent in the above statement. But that is not all that can be said about the comment and its evident lack of charitable interpretation.{4}
From here, David attempts to engage in non-sequitur argumentation by placing this matter on the same level as abortion and the like which have a much more unambiguous status both now as well as then. David also noted that there were about fourteen papal pronouncements on the matter but what he does not realize (apparently) is that the third such pronouncement was in 1821 after the deaths of both Daniel Carroll (+1796) as well as Archbishop John Carroll (+1815). Prior to the third pronouncement in 1821, there were two pronouncements (1738 and 1751) and they were issued decades before America's founding. Furthemore, they were issued in response to masonry as it found itself on the European continent. To transfer these condemnations wholesale to the American continent of three decades later is to engage in a logical fallacy of context-switching for reasons which will not be delved into here.{5}
To be Continued...
Notes:
{1} Whether or not this is done will depend on many factors including if there is time to finish formatting those threads for posting. (They are already written.)
{2} Always be ready and willing to excuse the faults of your neighbour, and never put an unfavourable interpretation upon his actions. The same action, says St. Francis de Sales, may be looked upon under many different aspects: a charitable person will ever suppose the best, an uncharitable person will just as certainly choose the worst. [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Spiritual Instruction on Charity (circa January 24, 2004)]
{3} This is a moral/ethical approach that was once very common to the Jesuits...whether it still is or not your host is not sure.
{4} See footnote two.
{5} As far as awareness of the statements go, it was not until the nineteenth century and the pronouncement of Pope Pius VII (1821) that the position of the popes on freemasonry with regards to the scope of the prohibition was reasonably clear as prior to that, there was a degree of controversion on the matter for various and sundry reasons. But the further proscriptions by Pope Leo XII (1825), Pope Pius VIII, (1829) and Pope Gregory XVI (1832) were clearly universal in scope. This is why there were devout Catholics in many countries (including Ireland and America) who were involved with the masons at times prior to the early nineteenth century. However puzzling this may be, for one who understands the background on the matter, it is not the problem that many with anachronistic interpretations on the matter would lead people to believe.
Points to Ponder:
(On the Sanctity of Human Life and Nazi Atrocities)
Fellow Christians! In the pastoral letter of the German bishops of June 26, 1941, which was read out in all the Catholic churches in Germany on July 6, 1941, it states among other things: It is true that there are definite commandments in Catholic moral doctrine which are no longer applicable if their fulfillment involves too many difficulties.
However, there are sacred obligations of conscience from which no one has the power to release us and which we must fulfil even if it costs us our lives. Never under any circumstances may a human being kill an innocent person apart from war and legitimate self-defense. On July 6, I already had cause to add to the pastoral letter the following explanation: for some months we have been hearing reports that, on the orders of Berlin, patients from mental asylums who have been ill for a long time and may appear incurable, are being compulsorily removed. Then, after a short time, the relatives are regularly informed that the corpse has been burnt and the ashes can be delivered. There is a general suspicion verging on certainty, that these numerous unexpected deaths of mentally ill people do not occur of themselves but are deliberately brought about, that the doctrine is being followed, according to which one may destroy so-called 'worthless life,' that is, kill innocent people if one considers that their lives are of no further value for the nation and the state.
I am reliably informed that lists are also being drawn up in the asylums of the province of Westphalia as well of those patients who are to be taken away as so-called 'unproductive national comrades' and shortly to be killed. The first transport left the Marienthal institution near Münster during this past week. German men and women, section 211 of the Reich Penal Code is still valid. It states: 'He who deliberately kills another person will be punished by death for murder if the killing is premeditated.'
Those patients who are destined to be killed are transported away from home to a distant asylum presumably in order to protect those who deliberately kill those poor people, members of our families, from this legal punishment. Some illness is then given as the cause of death. Since the corpse has been burnt straight away, the relatives and also the criminal police are unable to establish whether the illness really occurred and what the cause of death was.
However, I have been assured that the Reich Interior Ministry and the office of the Reich Doctors' Leader, Dr. Conti, make no bones about the fact that in reality a large number of mentally ill people in Germany have been deliberately killed and more will be killed in the future. [Cardinal Clemens von Galen (circa August 3, 1941)]
To be Continued...
(On the Sanctity of Human Life and Nazi Atrocities)
Fellow Christians! In the pastoral letter of the German bishops of June 26, 1941, which was read out in all the Catholic churches in Germany on July 6, 1941, it states among other things: It is true that there are definite commandments in Catholic moral doctrine which are no longer applicable if their fulfillment involves too many difficulties.
However, there are sacred obligations of conscience from which no one has the power to release us and which we must fulfil even if it costs us our lives. Never under any circumstances may a human being kill an innocent person apart from war and legitimate self-defense. On July 6, I already had cause to add to the pastoral letter the following explanation: for some months we have been hearing reports that, on the orders of Berlin, patients from mental asylums who have been ill for a long time and may appear incurable, are being compulsorily removed. Then, after a short time, the relatives are regularly informed that the corpse has been burnt and the ashes can be delivered. There is a general suspicion verging on certainty, that these numerous unexpected deaths of mentally ill people do not occur of themselves but are deliberately brought about, that the doctrine is being followed, according to which one may destroy so-called 'worthless life,' that is, kill innocent people if one considers that their lives are of no further value for the nation and the state.
I am reliably informed that lists are also being drawn up in the asylums of the province of Westphalia as well of those patients who are to be taken away as so-called 'unproductive national comrades' and shortly to be killed. The first transport left the Marienthal institution near Münster during this past week. German men and women, section 211 of the Reich Penal Code is still valid. It states: 'He who deliberately kills another person will be punished by death for murder if the killing is premeditated.'
Those patients who are destined to be killed are transported away from home to a distant asylum presumably in order to protect those who deliberately kill those poor people, members of our families, from this legal punishment. Some illness is then given as the cause of death. Since the corpse has been burnt straight away, the relatives and also the criminal police are unable to establish whether the illness really occurred and what the cause of death was.
However, I have been assured that the Reich Interior Ministry and the office of the Reich Doctors' Leader, Dr. Conti, make no bones about the fact that in reality a large number of mentally ill people in Germany have been deliberately killed and more will be killed in the future. [Cardinal Clemens von Galen (circa August 3, 1941)]
To be Continued...
Monday, December 12, 2005
Points to Ponder:
(On Putting Social Principles Into Action)
There are three stages which should normally be followed in the reduction of social principles into practice. First, one reviews the concrete situation; secondly, one forms a judgment on it in the light of these same principles; thirdly, one decides what in the circumstances can and should be done to implement these principles. These are the three stages that are usually expressed in the three terms: look, judge, act.
It is important for our young people to grasp this method and to practice it. Knowledge acquired in this way does not remain merely abstract, but is seen as something that must be translated into action.
Differences of opinion in the application of principles can sometimes arise even among sincere Catholics. When this happens, they should be careful not to lose their respect and esteem for each other. Instead, they should strive to find points of agreement for effective and suitable action, and not wear themselves out in interminable arguments, and, under pretext of the better or the best, omit to do the good that is possible and therefore obligatory. [Pope John XXIII: Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra §236-238 (c. May 15, 1961)]
(On Putting Social Principles Into Action)
There are three stages which should normally be followed in the reduction of social principles into practice. First, one reviews the concrete situation; secondly, one forms a judgment on it in the light of these same principles; thirdly, one decides what in the circumstances can and should be done to implement these principles. These are the three stages that are usually expressed in the three terms: look, judge, act.
It is important for our young people to grasp this method and to practice it. Knowledge acquired in this way does not remain merely abstract, but is seen as something that must be translated into action.
Differences of opinion in the application of principles can sometimes arise even among sincere Catholics. When this happens, they should be careful not to lose their respect and esteem for each other. Instead, they should strive to find points of agreement for effective and suitable action, and not wear themselves out in interminable arguments, and, under pretext of the better or the best, omit to do the good that is possible and therefore obligatory. [Pope John XXIII: Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra §236-238 (c. May 15, 1961)]
First Draft of An Album Review:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[This is the rough draft of an album review which I plan to revise and abridge for posting at Amazon before the end of the month. -ISM]
*****
A Masterpiece of Music and Musings...
Roger Waters is given a giant share of the credit for Pink Floyd growing from the psychedelic brainchild of Syd Barrett in the mid to late 1960’s to attaining its status as a “super-group” in the early 1970’s by right-minded observers. Dark Side of the Moon (1973) was the first of a succession of blockbuster albums throughout the next ten years culminating with 1979’s The Wall and 1983’s The Final Cut. With each album since Barrett’s departure, there was some reflection of Waters’ growing influence within the group while he cultivated his songwriting talents. However, what is most evident from Dark Side on is Waters’ continuing focus on the struggles of modern society. And there are significant convergences between his view and my more ressourcement (read: authentically conservative) ones however strange that may seem on the surface. But this is not the time to go into the false dichotomies of “left” and “right” but instead to focus on this very moving (and profoundly under-appreciated) piece of work.
The horrors of war have long been a major theme of his writing along with the theme of alienation: of people from modern society, from modern technology, etc. Some of this is stuff that even amateur psychologists could discern: Roger’s father died in WWII when Roger was an infant. As a result of this tragedy, Waters grew up having no father present and no small degree of derision for government in general. This is a condition which was compounded as he came to view the promises of the postwar period (on which his fathers’ sacrifice along with that of countless others was to some extent initially justified) being betrayed by an increasingly materialistic, artificial existence. The album itself follows the pattern of every Waters project since Dark Side: having a concept to it that permeates the entire album. In the opening track The Ballad of Bill Hubbard, the album begins with a theme straight out of 1983’s The Final Cut: the sound a station being tuned in: with the latter it was a radio, on this album it is a TV.
The Ballad of Bill Hubbard is mostly instrumental and Jeff Beck plays some very stirring soloing guitar while from the “TV”, there is recollections being given by Alf Razzell about his last recollections of Bill Hubbard…having to leave him in No-Man’s Land on the western front in 1917 where he died. From there, the “TV” changes and the first part of the What God Wants trilogy of tunes on this album. Jeff Beck makes another appearance with some very strident playing while Roger sings about how God “wants” all the contrary things various people claim He “wants.” The metaphor of “the monkey” makes its debut in this along with a reference to “the alien prophet” and “the alien comic” which seem out of place but will make sense later on.
Perfect Sense (in two parts, the second is particularly striking) presents modern warfare as it is often utilized by the media” as a game. Waters underscores this by having Marv Albert “call the plays” as a submarine engages an oil rig and blows it up. The game fascination is summed up in the song The Bravery of Being Out of Range: an aggressive song, which underscores a scathing indictment of those cheer on each media exposure of war as if it is “entertainment.” The next two songs (Late Home Tonight in Parts I and II) are acoustic and look at families on both sides of the war divide -emphasizing the difference between engagement and detachment to some extent.
From there, the album moves into Too Much Rope -the weakest of the songs on the album but still containing more food for thought than anything in the so-called “pop music charts.” From there, the second part of the What God Wants set comes up and this time it opens with a tele-evangelist trying to raise funds and listing the various denominations of money that “God Wants” among other things (poverty, wealth, etc).
What God Wants in the third installment opens with musical and effects echoes from earlier Floyd songs (from 1975’s Shine On You Crazy Diamond and 1971’s Echoes respectively). Another mention of the “alien prophet” and several animals in the vicinity of money: some obvious and others not so. (Shades of 1977’s Animals in some respects here.) And that brings us to two of the best songs on an album of very good songs: Watching TV and Three Wishes.
Watching TV involves Tianinemon Square and how Roger was affected by it. It is acoustic and the duet (with Don Henley) is moving. Showing that history is not for fools, Roger recounts some Chinese history before moving into a list of people whom this Chinese girl is different from throughout history building up to a depressing indictment of modern soullessness. The conclusion is...well...I do not want to give it away but it really hits like a hammer to put it mildly.
Three Wishes builds to some extent on the latter by showing that the artist himself is not free of admitted selfishness. It is a testament of sorts to the human condition and how we say we want to be altruistic but (when the chips are down) we often seek our own self-interests first and then feel the guilt afterwards. Jeff Beck plays a Dave Gilmour-like solo, which eases the tension a little bit but not much. And from there, the album moves into It’s a Miracle recounting “achievements” of modern civilization by outlining the excesses in a somewhat sarcastic fashion.
The last song on the album is Amused to Death. The imagery is vivid and it is at that point where the alien figures referred to at times throughout the album are identified: they are alien anthropologists who found the remains of the human race around the TV sets and after trying to figure out why we died out conclude that “this species has amused itself to death.” The fadeout finishes with the voice of Alf Razzell again recognizing finally the humanity of his fallen comrade many decades ago: no longer a nightmarish image to him for reasons too numerous to deal with here.
The album as a whole as well as in its individual parts (the songs) paint a very vivid picture that provide plenty of food for musing. Much as Johnny Cash's final video Hurt showed vividly what an artist can do with pictures, Roger Waters with music, sound effects, and various spoken voices paints a similarly compelling picture with this album. I cannot recommend this album enough for those who like music to have some relevance to reality rather than being merely an escape from it. For those who do not fit the latter description, this album is not for you: go back to listening to your mindless Top 40 drivel and leave masterpieces such as this for those who can truly appreciate them.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[This is the rough draft of an album review which I plan to revise and abridge for posting at Amazon before the end of the month. -ISM]
*****
A Masterpiece of Music and Musings...
Roger Waters is given a giant share of the credit for Pink Floyd growing from the psychedelic brainchild of Syd Barrett in the mid to late 1960’s to attaining its status as a “super-group” in the early 1970’s by right-minded observers. Dark Side of the Moon (1973) was the first of a succession of blockbuster albums throughout the next ten years culminating with 1979’s The Wall and 1983’s The Final Cut. With each album since Barrett’s departure, there was some reflection of Waters’ growing influence within the group while he cultivated his songwriting talents. However, what is most evident from Dark Side on is Waters’ continuing focus on the struggles of modern society. And there are significant convergences between his view and my more ressourcement (read: authentically conservative) ones however strange that may seem on the surface. But this is not the time to go into the false dichotomies of “left” and “right” but instead to focus on this very moving (and profoundly under-appreciated) piece of work.
The horrors of war have long been a major theme of his writing along with the theme of alienation: of people from modern society, from modern technology, etc. Some of this is stuff that even amateur psychologists could discern: Roger’s father died in WWII when Roger was an infant. As a result of this tragedy, Waters grew up having no father present and no small degree of derision for government in general. This is a condition which was compounded as he came to view the promises of the postwar period (on which his fathers’ sacrifice along with that of countless others was to some extent initially justified) being betrayed by an increasingly materialistic, artificial existence. The album itself follows the pattern of every Waters project since Dark Side: having a concept to it that permeates the entire album. In the opening track The Ballad of Bill Hubbard, the album begins with a theme straight out of 1983’s The Final Cut: the sound a station being tuned in: with the latter it was a radio, on this album it is a TV.
The Ballad of Bill Hubbard is mostly instrumental and Jeff Beck plays some very stirring soloing guitar while from the “TV”, there is recollections being given by Alf Razzell about his last recollections of Bill Hubbard…having to leave him in No-Man’s Land on the western front in 1917 where he died. From there, the “TV” changes and the first part of the What God Wants trilogy of tunes on this album. Jeff Beck makes another appearance with some very strident playing while Roger sings about how God “wants” all the contrary things various people claim He “wants.” The metaphor of “the monkey” makes its debut in this along with a reference to “the alien prophet” and “the alien comic” which seem out of place but will make sense later on.
Perfect Sense (in two parts, the second is particularly striking) presents modern warfare as it is often utilized by the media” as a game. Waters underscores this by having Marv Albert “call the plays” as a submarine engages an oil rig and blows it up. The game fascination is summed up in the song The Bravery of Being Out of Range: an aggressive song, which underscores a scathing indictment of those cheer on each media exposure of war as if it is “entertainment.” The next two songs (Late Home Tonight in Parts I and II) are acoustic and look at families on both sides of the war divide -emphasizing the difference between engagement and detachment to some extent.
From there, the album moves into Too Much Rope -the weakest of the songs on the album but still containing more food for thought than anything in the so-called “pop music charts.” From there, the second part of the What God Wants set comes up and this time it opens with a tele-evangelist trying to raise funds and listing the various denominations of money that “God Wants” among other things (poverty, wealth, etc).
What God Wants in the third installment opens with musical and effects echoes from earlier Floyd songs (from 1975’s Shine On You Crazy Diamond and 1971’s Echoes respectively). Another mention of the “alien prophet” and several animals in the vicinity of money: some obvious and others not so. (Shades of 1977’s Animals in some respects here.) And that brings us to two of the best songs on an album of very good songs: Watching TV and Three Wishes.
Watching TV involves Tianinemon Square and how Roger was affected by it. It is acoustic and the duet (with Don Henley) is moving. Showing that history is not for fools, Roger recounts some Chinese history before moving into a list of people whom this Chinese girl is different from throughout history building up to a depressing indictment of modern soullessness. The conclusion is...well...I do not want to give it away but it really hits like a hammer to put it mildly.
Three Wishes builds to some extent on the latter by showing that the artist himself is not free of admitted selfishness. It is a testament of sorts to the human condition and how we say we want to be altruistic but (when the chips are down) we often seek our own self-interests first and then feel the guilt afterwards. Jeff Beck plays a Dave Gilmour-like solo, which eases the tension a little bit but not much. And from there, the album moves into It’s a Miracle recounting “achievements” of modern civilization by outlining the excesses in a somewhat sarcastic fashion.
The last song on the album is Amused to Death. The imagery is vivid and it is at that point where the alien figures referred to at times throughout the album are identified: they are alien anthropologists who found the remains of the human race around the TV sets and after trying to figure out why we died out conclude that “this species has amused itself to death.” The fadeout finishes with the voice of Alf Razzell again recognizing finally the humanity of his fallen comrade many decades ago: no longer a nightmarish image to him for reasons too numerous to deal with here.
The album as a whole as well as in its individual parts (the songs) paint a very vivid picture that provide plenty of food for musing. Much as Johnny Cash's final video Hurt showed vividly what an artist can do with pictures, Roger Waters with music, sound effects, and various spoken voices paints a similarly compelling picture with this album. I cannot recommend this album enough for those who like music to have some relevance to reality rather than being merely an escape from it. For those who do not fit the latter description, this album is not for you: go back to listening to your mindless Top 40 drivel and leave masterpieces such as this for those who can truly appreciate them.
I have not discussed the amazing 2005 season of the Seattle Seahawks on this weblog yet. In fact, I have rarely discussed the Seahawks at Rerum Novarum in a long time if ever.{1} The main reason for this is that they have a history of marring my usually accurate predictions by doing worse than they should do...and I prefer to not make predictions on them anymore as a rule because they tend to backfire. A perusal of my trackrecord the past seven years with them should suffice to show what I am talking about.
---In 1999, I was very excited when they signed Mike Holmgren as head coach. Holmgren was the architect of the West Coast Offense for San Francisco when they won two of the four Super Bowls with Joe Montana as quarterback. He had moved onto coaching and had taken Green Bay to two Superbowls winning one and losing the other to John Elway (long believed by your host to be the greatest quarterback of his era, period). I predicted they would go 10-6...possibly as well as 12-4 and they started out 8-2 that season. However, they then nosedived as was their wont in past seasons and finished at 9-7. So much for my 10-6 prediction that year.
---In 2000, I predicted that they would finish if not 10-6 then at least 9-7...the Kingdome being leveled and their playing home games at Husky Stadium having some affect on the record. But they went 6-10 once again meaning I mispredicted how they would do.
---In 2001, I was again optimistic that they would go 10-6 and they went 9-7 missing the playoffs.
---In 2002, I was less optimistic but still figured they would win at least half of their games. The result: 7-9.
---In 2003, I predicted 10-6 and they went 10-6.
---In 2004, I predicted 10-6, possibly 11-5 and they went 9-7 blowing some serious leads in a few games they should have won (and not only to vindicate my prediction mind you).
---This year, I predicted they would go at least 10-6 but possibly as good as 12-4 and make it to at least the second round of the playoffs: easily my most optimistic prediction in years. Thus far, they are 11-2 and look to exceed my predictions for once. Assuming they actually do, my record the past seven seasons will be 2-5: very unShawnlike certainly but I cannot be right all the time now can I???
Anyway, after the crushing of San Fran last night by a wider margin than I had predicted (I said 44-12, they won 41-3), I feel confident enough to note my preseason predictions for 2005 not only because I am on the verge of being right again but to point out that NostraShawnus sometimes has a fuzzy magic ball...albeit not with geopolitical stuff of course.{2} But everyone has their weaknesses prediction-wise and in my case it is sports; ergo the reason you do not see sports discussed much here at Rerum Novarum ;-)
Notes:
{1} I may have touched on it in 2003 but certainly not last year or even this year thus far.
{2} But with sports stuff enough to make me not bet on sportsteams.
---In 1999, I was very excited when they signed Mike Holmgren as head coach. Holmgren was the architect of the West Coast Offense for San Francisco when they won two of the four Super Bowls with Joe Montana as quarterback. He had moved onto coaching and had taken Green Bay to two Superbowls winning one and losing the other to John Elway (long believed by your host to be the greatest quarterback of his era, period). I predicted they would go 10-6...possibly as well as 12-4 and they started out 8-2 that season. However, they then nosedived as was their wont in past seasons and finished at 9-7. So much for my 10-6 prediction that year.
---In 2000, I predicted that they would finish if not 10-6 then at least 9-7...the Kingdome being leveled and their playing home games at Husky Stadium having some affect on the record. But they went 6-10 once again meaning I mispredicted how they would do.
---In 2001, I was again optimistic that they would go 10-6 and they went 9-7 missing the playoffs.
---In 2002, I was less optimistic but still figured they would win at least half of their games. The result: 7-9.
---In 2003, I predicted 10-6 and they went 10-6.
---In 2004, I predicted 10-6, possibly 11-5 and they went 9-7 blowing some serious leads in a few games they should have won (and not only to vindicate my prediction mind you).
---This year, I predicted they would go at least 10-6 but possibly as good as 12-4 and make it to at least the second round of the playoffs: easily my most optimistic prediction in years. Thus far, they are 11-2 and look to exceed my predictions for once. Assuming they actually do, my record the past seven seasons will be 2-5: very unShawnlike certainly but I cannot be right all the time now can I???
Anyway, after the crushing of San Fran last night by a wider margin than I had predicted (I said 44-12, they won 41-3), I feel confident enough to note my preseason predictions for 2005 not only because I am on the verge of being right again but to point out that NostraShawnus sometimes has a fuzzy magic ball...albeit not with geopolitical stuff of course.{2} But everyone has their weaknesses prediction-wise and in my case it is sports; ergo the reason you do not see sports discussed much here at Rerum Novarum ;-)
Notes:
{1} I may have touched on it in 2003 but certainly not last year or even this year thus far.
{2} But with sports stuff enough to make me not bet on sportsteams.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
Miscellaneous Musings:
---I have found it rather annoying that the media reports on the war in Iraq and the presidents poll numbers as if the negative reaction majority parallels the view of the most extremist moonbats. As I have noted before on polling, it is very easy to manipulate poll numbers. And the truth of the matter is, a good percentage of those who are "dissatisfied with President Bush's handling of the war" are those who would support a less bureaucratic and more militarily focused approach over there.
For I happen to be one of those who would be classified as "dissatisfied with President Bush's handling of the war" and it is not because I think we should tuck tail and run like not a few of those who pose as "peacemakers"{1} would like to see happen. I would like to believe that they are simply ignorant of history and the can of worms that such an approach to the matter would inexorably open but on my more pessimistic days this is not possible to do.
---On the issue of the Congress, everyone knows that they voted themselves a pay raise again...this kind of action is about as predictable as the sun rising in the east. The phrasing from a Roll Call blurb was of particular interest to me:
Friday’s passage of the $65.9 billion Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development conference report included a provision that earmarked some $2 million for Members’ annual pay hike. [LINK]
Presumably you catch that folks: Congress passed a bill and snuck their pay raise in on a rider!!! Longtime readers of this weblog know about my disdain for rider proposals but I will nonetheless reiterate them anew here since (as usual) their pay raises were attached to a rider on another bill and it serves as a good premise for reminding people of my proposals for rider reform legislation at the state and federal levels (particularly the latter):
I will avoid discussing the constitutionality of federal disaster relief acts but this serves to show how the rider is used to pass stuff without accountability. Having noted that, here are my proposals for making this process accountable to the voting public.
1) Any proposed rider to a bill must have some reasonably demonstrable congruency with the subject of the main funding bill being voted on. The current practice of attaching unrelated or non-sequitur funding proposals to major funding bills would thereby be eliminated.
2) Any proposed rider should requires a separate congressional "rider attachment vote" so that those who want it and those who do not are on the record.
3) Any proposed rider should require at least two thirds concurrence by each house of Congress insuch that anything less means that the rider initiative fails to attach to the bill.
4) Any proposed rider that succeeds in getting two thirds concurrence by each house of Congress officially attaches with the provision that the president has the right to line-item veto that rider proposal.
5) If the president vetoes such rider proposal but signs the main funding bill to which it was attached, Congress can override and perminently attach said rider to the main funding bill with the concurrence of seventy-five percent of both houses of Congress. If said seventy-five percent concurrence of both houses of Congress cannot be mustered for an override, the override fails and the rider is officially declared dead.
6) And of course the rider proposals -pass or fail- must all be entered into the record for perusal of the people under the 1978 Freedom of Information Act along with (i) the names of the proposers and subsequent sponsors of said rider (ii) their party affiliation and (iii) the state which they represent. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 20, 2004)]
But the rider issue aside for a moment, I want to ask what Congress has done to justify a raise in pay. From what I can ascertain, they deserve a pay cut if anything. A Congress which cannot put together a budget that balances{2} does not deserve a pay increase. PERIOD. This is not rocket science folks. If the federal government got its nose out of the areas which it does not have Constitutionally delegated authority to intervene in, the budget could easily be balanced. Heck, at the current rate of taxation, the debt itself could be paid off in about seven years or less.{3} But there are too many selfish people out there who prefer their own isolated self-interests to the common good. There is also the issue of baseline budgeting which no one wants to honestly face{4} but that is to open another tangent I do not have the time to delve into at the moment.
---I mentioned in late October that there would be some emails on various subjects blogged in November. That was the plan but time did not allow for it to happen. However, I will be posting some of them before Christmas time-willing. There is also at least two more installments of the "'neo con' challenge" series which was first publicly issued in late October and revisited in early November. In response to the former, a series thread was started earlier this month{5} which will be added to in December. Unfortunately, those who were originally issued the challenge have been conspicuous in their universal silence viz. what was requested of them but their cowardice does not surprise me in the slightest.
---Finally, it is refreshing to learn that the CIA will be investigating their use of black highlighters on security documents since their founding in the late 1940's...hopefully we will not have to go another sixty years with the most important parts of top security documents highlighted in a colour that makes them next to impossible to read... ;-)
Notes:
{1} Frankly a good approach to these sorts would be to reinstate the US Sedition Act and put them under survaillance.
{2} Or at least a plan that balances the budget in a short span of time. I am not fond of congressional "promises" on these matters since they have a history of being pretty useless but then again, these are supposed to be Republicans who are concerned about these matters.
{3} [T]he Devilcrat House of Congress lied to [Reagan] about cutting three dollars spending for every dollar tax increase back in 1981. Had they done that, the economy would have grown us out of a deficit by about 1986-87 and there would have been surpluses the last two years of [Reagan's] term. (They proved that they were still lower than a snake's belly in a wagon-wheel rut when they pulled the same scam against Bush Sr.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 12, 2003)]
{4} [W]ho cares what the President proposes. The role of setting a budget is that of the Congress. The problem is that the role of impounding funds -shared by every president from Nixon back to Washington- was abolished by President Nixon when he signed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Since then, deficits have skyrocketed and an important check on Congressional excesses was cast aside.
This Act needs to be rescinded...[W]hile there were still deficits prior to 1974, the national deficits starting in 1975 increased at an exponential rate.[...]
What needs to be reasserted -and vigorously so- is the ignored principle of the Constitution (and not the only ignored principle of the Constitution) that [t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. That is as good a place to start as any.
For those who are not aware, I just quoted the tenth amendment of the Constitution: an intended safeguard against exactly what we see today. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 31, 2003)]
{5} The two threads thus far of the "'neo con' challenge" which have been posted are viewable HERE and HERE.
---I have found it rather annoying that the media reports on the war in Iraq and the presidents poll numbers as if the negative reaction majority parallels the view of the most extremist moonbats. As I have noted before on polling, it is very easy to manipulate poll numbers. And the truth of the matter is, a good percentage of those who are "dissatisfied with President Bush's handling of the war" are those who would support a less bureaucratic and more militarily focused approach over there.
For I happen to be one of those who would be classified as "dissatisfied with President Bush's handling of the war" and it is not because I think we should tuck tail and run like not a few of those who pose as "peacemakers"{1} would like to see happen. I would like to believe that they are simply ignorant of history and the can of worms that such an approach to the matter would inexorably open but on my more pessimistic days this is not possible to do.
---On the issue of the Congress, everyone knows that they voted themselves a pay raise again...this kind of action is about as predictable as the sun rising in the east. The phrasing from a Roll Call blurb was of particular interest to me:
Friday’s passage of the $65.9 billion Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development conference report included a provision that earmarked some $2 million for Members’ annual pay hike. [LINK]
Presumably you catch that folks: Congress passed a bill and snuck their pay raise in on a rider!!! Longtime readers of this weblog know about my disdain for rider proposals but I will nonetheless reiterate them anew here since (as usual) their pay raises were attached to a rider on another bill and it serves as a good premise for reminding people of my proposals for rider reform legislation at the state and federal levels (particularly the latter):
I will avoid discussing the constitutionality of federal disaster relief acts but this serves to show how the rider is used to pass stuff without accountability. Having noted that, here are my proposals for making this process accountable to the voting public.
1) Any proposed rider to a bill must have some reasonably demonstrable congruency with the subject of the main funding bill being voted on. The current practice of attaching unrelated or non-sequitur funding proposals to major funding bills would thereby be eliminated.
2) Any proposed rider should requires a separate congressional "rider attachment vote" so that those who want it and those who do not are on the record.
3) Any proposed rider should require at least two thirds concurrence by each house of Congress insuch that anything less means that the rider initiative fails to attach to the bill.
4) Any proposed rider that succeeds in getting two thirds concurrence by each house of Congress officially attaches with the provision that the president has the right to line-item veto that rider proposal.
5) If the president vetoes such rider proposal but signs the main funding bill to which it was attached, Congress can override and perminently attach said rider to the main funding bill with the concurrence of seventy-five percent of both houses of Congress. If said seventy-five percent concurrence of both houses of Congress cannot be mustered for an override, the override fails and the rider is officially declared dead.
6) And of course the rider proposals -pass or fail- must all be entered into the record for perusal of the people under the 1978 Freedom of Information Act along with (i) the names of the proposers and subsequent sponsors of said rider (ii) their party affiliation and (iii) the state which they represent. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 20, 2004)]
But the rider issue aside for a moment, I want to ask what Congress has done to justify a raise in pay. From what I can ascertain, they deserve a pay cut if anything. A Congress which cannot put together a budget that balances{2} does not deserve a pay increase. PERIOD. This is not rocket science folks. If the federal government got its nose out of the areas which it does not have Constitutionally delegated authority to intervene in, the budget could easily be balanced. Heck, at the current rate of taxation, the debt itself could be paid off in about seven years or less.{3} But there are too many selfish people out there who prefer their own isolated self-interests to the common good. There is also the issue of baseline budgeting which no one wants to honestly face{4} but that is to open another tangent I do not have the time to delve into at the moment.
---I mentioned in late October that there would be some emails on various subjects blogged in November. That was the plan but time did not allow for it to happen. However, I will be posting some of them before Christmas time-willing. There is also at least two more installments of the "'neo con' challenge" series which was first publicly issued in late October and revisited in early November. In response to the former, a series thread was started earlier this month{5} which will be added to in December. Unfortunately, those who were originally issued the challenge have been conspicuous in their universal silence viz. what was requested of them but their cowardice does not surprise me in the slightest.
---Finally, it is refreshing to learn that the CIA will be investigating their use of black highlighters on security documents since their founding in the late 1940's...hopefully we will not have to go another sixty years with the most important parts of top security documents highlighted in a colour that makes them next to impossible to read... ;-)
Notes:
{1} Frankly a good approach to these sorts would be to reinstate the US Sedition Act and put them under survaillance.
{2} Or at least a plan that balances the budget in a short span of time. I am not fond of congressional "promises" on these matters since they have a history of being pretty useless but then again, these are supposed to be Republicans who are concerned about these matters.
{3} [T]he Devilcrat House of Congress lied to [Reagan] about cutting three dollars spending for every dollar tax increase back in 1981. Had they done that, the economy would have grown us out of a deficit by about 1986-87 and there would have been surpluses the last two years of [Reagan's] term. (They proved that they were still lower than a snake's belly in a wagon-wheel rut when they pulled the same scam against Bush Sr.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 12, 2003)]
{4} [W]ho cares what the President proposes. The role of setting a budget is that of the Congress. The problem is that the role of impounding funds -shared by every president from Nixon back to Washington- was abolished by President Nixon when he signed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Since then, deficits have skyrocketed and an important check on Congressional excesses was cast aside.
This Act needs to be rescinded...[W]hile there were still deficits prior to 1974, the national deficits starting in 1975 increased at an exponential rate.[...]
What needs to be reasserted -and vigorously so- is the ignored principle of the Constitution (and not the only ignored principle of the Constitution) that [t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. That is as good a place to start as any.
For those who are not aware, I just quoted the tenth amendment of the Constitution: an intended safeguard against exactly what we see today. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 31, 2003)]
{5} The two threads thus far of the "'neo con' challenge" which have been posted are viewable HERE and HERE.
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Points to Ponder:
(A Prayer for the Government)
We pray, Thee O Almighty and Eternal God! Who through Jesus Christ hast revealed Thy glory to all nations, to preserve the works of Thy mercy, that Thy Church, being spread through the whole world, may continue with unchanging faith in the confession of Thy Name.
We pray Thee, who alone art good and holy, to endow with heavenly knowledge, sincere zeal, and sanctity of life, our chief bishop, Pope n., the Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the government of his Church; our own bishop, n., all other bishops, prelates, and pastors of the Church; and especially those who are appointed to exercise amongst us the functions of the holy ministry, and conduct Thy people into the ways of salvation.
We pray Thee O God of might, wisdom, and justice! Through whom authority is rightly administered, laws are enacted, and judgment decreed, assist with Thy Holy Spirit of counsel and fortitude the President of these United States, that his administration may be conducted in righteousness, and be eminently useful to Thy people over whom he presides; by encouraging due respect for virtue and religion; by a faithful execution of the laws in justice and mercy; and by restraining vice and immorality. Let the light of Thy divine wisdom direct the deliberations of Congress, and shine forth in all the proceedings and laws framed for our rule and government, so that they may tend to the preservation of peace, the promotion of national happiness, the increase of industry, sobriety, and useful knowledge; and may perpetuate to us the blessing of equal liberty.
We pray for his excellency, the governor of this state , for the members of the assembly, for all judges, magistrates, and other officers who are appointed to guard our political welfare, that they may be enabled, by Thy powerful protection, to discharge the duties of their respective stations with honesty and ability.
We recommend likewise, to Thy unbounded mercy, all our brethren and fellow citizens throughout the United States, that they may be blessed in the knowledge and sanctified in the observance of Thy most holy law; that they may be preserved in union, and in that peace which the world cannot give; and after enjoying the blessings of this life, be admitted to those which are eternal.
Finally, we pray to Thee, O Lord of mercy, to remember the souls of Thy servants departed who are gone before us with the sign of faith and repose in the sleep of peace; the souls of our parents, relatives, and friends; of those who, when living, were members of this congregation, and particularly of such as are lately deceased; of all benefactors who, by their donations or legacies to this Church, witnessed their zeal for the decency of divine worship and proved their claim to our grateful and charitable remembrance. To these, O Lord, and to all that rest in Christ, grant, we beseech Thee, a place of refreshment, light, and everlasting peace, through the same Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior. Amen. [Bishop John Carroll (circa 1791-1798)]
(A Prayer for the Government)
We pray, Thee O Almighty and Eternal God! Who through Jesus Christ hast revealed Thy glory to all nations, to preserve the works of Thy mercy, that Thy Church, being spread through the whole world, may continue with unchanging faith in the confession of Thy Name.
We pray Thee, who alone art good and holy, to endow with heavenly knowledge, sincere zeal, and sanctity of life, our chief bishop, Pope n., the Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the government of his Church; our own bishop, n., all other bishops, prelates, and pastors of the Church; and especially those who are appointed to exercise amongst us the functions of the holy ministry, and conduct Thy people into the ways of salvation.
We pray Thee O God of might, wisdom, and justice! Through whom authority is rightly administered, laws are enacted, and judgment decreed, assist with Thy Holy Spirit of counsel and fortitude the President of these United States, that his administration may be conducted in righteousness, and be eminently useful to Thy people over whom he presides; by encouraging due respect for virtue and religion; by a faithful execution of the laws in justice and mercy; and by restraining vice and immorality. Let the light of Thy divine wisdom direct the deliberations of Congress, and shine forth in all the proceedings and laws framed for our rule and government, so that they may tend to the preservation of peace, the promotion of national happiness, the increase of industry, sobriety, and useful knowledge; and may perpetuate to us the blessing of equal liberty.
We pray for his excellency, the governor of this state , for the members of the assembly, for all judges, magistrates, and other officers who are appointed to guard our political welfare, that they may be enabled, by Thy powerful protection, to discharge the duties of their respective stations with honesty and ability.
We recommend likewise, to Thy unbounded mercy, all our brethren and fellow citizens throughout the United States, that they may be blessed in the knowledge and sanctified in the observance of Thy most holy law; that they may be preserved in union, and in that peace which the world cannot give; and after enjoying the blessings of this life, be admitted to those which are eternal.
Finally, we pray to Thee, O Lord of mercy, to remember the souls of Thy servants departed who are gone before us with the sign of faith and repose in the sleep of peace; the souls of our parents, relatives, and friends; of those who, when living, were members of this congregation, and particularly of such as are lately deceased; of all benefactors who, by their donations or legacies to this Church, witnessed their zeal for the decency of divine worship and proved their claim to our grateful and charitable remembrance. To these, O Lord, and to all that rest in Christ, grant, we beseech Thee, a place of refreshment, light, and everlasting peace, through the same Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior. Amen. [Bishop John Carroll (circa 1791-1798)]
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
"Tracking the Ever-Elusive So-Called 'Neo Con'" Dept.
This is a continuation of the thread posted HERE. To assist in continuity, the questions your host asked of the reader in the previous installment will be reposted here in blue font.
[D]o you think that these "neo-cons" have to have a particular position on certain issues other than abortion??? For example, does a "neo-con" have to have a particular position on the war in Iraq, on the death penalty, on environmental policy, on free trade, on government spending, on taxes, on labour, on mass transit, on "social justice", on civil rights, or on a myriad of other issues commonly bandied about by those who utilize (in a generally derisive fashion) that label of expression??? Are there certain issues noted above (or others I may have missed) which are prerequisites for being a "neo-con" and certain others which are more of an optional import??? Often certain people of Jewish descent are also referred to as "neo-cons" who are not Catholics (i.e. David Horowitz, Michael Medved) so I am wondering if catholicity is a non-negotiable requirement to be a "neo-con" or is it a frame of mind or reference that can be had by people of any demographic but merely is more common in the demographic you refer to above than in other demographics???
The "issues of the day" are insignificant, Shawn, fluctuating from one season to the next. Abortion today could be as hard-fought as, say, gambling is tomorrow. The heart of the matter is actually a question of one's loyalty: Is a man more loyal to his pope than to his President?
Interesting. Again you deserve props because this is a very unexpected definition. I will admit that those I primarily had in mind to present working definitions are themselves Catholics but since they are too scared to (at least thus far) present workable descriptions on this subject, I will accept yours as a starting point. I would however be remiss in noting that your dichotomization between religious and civil authority is not one that I accept. One who recognizes that each authority has its own sphere and properly keeps those spheres separated does not have to worry about what you are asserting. That there are not a few who fail to do this I will not disagree...indeed it is those kinds of people whom my challenge was primarily aimed at ironically enough.
The man whose mind is controlled by his pope will believe whatever his pope tells him to believe since that pope holds the residence of his eternal resting place by holding, as he does, the Eucharist. A President holds merely a man's national security, which becomes insignificant, comparatively. Everyone dies, eventually.
Again, it depends on how you quantify "belief." There are different genres of beliefs. What you are outlining above is one which makes it contingent upon accepting anything the pope says and that is a form of neo-ultramontanism. Again, those I was issuing the challenge to have thus far refused to answer questions I raised which (in some cases) were intended to separate areas of legitimate diversity (for Catholics) from those areas where there is not legitimate diversity.
Believing that, a man's allegience, then, is always for his pope and not for his "king." That man becomes, in essence then, a traitor.
If your dichotomization is accepted then that makes sense but I do not accept it. If you want to discuss this sometime, let me know. I for one do not see that there needs to be a "divided conscience" on this matter in the fashion that you do.
Ahh, the power in the Eucharist: the difference between heaven and hell!
Ahh, how freeing, rather, for kings and for nations to believe that man's salvation is assured by Grace Through Faith in Christ Alone!
Is this an attempt on your part to assert sola fide S??? If it is, then I should let you know that the sola fide hound does not hunt for reasons I have covered in years gone by both on this weblog and also in a web essay on justification. See this weblog thread for details on both.
P.S. No wonder the Eucharist gets so much attention these days, eh? (When I was a kid it was hardly mentioned.)
You must have grown up on the 1970's and 1980's then right??? Nonetheless, thank you for offering a working definition to consider. All I will note on it at the moment is that it fits the description of some of those I issued the challenge to far more than those whom they commonly label as "neo cons." But that is neither here nor there.
To be Continued...
This is a continuation of the thread posted HERE. To assist in continuity, the questions your host asked of the reader in the previous installment will be reposted here in blue font.
[D]o you think that these "neo-cons" have to have a particular position on certain issues other than abortion??? For example, does a "neo-con" have to have a particular position on the war in Iraq, on the death penalty, on environmental policy, on free trade, on government spending, on taxes, on labour, on mass transit, on "social justice", on civil rights, or on a myriad of other issues commonly bandied about by those who utilize (in a generally derisive fashion) that label of expression??? Are there certain issues noted above (or others I may have missed) which are prerequisites for being a "neo-con" and certain others which are more of an optional import??? Often certain people of Jewish descent are also referred to as "neo-cons" who are not Catholics (i.e. David Horowitz, Michael Medved) so I am wondering if catholicity is a non-negotiable requirement to be a "neo-con" or is it a frame of mind or reference that can be had by people of any demographic but merely is more common in the demographic you refer to above than in other demographics???
The "issues of the day" are insignificant, Shawn, fluctuating from one season to the next. Abortion today could be as hard-fought as, say, gambling is tomorrow. The heart of the matter is actually a question of one's loyalty: Is a man more loyal to his pope than to his President?
Interesting. Again you deserve props because this is a very unexpected definition. I will admit that those I primarily had in mind to present working definitions are themselves Catholics but since they are too scared to (at least thus far) present workable descriptions on this subject, I will accept yours as a starting point. I would however be remiss in noting that your dichotomization between religious and civil authority is not one that I accept. One who recognizes that each authority has its own sphere and properly keeps those spheres separated does not have to worry about what you are asserting. That there are not a few who fail to do this I will not disagree...indeed it is those kinds of people whom my challenge was primarily aimed at ironically enough.
The man whose mind is controlled by his pope will believe whatever his pope tells him to believe since that pope holds the residence of his eternal resting place by holding, as he does, the Eucharist. A President holds merely a man's national security, which becomes insignificant, comparatively. Everyone dies, eventually.
Again, it depends on how you quantify "belief." There are different genres of beliefs. What you are outlining above is one which makes it contingent upon accepting anything the pope says and that is a form of neo-ultramontanism. Again, those I was issuing the challenge to have thus far refused to answer questions I raised which (in some cases) were intended to separate areas of legitimate diversity (for Catholics) from those areas where there is not legitimate diversity.
Believing that, a man's allegience, then, is always for his pope and not for his "king." That man becomes, in essence then, a traitor.
If your dichotomization is accepted then that makes sense but I do not accept it. If you want to discuss this sometime, let me know. I for one do not see that there needs to be a "divided conscience" on this matter in the fashion that you do.
Ahh, the power in the Eucharist: the difference between heaven and hell!
Ahh, how freeing, rather, for kings and for nations to believe that man's salvation is assured by Grace Through Faith in Christ Alone!
Is this an attempt on your part to assert sola fide S??? If it is, then I should let you know that the sola fide hound does not hunt for reasons I have covered in years gone by both on this weblog and also in a web essay on justification. See this weblog thread for details on both.
P.S. No wonder the Eucharist gets so much attention these days, eh? (When I was a kid it was hardly mentioned.)
You must have grown up on the 1970's and 1980's then right??? Nonetheless, thank you for offering a working definition to consider. All I will note on it at the moment is that it fits the description of some of those I issued the challenge to far more than those whom they commonly label as "neo cons." But that is neither here nor there.
To be Continued...
Monday, December 05, 2005
Points to Ponder:
(On Some Catholic Bloggers)
I have noticed a mentality among some Catholic bloggers which I usually describe to myself as "auto-magisterial." It seems to me to derive from the attitudes and practices of Evangelical Christianity.
Evangelical Christians, not having a magisterium, tend to become easily convinced by their own opinions and to treat them as definitive. This is characteristic of Protestantism as a whole, of course, and is the reason why it has splintered and continues to splinter into multifarious sects and parties.
Once Evangelical Christians become Catholics, some of them tend to keep the habit of mind. And some bloggers--not all converts from the Evangelical churches--tend to exhibit these or similar attitudes which seem proud and intellectually arrogant. Often, they are just trying to be good and loyal Catholics, but they are led to a sort of neo-Ultramontanism which can't see the difference between binding Magisterial teaching (even the non-infallible kind) and explanatory glosses or prudential judgments or even personal opinions...
Stephen Hand's treatment of the War in Iraq is a glaring and extreme example...there is something about the easy and often adulatory audience on the net, combined with the authoritative note that tends to creep into their pronouncements that breeds a sort of hothouse pride that seems unhealthy. ["Jeff" (circa 12/04/05)]
(On Some Catholic Bloggers)
I have noticed a mentality among some Catholic bloggers which I usually describe to myself as "auto-magisterial." It seems to me to derive from the attitudes and practices of Evangelical Christianity.
Evangelical Christians, not having a magisterium, tend to become easily convinced by their own opinions and to treat them as definitive. This is characteristic of Protestantism as a whole, of course, and is the reason why it has splintered and continues to splinter into multifarious sects and parties.
Once Evangelical Christians become Catholics, some of them tend to keep the habit of mind. And some bloggers--not all converts from the Evangelical churches--tend to exhibit these or similar attitudes which seem proud and intellectually arrogant. Often, they are just trying to be good and loyal Catholics, but they are led to a sort of neo-Ultramontanism which can't see the difference between binding Magisterial teaching (even the non-infallible kind) and explanatory glosses or prudential judgments or even personal opinions...
Stephen Hand's treatment of the War in Iraq is a glaring and extreme example...there is something about the easy and often adulatory audience on the net, combined with the authoritative note that tends to creep into their pronouncements that breeds a sort of hothouse pride that seems unhealthy. ["Jeff" (circa 12/04/05)]
Sunday, December 04, 2005
"Tracking the Ever-Elusive So-Called 'Neo Con'" Dept.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Update: Upon reviewing the introduction of this post again earlier today, it was evident that the first paragraph was too long and needed to be adjusted a bit for a smoother text flow. That was done by dividing it into two paragraphs and supplying some additional segue bits. - ISM 12/5/05 1:58 pm]
Readers of this humble weblog are asked to consider what the Loch Ness Monster, Sasquatch, and the existence of aliens have in common. In all three cases, there are those who are in varying degrees obsessed with proving the existence of those creatures but thus far, there has been no incontrovertible proof brought forward. However, despite that and the way some of those zealots can react when their hobby or (perhaps in some cases, livelihood) is challenged, at the very least they have brought forward some evidences (whatever else you want to say about them) to attempt to substantiate the claims made. The same cannot be said for zealots of another type and with a different agenda...the latter being the subject of this thread posting you are currently reading.
There are after all certain individuals who similarly have a kind of fetish with the term "neo con" and like to use the expression (usually in a derogatory fashion) in application to a lot of different people. This attitude is of course similar to a kind of cultic deadagenting whereby the cult member seeks a pre-emptory assassination attempt of the character of a critic rather than having the common decency to consider the criticisms made on their merits or lack thereof. Your host cannot be the only one who believes that if the zealots who love to throw around the term "neo con" in a blanket and derisive fashion were to meet us all at least as far as the apologists for Nessie, Sasquatch, and space aliens have that the aforementioned people could be taken at least somewhat seriously. However, that has thus far not happened. With that in mind, Our intention with this series (and any additions to it) is to assist the aforementioned ideologues in establishing what could be called motives of credibility{1} for their claims.
The readers are reminded before we begin this thread (and potentially add to it over time) that your host has sought to point out the inappropriateness of this kind of labelling on many occasions...the core problem is the same even if there are varying frames of reference if you will. And with the case of certain personages who love to use this term who have thus far shirked in true chickensh*t fashion from taking responsibility for their own past and present statements, it seemed appropriate to your host to issue a very simple challenge to such people to identify the characteristics of what a so-called "neo con" is, what their underlying philosophies are, what are signature issues where they have readily identifiable positions, etc.
This is surely not a difficult thing to do; however, the manner in which the perpetrators have fled like vampires from a crucifix from the aforementioned challenge has been for Us very telling to say the least. Certainly We understand why they want to avoid that one so it seemed appropriate to issue the second and much easier challenge: produce evidences to argue for the existence of these so-called "neo cons." We at Rerum Novarum first noted this idea publicly in late October of 2005 in an audioposting{2} and followed it up a bit later with a brief revisiting of the subject with Christopher Blosser. In other words, it has not been for want of trying on the part of some people to challenge these kinds of people to put up or...well...you know the rest.
The aforementioned unsavoury sorts (to put it nicely) have ignored such simple requests for accountability and have continued to prattle on about these so-called "neo cons" including labelling certain parties as such when they have not bothered to explain what their criteria is for doing this. Your host must confess as a result of these circumstances that he has greater faith in the existence of Nessie, Sasquatch, space aliens, etc. than he does for those carping critics actually proving either (i) the existence of their fabled "neo cons" or (ii) that they even have a spine themselves and are not invertebrates. That is all that We can conclude based on what has happened to date which is why it seems appropriate to establish a series where this issue can be dealt with intermittently.
The idea for this series came about unexpectedly when your host found in his email a note from a reader who had responded to the previously noted audiopost challenge and sent in some proposed critieria. The rest of this post will be the first of the two emails received on the matter from that person whose words below will be in dark greem.
Dear Shawn,
I regret if I'm late in responding to your request for definitions of the word "Neocon." Please forgive me; I only just listened to your audio blog on the subject. If you are still taking suggestions, however, here you go:
The New Conservatives are those relatively new to America's conservative party, which is long known as the Republican Party. The Republican Party was traditionally home to the fiscal conservative, business-building, profit-making, job-producing Capitalists.
Since Rerum Novarum was penned by PLXIII one hundred years ago and until at least the last Presidential election of 2004, when John Kerry was threatened with ex-communication for voting against Rome's wishes (dragging Catholics away from the Democratic to the Republican Party -- no matter how they really feel about abortion -- but concerned that they might be next for voting for them) the Democrats in America became known as the "victims."
Thanks to PLXIII's encouragement in Rerum Novarum to pipe up against traditional American Republicans, these victims began beefing about the jobs the Republicans made for them by investing in industry and risking it all on free commerce, job-producing capitalistic ventures. They handed out jobs to these "neo-victims" eagerly and even advanced those who showed initiative by showing up on time for work, for instance. You see, these otherwise hard-working people became convinced due to the anthem preached in Rerum Novarum that they were "victims" who should oppose all that the Republican Party stood for. Oppose Big Business! Oppose those with money and power! Oppose all those without whom we are dependent upon government handouts!
It began formally with Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal years but eventually moved through the Kennedy/Johnson administration's Great Society as well, thanks to the influence of fiercely committed Catholics in the Democratic Party. These "victims," who had before happily cashed the paychecks they earned by the sweat of their brow before Rerum Novarum, became today's breed of Democrats who stand in line, now, at a window in the government center to collect the "paycheck" doled out to them from Uncle Sam for doing nothing but standing there once a month with their hand out. And all those who work for a living and pay taxes to support their "jobs" are, in reality, their slaves.
In short, New Conservatives, i.e., "neo-cons," Shawn, are the traditionally Democratic Catholics who moved over to the Republican Party en masse on the abortion issue -- but who have yet to change their allegience to their pope. And they are often woefully ignorant altogether of the damage done to this country and its citizens by the foreign power of the papacy.
Well S, you deserve props for setting something down on paper. Give me some time to mull over what you wrote and I will see if I take issue with anything you say.
In scanning the thread briefly (I will read it more in detail later), you did not mention certain specificities I was looking for so I will highlight them here and ask for further input.
For example, do you think that these "neo-cons" have to have a particular position on certain issues other than abortion??? For example, does a "neo-con" have to have a particular position on the war in Iraq, on the death penalty, on environmental policy, on free trade, on government spending, on taxes, on labour, on mass transit, on "social justice", on civil rights, or on a myriad of other issues commonly bandied about by those who utilize (in a generally derisive fashion) that label of expression??? Are there certain issues noted above (or others I may have missed) which are prerequisites for being a "neo-con" and certain others which are more of an optional import??? Often certain people of Jewish descent are also referred to as "neo-cons" who are not Catholics (i.e. David Horowitz, Michael Medved) so I am wondering if catholicity is a non-negotiable requirement to be a "neo-con" or is it a frame of mind or reference that can be had by people of any demographic but merely is more common in the demographic you refer to above than in other demographics.
Seriously, I think these questions are good ones since we have here a term that is utilized a lot and not a few of its users are lacking interest in providing answers to these kinds of questions.
Why, I'd bet a dollar to a donut, Shawn, that you, in fact, are the epitome of a "neo-con." Right?
Not by your definition from what I can ascertain at a brief glance. But thanks for providing some pointers for consideration. If I can persuade you to respond to the questions I have in the paragraph above (for additional clarification), it would be appreciated.
To be Continued...
Notes:
{1} What is meant by motives of credibility are criteria that themselves contribute to substantiating the potential veracity of what is being asserted. Thus, for those who propagate and widely apply the term "neo con" who do not bother to provide said motives of credibility for their usage and application of that term, there is no reason to presume that they have any credibility on the matter in question.
{2} Though it had been mulled about for some time and discussed in private channels prior to the aforementioned audioposting.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Update: Upon reviewing the introduction of this post again earlier today, it was evident that the first paragraph was too long and needed to be adjusted a bit for a smoother text flow. That was done by dividing it into two paragraphs and supplying some additional segue bits. - ISM 12/5/05 1:58 pm]
Readers of this humble weblog are asked to consider what the Loch Ness Monster, Sasquatch, and the existence of aliens have in common. In all three cases, there are those who are in varying degrees obsessed with proving the existence of those creatures but thus far, there has been no incontrovertible proof brought forward. However, despite that and the way some of those zealots can react when their hobby or (perhaps in some cases, livelihood) is challenged, at the very least they have brought forward some evidences (whatever else you want to say about them) to attempt to substantiate the claims made. The same cannot be said for zealots of another type and with a different agenda...the latter being the subject of this thread posting you are currently reading.
There are after all certain individuals who similarly have a kind of fetish with the term "neo con" and like to use the expression (usually in a derogatory fashion) in application to a lot of different people. This attitude is of course similar to a kind of cultic deadagenting whereby the cult member seeks a pre-emptory assassination attempt of the character of a critic rather than having the common decency to consider the criticisms made on their merits or lack thereof. Your host cannot be the only one who believes that if the zealots who love to throw around the term "neo con" in a blanket and derisive fashion were to meet us all at least as far as the apologists for Nessie, Sasquatch, and space aliens have that the aforementioned people could be taken at least somewhat seriously. However, that has thus far not happened. With that in mind, Our intention with this series (and any additions to it) is to assist the aforementioned ideologues in establishing what could be called motives of credibility{1} for their claims.
The readers are reminded before we begin this thread (and potentially add to it over time) that your host has sought to point out the inappropriateness of this kind of labelling on many occasions...the core problem is the same even if there are varying frames of reference if you will. And with the case of certain personages who love to use this term who have thus far shirked in true chickensh*t fashion from taking responsibility for their own past and present statements, it seemed appropriate to your host to issue a very simple challenge to such people to identify the characteristics of what a so-called "neo con" is, what their underlying philosophies are, what are signature issues where they have readily identifiable positions, etc.
This is surely not a difficult thing to do; however, the manner in which the perpetrators have fled like vampires from a crucifix from the aforementioned challenge has been for Us very telling to say the least. Certainly We understand why they want to avoid that one so it seemed appropriate to issue the second and much easier challenge: produce evidences to argue for the existence of these so-called "neo cons." We at Rerum Novarum first noted this idea publicly in late October of 2005 in an audioposting{2} and followed it up a bit later with a brief revisiting of the subject with Christopher Blosser. In other words, it has not been for want of trying on the part of some people to challenge these kinds of people to put up or...well...you know the rest.
The aforementioned unsavoury sorts (to put it nicely) have ignored such simple requests for accountability and have continued to prattle on about these so-called "neo cons" including labelling certain parties as such when they have not bothered to explain what their criteria is for doing this. Your host must confess as a result of these circumstances that he has greater faith in the existence of Nessie, Sasquatch, space aliens, etc. than he does for those carping critics actually proving either (i) the existence of their fabled "neo cons" or (ii) that they even have a spine themselves and are not invertebrates. That is all that We can conclude based on what has happened to date which is why it seems appropriate to establish a series where this issue can be dealt with intermittently.
The idea for this series came about unexpectedly when your host found in his email a note from a reader who had responded to the previously noted audiopost challenge and sent in some proposed critieria. The rest of this post will be the first of the two emails received on the matter from that person whose words below will be in dark greem.
Dear Shawn,
I regret if I'm late in responding to your request for definitions of the word "Neocon." Please forgive me; I only just listened to your audio blog on the subject. If you are still taking suggestions, however, here you go:
The New Conservatives are those relatively new to America's conservative party, which is long known as the Republican Party. The Republican Party was traditionally home to the fiscal conservative, business-building, profit-making, job-producing Capitalists.
Since Rerum Novarum was penned by PLXIII one hundred years ago and until at least the last Presidential election of 2004, when John Kerry was threatened with ex-communication for voting against Rome's wishes (dragging Catholics away from the Democratic to the Republican Party -- no matter how they really feel about abortion -- but concerned that they might be next for voting for them) the Democrats in America became known as the "victims."
Thanks to PLXIII's encouragement in Rerum Novarum to pipe up against traditional American Republicans, these victims began beefing about the jobs the Republicans made for them by investing in industry and risking it all on free commerce, job-producing capitalistic ventures. They handed out jobs to these "neo-victims" eagerly and even advanced those who showed initiative by showing up on time for work, for instance. You see, these otherwise hard-working people became convinced due to the anthem preached in Rerum Novarum that they were "victims" who should oppose all that the Republican Party stood for. Oppose Big Business! Oppose those with money and power! Oppose all those without whom we are dependent upon government handouts!
It began formally with Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal years but eventually moved through the Kennedy/Johnson administration's Great Society as well, thanks to the influence of fiercely committed Catholics in the Democratic Party. These "victims," who had before happily cashed the paychecks they earned by the sweat of their brow before Rerum Novarum, became today's breed of Democrats who stand in line, now, at a window in the government center to collect the "paycheck" doled out to them from Uncle Sam for doing nothing but standing there once a month with their hand out. And all those who work for a living and pay taxes to support their "jobs" are, in reality, their slaves.
In short, New Conservatives, i.e., "neo-cons," Shawn, are the traditionally Democratic Catholics who moved over to the Republican Party en masse on the abortion issue -- but who have yet to change their allegience to their pope. And they are often woefully ignorant altogether of the damage done to this country and its citizens by the foreign power of the papacy.
Well S, you deserve props for setting something down on paper. Give me some time to mull over what you wrote and I will see if I take issue with anything you say.
In scanning the thread briefly (I will read it more in detail later), you did not mention certain specificities I was looking for so I will highlight them here and ask for further input.
For example, do you think that these "neo-cons" have to have a particular position on certain issues other than abortion??? For example, does a "neo-con" have to have a particular position on the war in Iraq, on the death penalty, on environmental policy, on free trade, on government spending, on taxes, on labour, on mass transit, on "social justice", on civil rights, or on a myriad of other issues commonly bandied about by those who utilize (in a generally derisive fashion) that label of expression??? Are there certain issues noted above (or others I may have missed) which are prerequisites for being a "neo-con" and certain others which are more of an optional import??? Often certain people of Jewish descent are also referred to as "neo-cons" who are not Catholics (i.e. David Horowitz, Michael Medved) so I am wondering if catholicity is a non-negotiable requirement to be a "neo-con" or is it a frame of mind or reference that can be had by people of any demographic but merely is more common in the demographic you refer to above than in other demographics.
Seriously, I think these questions are good ones since we have here a term that is utilized a lot and not a few of its users are lacking interest in providing answers to these kinds of questions.
Why, I'd bet a dollar to a donut, Shawn, that you, in fact, are the epitome of a "neo-con." Right?
Not by your definition from what I can ascertain at a brief glance. But thanks for providing some pointers for consideration. If I can persuade you to respond to the questions I have in the paragraph above (for additional clarification), it would be appreciated.
To be Continued...
Notes:
{1} What is meant by motives of credibility are criteria that themselves contribute to substantiating the potential veracity of what is being asserted. Thus, for those who propagate and widely apply the term "neo con" who do not bother to provide said motives of credibility for their usage and application of that term, there is no reason to presume that they have any credibility on the matter in question.
{2} Though it had been mulled about for some time and discussed in private channels prior to the aforementioned audioposting.
Friday, December 02, 2005
A Long Overdue Rerum Novarum Update:
It has been nearly five months since this weblog was fully updated...easily the longest period without such an update. There are many reasons for this which your host does not care to go into at the moment except to note that there were three very minor updates made in that interim which bear noting. The first of these was done on October 4, 2005 and was primarily a weeding of the side margin of various articles -though a few sites were also added at that time and a few links renamed. The second one was done on October 6, 2005 and was basically your host receiving some assistance in template tweaking from Christopher Blosser to add to the side margin both a scrolling archives feature as well as a "last ten postings" feature as well to significantly cut down on side margin bulkage and make matters far more streamlined. There was then a third one where a link was added and the Religion of Peace logo was installed in the side margin. But we have finally gotten to the big update so let Us tend to it now without further ado...
Weblog Special Reports, Commemorations, Retrospectives, Miscellaneous Stuff, Etc…
Guest Editorial on Colleges and Their Lack of Faculty Diversity (Written by Tim Tull; Prefatory Comments by I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
On the Subject of Beer Revisited [>>>]
Miscellaneous Musings on Time--An Audio Post [>>>]
Remembering Chris [>>>]
My Political/SocialMusings…
On Political/Social Subjects in General
Briefly on the Karl Rove Situation [>>>]
Briefly on CAFTA and So-Called "Free Trade" [>>>]
Miscellaneous Musings on John Bolton, AirUnAmerica, Helen Thomas, and King County Corruption [>>>]
Briefly on Cindy Sheehan [>>>]
On the High Gas Prices and the Economics Involved Therein [>>>]
On Able Danger and A Potential Defense Department Coverup [>>>]
On the DeLay "Indictment " [>>>]
On the Miers Nomination and Activist Conservative Agendas (Dialogue with Kevin Tierney) [>>>]
Miscellaneous Mutterings on Polling--An Audio Post [>>>]
Briefly Revisiting Able Danger [>>>]
More on Harriet Miers (With Kevin Tierney) [>>>]
Wrapup Musings on the Miers Nomination [>>>]
On the Niger Uranium Document Forgeries [>>>]
Focus on Able Danger Stupid (Parts I-II) [>>>]
On the US Constitution, the Fundamental Rights of Man, Etc…
Points to Ponder on Normative Questions and Theories (Walter E. Williams) [>>>]
Points to Ponder on the Constitutional View of All Minority Groups (Allan Bloom) [>>>]
On Physician Assisted Suicide, the Supreme Court, and Original Intent--An Audio Post [>>>]
Briefly on Claude Frederic Bastiat and "The Law (With Christopher Blosser) [>>>]
On the Recent War and War in General
On Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Profound Problems With Ivory Tower Revisionist Pontifications [>>>]
Expanding Futher on the Subject of Double Effect Viz. the Atomic Bombings [>>>]
Threads on the Atomic Bomb Droppings, Military and Statistical Calculations, the Moral and Ethical Aspects of the Subject Matter in Question, Etc... (A Rerum Novarum Recapitulation Thread) [>>>]
Abstract Theorizing and Hypothetical Wartime Situations With SecretAgentMan (Parts I-II) [>>>]
Another Flawed Argument From Pseudo "Peacemakers" Bites the Dust [>>>]
On Political Election Topics
Dems Find No Vote Fraud in Ohio [>>>]
Election Voting Fraud Revisited [>>>]
Bridging Reason and Faith: My Philosophical/Ethical Musings…
On Particular Philosophical/Ethical Subjects
For Preserving the Historical Record [>>>]
Briefly on Making a Valid Argument and Avoiding Argumentation Fallacies [>>>]
On Dialogue and When it is a Waste of Time [>>>]
On Stephen Hand and Certain Statements He Needs to Account For [>>>]
Miscellaneous Musings on Dialogue--An Audio Post [>>>]
Points to Ponder on the Role of the Historian (Herbert Butterfield) [>>>]
Points to Ponder on the Myopic Vision of the Whig Historian (Herbert Butterfield) [>>>]
Miscellaneous Morning Musings on Blogging, the So-Called "Neo-Cons", and the Miers Nomination--An Audio Post [>>>]
Briefly Revisiting the Term "Neo-Con" and its Usage (With Christopher Blosser) [>>>]
Of or Pertaining to 'Progressivist' Philosophies (Falsely So-Called)
More on Marxists, Their Methodology, and Other Tidbits [>>>]
Points to Ponder on So-Called "Progressivism" as a Religion (David Horowitz) [>>>]
Points to Ponder on Openness (Allan Bloom) [>>>]
Miscellaneous Notes on the Hypocrisy of the "Bird Flu Epidemic" Crowd--An Audio Post [>>>]
My Theological Musings…
On the Mystery of the Church
"Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus" Dept. (Responding to a Critique) [>>>]
On Certain Controverted "Hotpoint" Theological Subjects
Very Briefly on Purgatory and Foundational Presuppositions [>>>]
Abrogated Threads:
Recommended* Articles on Various Subjects…
Recommended* Socio-Political Articles on Various Subjects
New York Times v. Janice Rogers Brown (Nat Hentoff) [>>>]
Are Liberals Begging For It? (Ronald Wieck) [>>>]
A Tale of Two Tax Cuts (Justin Lee Jones) [>>>]
The Democrats Sign Up With the Anti-Semites (Richard Baehr) [>>>]
Keep the Pressure on Your Senators to Nix a Gonzales Nomination (Steve Dillard) [>>>]
Will the Real News Fabricator Please Stand Up? (Debbie Schlussel) [>>>]
Alice in Realityland (Chrenkoff) [>>>]
Our Strange War - Looking Ahead, Our Options (Victor Davis Hanson) [>>>]
The Global Shift: The World Will Soon Better Appreciate the United States (Victor Davis Hanson) [>>>]
Why You Can't Believe Polls Anymore (Dick Morris) [>>>]
Pro-Democrat Vote Fraud Probed in Florida (Carl Limbacher) [>>>]
Let Rumsfeld Be (Victor Davis Hanson) [>>>]
A Dangerous Surplus of Sons? (David Glenn) [>>>]
Mexamerica , Here We Come (Patrick J. Buchanan) [>>>]
An Open Letter to the Hollywood Bunch (Charlie Daniels) [>>>]
Has the Counter-Revolution Begun? (Patrick J. Buchanan) [>>>]
An Open Letter to the Democratic Party (William J. Bennet) [>>>]
Innocent Religion is Now A Message of Hate (Abdel Rahman) [>>>]
John Kerry's Deadly Foreign Policy (Wilson C. Lucom) [>>>]
It's a Brave New World After Terri Schiavo Dies (Timothy Birdnow) [>>>]
Articles Added:
Recommended* Socio-Political Articles on Various Subjects
A War to Be Proud of (Christopher Hitchens) [>>>]
Louis Freeh: Let's Get Hearings On Able Dange (Captain Ed) [>>>]
Internet Rules--The Miers Denouement Shows The Power of the New Media (John Fund) [>>>]
First Fight Yourself, Then Society (Dennis Prager) [>>>]
Catholics For Marx (Fr. Robert Sirico) [>>>]
[A Certain So-Called "Peacemaker" and Their] Dick Durbinesque Definition of Torture (Greg Mockeridge) [>>>]
Reforming Social Security: Lessons from Thirty Counties (Michael DeBow) [>>>]
Why does the New York Times Insist on Calling Jihadists "Insurgents"? (Christopher Hitchens) [>>>]
The Friends of Cindy Sheehan (John Hindraker) [>>>]
DeLay's Prosecutor Offered "Dollars for Dismissals (Byron York) [>>>]
McCain Economy Bloc (Robert Novak) [>>>] >
Where the WMDs Went (Jamie Glasnov) [>>>]
Random Thoughts (Thomas Sowell) [>>>]
Bomb Technology Enters Iraq from Iran (Charles Aldinger) [>>>]
Ammunition For Poverty Pimps (Walter E. Williams) [>>>]
Do We Really Care About Children? (Walter E. Williams) [>>>]
Lefty Professors Crush Dissent (Beth Cleaver) [>>>]
UN Confirms: WMD smuggled out of Iraq? (The Anchoress) [>>>]
Recommended* Religious/Theological Articles on Various Subjects
Benedict XVI and Liturgical Reform (Dom Alcuin Reid OSB) [>>>]
War and the Eclipse of Moral Reasoning (Dr. Philip Blosser) [>>>]
All things to the contrary notwithstanding.
It has been nearly five months since this weblog was fully updated...easily the longest period without such an update. There are many reasons for this which your host does not care to go into at the moment except to note that there were three very minor updates made in that interim which bear noting. The first of these was done on October 4, 2005 and was primarily a weeding of the side margin of various articles -though a few sites were also added at that time and a few links renamed. The second one was done on October 6, 2005 and was basically your host receiving some assistance in template tweaking from Christopher Blosser to add to the side margin both a scrolling archives feature as well as a "last ten postings" feature as well to significantly cut down on side margin bulkage and make matters far more streamlined. There was then a third one where a link was added and the Religion of Peace logo was installed in the side margin. But we have finally gotten to the big update so let Us tend to it now without further ado...
Weblog Special Reports, Commemorations, Retrospectives, Miscellaneous Stuff, Etc…
Guest Editorial on Colleges and Their Lack of Faculty Diversity (Written by Tim Tull; Prefatory Comments by I. Shawn McElhinney) [>>>]
On the Subject of Beer Revisited [>>>]
Miscellaneous Musings on Time--An Audio Post [>>>]
Remembering Chris [>>>]
My Political/SocialMusings…
On Political/Social Subjects in General
Briefly on the Karl Rove Situation [>>>]
Briefly on CAFTA and So-Called "Free Trade" [>>>]
Miscellaneous Musings on John Bolton, Air
Briefly on Cindy Sheehan [>>>]
On the High Gas Prices and the Economics Involved Therein [>>>]
On Able Danger and A Potential Defense Department Coverup [>>>]
On the DeLay "Indictment " [>>>]
On the Miers Nomination and Activist Conservative Agendas (Dialogue with Kevin Tierney) [>>>]
Miscellaneous Mutterings on Polling--An Audio Post [>>>]
Briefly Revisiting Able Danger [>>>]
More on Harriet Miers (With Kevin Tierney) [>>>]
Wrapup Musings on the Miers Nomination [>>>]
On the Niger Uranium Document Forgeries [>>>]
Focus on Able Danger Stupid (Parts I-II) [>>>]
On the US Constitution, the Fundamental Rights of Man, Etc…
Points to Ponder on Normative Questions and Theories (Walter E. Williams) [>>>]
Points to Ponder on the Constitutional View of All Minority Groups (Allan Bloom) [>>>]
On Physician Assisted Suicide, the Supreme Court, and Original Intent--An Audio Post [>>>]
Briefly on Claude Frederic Bastiat and "The Law (With Christopher Blosser) [>>>]
On the Recent War and War in General
On Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Profound Problems With Ivory Tower Revisionist Pontifications [>>>]
Expanding Futher on the Subject of Double Effect Viz. the Atomic Bombings [>>>]
Threads on the Atomic Bomb Droppings, Military and Statistical Calculations, the Moral and Ethical Aspects of the Subject Matter in Question, Etc... (A Rerum Novarum Recapitulation Thread) [>>>]
Abstract Theorizing and Hypothetical Wartime Situations With SecretAgentMan (Parts I-II) [>>>]
Another Flawed Argument From Pseudo "Peacemakers" Bites the Dust [>>>]
On Political Election Topics
Dems Find No Vote Fraud in Ohio [>>>]
Election Voting Fraud Revisited [>>>]
Bridging Reason and Faith: My Philosophical/Ethical Musings…
On Particular Philosophical/Ethical Subjects
For Preserving the Historical Record [>>>]
Briefly on Making a Valid Argument and Avoiding Argumentation Fallacies [>>>]
On Dialogue and When it is a Waste of Time [>>>]
On Stephen Hand and Certain Statements He Needs to Account For [>>>]
Miscellaneous Musings on Dialogue--An Audio Post [>>>]
Points to Ponder on the Role of the Historian (Herbert Butterfield) [>>>]
Points to Ponder on the Myopic Vision of the Whig Historian (Herbert Butterfield) [>>>]
Miscellaneous Morning Musings on Blogging, the So-Called "Neo-Cons", and the Miers Nomination--An Audio Post [>>>]
Briefly Revisiting the Term "Neo-Con" and its Usage (With Christopher Blosser) [>>>]
Of or Pertaining to 'Progressivist' Philosophies (Falsely So-Called)
More on Marxists, Their Methodology, and Other Tidbits [>>>]
Points to Ponder on So-Called "Progressivism" as a Religion (David Horowitz) [>>>]
Points to Ponder on Openness (Allan Bloom) [>>>]
Miscellaneous Notes on the Hypocrisy of the "Bird Flu Epidemic" Crowd--An Audio Post [>>>]
My Theological Musings…
On the Mystery of the Church
"Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus" Dept. (Responding to a Critique) [>>>]
On Certain Controverted "Hotpoint" Theological Subjects
Very Briefly on Purgatory and Foundational Presuppositions [>>>]
Abrogated Threads:
Recommended* Articles on Various Subjects…
Recommended* Socio-Political Articles on Various Subjects
New York Times v. Janice Rogers Brown (Nat Hentoff) [>>>]
Are Liberals Begging For It? (Ronald Wieck) [>>>]
A Tale of Two Tax Cuts (Justin Lee Jones) [>>>]
The Democrats Sign Up With the Anti-Semites (Richard Baehr) [>>>]
Keep the Pressure on Your Senators to Nix a Gonzales Nomination (Steve Dillard) [>>>]
Will the Real News Fabricator Please Stand Up? (Debbie Schlussel) [>>>]
Alice in Realityland (Chrenkoff) [>>>]
Our Strange War - Looking Ahead, Our Options (Victor Davis Hanson) [>>>]
The Global Shift: The World Will Soon Better Appreciate the United States (Victor Davis Hanson) [>>>]
Why You Can't Believe Polls Anymore (Dick Morris) [>>>]
Pro-Democrat Vote Fraud Probed in Florida (Carl Limbacher) [>>>]
Let Rumsfeld Be (Victor Davis Hanson) [>>>]
A Dangerous Surplus of Sons? (David Glenn) [>>>]
Mexamerica , Here We Come (Patrick J. Buchanan) [>>>]
An Open Letter to the Hollywood Bunch (Charlie Daniels) [>>>]
Has the Counter-Revolution Begun? (Patrick J. Buchanan) [>>>]
An Open Letter to the Democratic Party (William J. Bennet) [>>>]
Innocent Religion is Now A Message of Hate (Abdel Rahman) [>>>]
John Kerry's Deadly Foreign Policy (Wilson C. Lucom) [>>>]
It's a Brave New World After Terri Schiavo Dies (Timothy Birdnow) [>>>]
Articles Added:
Recommended* Socio-Political Articles on Various Subjects
A War to Be Proud of (Christopher Hitchens) [>>>]
Louis Freeh: Let's Get Hearings On Able Dange (Captain Ed) [>>>]
Internet Rules--The Miers Denouement Shows The Power of the New Media (John Fund) [>>>]
First Fight Yourself, Then Society (Dennis Prager) [>>>]
Catholics For Marx (Fr. Robert Sirico) [>>>]
[A Certain So-Called "Peacemaker" and Their] Dick Durbinesque Definition of Torture (Greg Mockeridge) [>>>]
Reforming Social Security: Lessons from Thirty Counties (Michael DeBow) [>>>]
Why does the New York Times Insist on Calling Jihadists "Insurgents"? (Christopher Hitchens) [>>>]
The Friends of Cindy Sheehan (John Hindraker) [>>>]
DeLay's Prosecutor Offered "Dollars for Dismissals (Byron York) [>>>]
McCain Economy Bloc (Robert Novak) [>>>] >
Where the WMDs Went (Jamie Glasnov) [>>>]
Random Thoughts (Thomas Sowell) [>>>]
Bomb Technology Enters Iraq from Iran (Charles Aldinger) [>>>]
Ammunition For Poverty Pimps (Walter E. Williams) [>>>]
Do We Really Care About Children? (Walter E. Williams) [>>>]
Lefty Professors Crush Dissent (Beth Cleaver) [>>>]
UN Confirms: WMD smuggled out of Iraq? (The Anchoress) [>>>]
Recommended* Religious/Theological Articles on Various Subjects
Benedict XVI and Liturgical Reform (Dom Alcuin Reid OSB) [>>>]
War and the Eclipse of Moral Reasoning (Dr. Philip Blosser) [>>>]
All things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)