Some Principles For Authentic Dialogue and the Proper Use of Sources in Papers:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Certainly some of these subjects have been posted on over the years by the present writer in various mediums.{1} However, the subject of authentic dialogue and how to conduct it is one that is still appropriate to touch on from time to time -particularly after the kind of public spats that have taken place and to which those of Us at Rerum Novarum were unfortunately drawn into recently. It also seems appropriate at this time to touch on some of the principles that should be utilized whenever sources are quoted in a paper purporting to set forth a position on any subject.
For that reason (and without any intention of completion), the purpose of this thread will be to touch on some key points in a summary fashion which the present writer may take and develop further in the coming weeks and months if the time and inclination to do so converge to facilitate that endeavour. Nonetheless, authentic dialogue should facilitate these characteristics (as noted in blue font):
---Striving to enter into the viewpoint of the other person as much as you possibly can.
This is done to best try and understand where they are coming from. Rarely is this practiced today by anyone but it is an indispensible part of the equation of authentic dialogue. How is one to do this??? It starts with the next point to be covered...
---Listening to what someone actually says and taking time to assimilate their arguments into the collective of your mind.
Without mentioning any names, your host can think of many people who think they know how to dialogue but who appear to evince no familiarity whatsoever at times with those two key elements of authentic dialogue. Listening does not mean scanning the words of someone to immediately throw together a half-baked (if even that) "response" which demonstrates that you did not bother to take in what they actually said. That brings us to the next point to be touched on...
---Striving to conform ones approaches to the canons of traditional charity as much as one feasibly can.
This is also important. With variations in views one encounters differing interpretations of data, etc. and it is anathema to authentic dialogue to either presume that apparent incongruities in someone's statements are a result of deliberate obstinence without a reasonable degree of evidence to do so first.{2}
---Seeking to properly represent the positions of the other person in accordance with objective criteria.
This means do not engage in petitio principii methodology or trying to find cute ways to redefine matters apart from how they are objectively assessed.{3}
---Seeking to at all times respect the wishes of the other person viz. the manner in which one seeks dialogue in various mediums.
If there is any area that sets your host off like a Roman candle on the fourth of July it is this one. One of the reasons there is a Welborn Protocol at this weblog is because email is a very good source for writing topics and it enables for interaction with readers on topics covered at this weblog without the hassle of messing with comments boxes and the general low grade of stuff that those things engender as a rule.{4} Certainly every posting protocol has regulations of which seldom need to be mentioned...though recently at this humble weblog they did{5} due to an unfortunate circumstance not to be delved into at the moment due to a lack of time and desire to do so.
Nonetheless, it should not be presumed that any correspondence in the private forum can be taken public without the concurrence of the parties involved in the correspondence. (Either explicitly or tacitly.) In the case of your humble weblog host, he almost always explicitly notes somewhere in a private text that such a text may be blogged later on with the parties involved not mentioned by name. Those who do not make a similar disclosure to those they discuss matters with privately engage in an egregious violation of the sanctity of the private forum which should be treated almost as if it is a confessional in some respects...and no, that is not seen by your host as an exaggeration for reasons{6} not about to be dealt with in detail here.
The reason your host almost always refers to people anonymously in posting such threads (when they are posted at all which is not often) is because the purpose of dialogue is not to seek in it our own advantages. This is one of the points made clear by Paul VI in Ecclesiam Suam and which was covered by Us in a commentary on dialogue and its intricacies written a few years ago.{7} Those who wonder why your host has as a rule{8} not referred to individuals in his writings over the years and why that practice will remain intact in the future will now know the reason for that. In a sentence: to mention names generally distracts from the issues of discussion and introduces personalities into the mix. Once the latter happens, it is very difficult if not impossible to have an authentic dialogue if one of those parties is a grandstander or otherwise tries to draw attention to themselves.
Another way of saying it is this: the focus belongs not on the persons but instead on the arguments. That is the only way to try and check egos from coming into the equation and we all know what happens to any semblence of a decent discussion once that happens so no more needs to be said on that point.
---Make actual arguments for a position rather than merely give the opinions of others as if said opinions constitute an actual argument in and of themselves.
This should be self-evident but alas, often it is not.
---In citing sources, concern for proper context should be viewed to be of importance.
Once again, this should be self-evident but it is not. One of the reasons your host so often links to his sources in essay writings or on this weblog is so that it can be verified that he is quoting those sources correctly and not absent proper context. Obviously this cannot always be done since sometimes one must quote a source that cannot be found on the web. However, by disclosing web sources when they are utilized as a rule, the reader can recognize that the present writer quotes sources correctly and thus implicitly trust him when he quotes from a source they may not have access to.
The converse principle is also true in that those who demonstrate that they cannot be trusted in quoting sources which can be verified should not be trusted to quote accurately sources which they cite and the reader cannot verify. But enough on that point for now.
---In utilizing any source with a degree of controversion pertaining to it, factors which may bias that source should be disclosed to the readers if they either are known or can be reasonably ascertained.
For example, consider if this writer was to quote the Institute of Historical Review as a source critical of the Holocaust and the number of Jewish deaths and not reveal that the IHR was comprised of no small number of former Nazis and other unsavoury characters with an obvious agenda. If that were to happen, then this writer would be failing to practice proper disclosure of the source viz. certain key factors biasing the source's view. As a result, he would be deserving of a rebuke of no small degree by his contemporaries in no uncertain terms.{9}
---There should always be a strong hesitancy against making any kind of strong and opinionated public assertions on an issue where the person in question has minimal knowledge (if any) on.
Those who would presume to act in that fashion should not be surprised when they are treated less than amicably in the process...particularly if in doing so they also find themselves violating any of the other principles noted briefly in this posting.
While it is obvious that more could be covered on this matter than is covered by Us above; nonetheless, what is dealt with here suffices for a brief outline of certain principles for conducting an authentic dialogue and representing an argument accurately, non-fallaciously, and with scholarly integrity.
Notes:
{1} Here are some of the threads posted on this subject by your host in recent years -either directly on the matter in question or indirectly as examples of methodology:
Miscellaneous Musings on Dialogue--An Audio Post (circa October 6, 2005)
On Dialogue and When it is a Waste of Time (circa September 27, 2005)
Clarifying Some Additional Points on the Atomic Bombing Subject With Dave Armstrong (circa August 28, 2005)
Musings on the Subject of Authentic Dialogue (circa May 20, 2005)
Prelude to a Potential Dialogue on the Subject of Foundational Presuppositions (circa April 18, 2005)
On Historical Figures, Development of Doctrine, and Briefly on Different Views of Historical People and Events With Tim Enloe (circa October 21, 2004)
On the War, Moral and Constitutional Principles, "Supporting the Troops", Etc. With SecretAgentMan (circa August 20, 2004)
On Marriage, the Supreme Court, Law in General, Etc. With Charles M. de Nunzio (circa June 2, 2004)
Society's Ills, the Function of Law in a Just Society, Etc. With Kevin Tierney (circa April 16, 2004)
Reprising a Request for Dialogue on Foundational Premises (circa March 14, 2004)
Brief Response and a Request to Tim Enloe (circa February 22, 2004)
On the Intricacies of Dialogue - A Commentary (circa December 16, 2003)
{2} This is what could be called motives of credibility. Admittedly, your host has a habit of giving a lot of leeway to people (particularly friends) up to a certain point where this is no longer possible. At that point, the benenfit of the doubt is cut off and not easily re-established without evidence of reasonable repentence on the part of the aforementioned parties for their past indiscretions.
{3} One example of many I can think of is making an obviously fallacious usage of argumentum ad veridunciam (argument to authority) and then trying to dress it up in ways to explain away your fallacy.
{4} This writer is hardly going to completely dismiss comments boxes of course since some of the ideas posted on this very weblog (or even whole posts sometimes) have been from material originally posted to comments boxes. There is almost always refinement of such material before it is posted of course -and not infrequently points barely touched on at all originally are developed further in said postings or later on as deemed necessary.
{5} Clarifying My Policy Viz. Private Correspondence--A Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG post (circa January 27, 2006)
{6} There is another principle I have always followed and essentially it is this: if someone sends me a note requesting confidentiality on a particular subject matter, I almost always consider all subsequent emails sent on that subject matter from that emailer to have the same promise of confidentiality that I make when responding to the first note in the series. The reason for this should be obvious: they had already requested the thread to be private so by logical extension subsequent installments are also covered by that cloak unless or until the sender consents at some point for that material to be posted. As a result of this, I get emails from time to time from people who would be considered (by the casual reader) "public enemies" of mine where they do not specify confidentiality and their stuff does not get posted. The reason for this is spelled out in the principle as noted above. [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa January 27, 2006)]
{7} On the Intricacies of Dialogue - A Commentary (circa December 16, 2003)
{8} The emphasis here belongs on as a rule because sometimes when it seems to be helpful or has been deemed necessary due to certain circumstances, your host has mentioned people by name. In the case of the former it is usually with those who do not try to inject personalities into the dialogue but prefer to stick to ideas. In the case of the latter, it is those who in some fashion or another egregiously misrepresent what your host or someone else has written and gives every appearance of doing so deliberately to appeal to the peanut gallery or for some other reason.
Like zeal which has many counterfeits which masquerade under its name, there are more counterfeits than authentic coinage in the dialogual currency. And the fraudulent dialoguists can find themselves sometimes on the receiving end of a fisking by Us...the ferocity of which is generally in direct proportion to their mockery of the concept of authentic dialogue and practicing basic aspects of scholarly inquiry.
{9} And (of course) the proper and ethical thing to do at that point would be to correct the source by inserting a disclosure or deleting the source and apologizing for using it to begin with. (Not pretending that usage of such a source in that fashion or a similar one was in any sense okay to do.)
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Points to Ponder:
(On Reality)
If the denial of the Seahawks’ first quarter touchdown was the correct call and the awarding of the Steelers’ first second quarter touchdown was the correct call, then we’re obviously living in a world where I’m going to win the Nobel Prize for Physics next year. I’ll start writing my speech. [Kieran Healy (circa February 6, 2006)]
(On Reality)
If the denial of the Seahawks’ first quarter touchdown was the correct call and the awarding of the Steelers’ first second quarter touchdown was the correct call, then we’re obviously living in a world where I’m going to win the Nobel Prize for Physics next year. I’ll start writing my speech. [Kieran Healy (circa February 6, 2006)]
Synopsis on the Superbowl:
(Aka "None Dare Call it a Conspiracy" Dept.)
Briefly from the mailbag...
I was predicting 28 to 10, Steelers. I was right about Seattle, but one touchdown off for Pittsburgh. If they didn't through that interception at the 2 yard line, I am sure they would have scored a touchdown.
Presumably some may have thought who read this weblog that your host was gonna slink off quietly after his prediction of a Seahawk victory in the Superbowl did not come about. That would not be Our style at all so we admit it up front here before going into a synosis on what happened: OUR PREDICTION WAS WRONG. Not for the reasons some might think but it was wrong nonetheless. There, having noted that and after correcting an A1 error or blown prediction on A1, let Us move onto the aforenoted synopsis.
To start with, it should have been 24-0 Hawks at halftime. The fieldgoal misses were odd cause Josh Brown almost always hits from 50 and beyond on the fieldgoals. Receivers were open all day but the most often used target of the day (the 6'7" tightend Jeremy Stevens) had his usually reliable hands fail him for some reason.
The Steelers were unable to move the ball for most of the game. But the Hawks shot themselves in the foot too many times. However (and this must be said cause it was true) the refs did not help either...the coincidence of three of those calls sure gives at a minimum the appearance of impropriety if not a fix. Part of the reason instant replay was put into the game was because of crap like that but it does not help when referees do not do their job in reviewing the tape.
On three of the plays, Stevie Wonder could have done a better job with the officiating!!! For example, Darryl Jackson of the Hawks was called for a foul where he did not touch the other guy, there was that stupid so-called "low-blocking" call back when Jackson made another reception for about 40 yards for first and goal at the 3 (there was no penalty on that play). Ben Roethlisberger's so-called "touchdown" where the ball did not break the plane of the goalline, etc.{1} To the credit of Chris Berman, Steve Young, and Michael Irvin, they pointed those things out...hell, Irvin made a career out of the kind of contact Jackson was supposedly called for without being called. Once again, the bias against small market teams was evident{2} and it sickens Us to no end to see it cause the game should be left to the players not the officials.
The bottom line is, the so-called "finesse team" roughed up the big bad Steelers as We knew they would. So in giving out the MVP award, give it to those whom it belongs: the referees. The better team definitely did not get the trophy but We see nothing keeping the Hawks from returning next year provided that they have less injuries than they had this year.{3} They exceeded Our preseason predictions this year so it was in that sense a very good year. And if they do go next year, We intend to be there in person.
Oh and to those who made drinks bets with Us need not worry as We will pay up on them in due time. But those people would do well to remember that that in paying them back as We will to return the debt by buying a round for your NFL Superbowl referees, the real "MVP's" of that game without question.
Addendum:
Interestingly enough, two third string players factored in the game...the third string safety missing a key read that resulted in the 75 yard touchdown run and a third string cornerback with the fourth quarter interception.
It should be noted lest anyone think We have an animus against Pittsburgh in saying these things that nothing is further from the truth. They have been Our second favourite team for years, We like Cowher as a coach and Bettis is one for whom We wish the best no matter what he does in the offseason. But the truth is, they were beaten up by a better team and east coast big market bias was a factor again in a professional sport playoff or championship game. And while it happens in all the leagues and the NFL is hardly unique, they claim to be the premiere professional league in all of sports so they should show it by causing some heads to roll after this fiasco...starting with some of those who officiated that game!!! That is all on this subject for now...
Notes:
{1} It is quite likely that if that play was called correctly that Cowher would have gone for a fieldgoal and they would have made it from that distance. (Not wanting to fail on a fourth down attempt that early in the game.)
{2} Ala Michael Jordan back in the day traveling enough in the paint to rack up a free ticket to the moon and was almost never called whereas a rookie player doing the exact same stuff being repeatedly called for the exact same thing. Veteran pitchers like Glavine and Maddux getting an extra ball or two on the outside of the plate called a strike whereas a rookie with a throw in exactly the same place getting it called as a ball, etc. Wethinks some of the refs had bets on the spread or something cause the three plays mentioned above in how they were called smelled worse than a portapotty three months overdue for servicing.
{3} No team in football was missing more key starters throughout the year at larger intervals than the Hawks did and they still managed to make it to the big dance. If Alexander is resigned and Strong does not retire, the offense will return intact and the defense everyone thought would stink this year will be even better still.
(Aka "None Dare Call it a Conspiracy" Dept.)
Briefly from the mailbag...
I was predicting 28 to 10, Steelers. I was right about Seattle, but one touchdown off for Pittsburgh. If they didn't through that interception at the 2 yard line, I am sure they would have scored a touchdown.
Presumably some may have thought who read this weblog that your host was gonna slink off quietly after his prediction of a Seahawk victory in the Superbowl did not come about. That would not be Our style at all so we admit it up front here before going into a synosis on what happened: OUR PREDICTION WAS WRONG. Not for the reasons some might think but it was wrong nonetheless. There, having noted that and after correcting an A1 error or blown prediction on A1, let Us move onto the aforenoted synopsis.
To start with, it should have been 24-0 Hawks at halftime. The fieldgoal misses were odd cause Josh Brown almost always hits from 50 and beyond on the fieldgoals. Receivers were open all day but the most often used target of the day (the 6'7" tightend Jeremy Stevens) had his usually reliable hands fail him for some reason.
The Steelers were unable to move the ball for most of the game. But the Hawks shot themselves in the foot too many times. However (and this must be said cause it was true) the refs did not help either...the coincidence of three of those calls sure gives at a minimum the appearance of impropriety if not a fix. Part of the reason instant replay was put into the game was because of crap like that but it does not help when referees do not do their job in reviewing the tape.
On three of the plays, Stevie Wonder could have done a better job with the officiating!!! For example, Darryl Jackson of the Hawks was called for a foul where he did not touch the other guy, there was that stupid so-called "low-blocking" call back when Jackson made another reception for about 40 yards for first and goal at the 3 (there was no penalty on that play). Ben Roethlisberger's so-called "touchdown" where the ball did not break the plane of the goalline, etc.{1} To the credit of Chris Berman, Steve Young, and Michael Irvin, they pointed those things out...hell, Irvin made a career out of the kind of contact Jackson was supposedly called for without being called. Once again, the bias against small market teams was evident{2} and it sickens Us to no end to see it cause the game should be left to the players not the officials.
The bottom line is, the so-called "finesse team" roughed up the big bad Steelers as We knew they would. So in giving out the MVP award, give it to those whom it belongs: the referees. The better team definitely did not get the trophy but We see nothing keeping the Hawks from returning next year provided that they have less injuries than they had this year.{3} They exceeded Our preseason predictions this year so it was in that sense a very good year. And if they do go next year, We intend to be there in person.
Oh and to those who made drinks bets with Us need not worry as We will pay up on them in due time. But those people would do well to remember that that in paying them back as We will to return the debt by buying a round for your NFL Superbowl referees, the real "MVP's" of that game without question.
Addendum:
Interestingly enough, two third string players factored in the game...the third string safety missing a key read that resulted in the 75 yard touchdown run and a third string cornerback with the fourth quarter interception.
It should be noted lest anyone think We have an animus against Pittsburgh in saying these things that nothing is further from the truth. They have been Our second favourite team for years, We like Cowher as a coach and Bettis is one for whom We wish the best no matter what he does in the offseason. But the truth is, they were beaten up by a better team and east coast big market bias was a factor again in a professional sport playoff or championship game. And while it happens in all the leagues and the NFL is hardly unique, they claim to be the premiere professional league in all of sports so they should show it by causing some heads to roll after this fiasco...starting with some of those who officiated that game!!! That is all on this subject for now...
Notes:
{1} It is quite likely that if that play was called correctly that Cowher would have gone for a fieldgoal and they would have made it from that distance. (Not wanting to fail on a fourth down attempt that early in the game.)
{2} Ala Michael Jordan back in the day traveling enough in the paint to rack up a free ticket to the moon and was almost never called whereas a rookie player doing the exact same stuff being repeatedly called for the exact same thing. Veteran pitchers like Glavine and Maddux getting an extra ball or two on the outside of the plate called a strike whereas a rookie with a throw in exactly the same place getting it called as a ball, etc. Wethinks some of the refs had bets on the spread or something cause the three plays mentioned above in how they were called smelled worse than a portapotty three months overdue for servicing.
{3} No team in football was missing more key starters throughout the year at larger intervals than the Hawks did and they still managed to make it to the big dance. If Alexander is resigned and Strong does not retire, the offense will return intact and the defense everyone thought would stink this year will be even better still.
Saturday, February 04, 2006
"Dogmatic Theology Five Cents, The Doctor is In" Dept.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
On occasion your host has seen a need for various and sundry reasons to expound on intricacies of theological matters as a result of variegated subject matters requiring it, circumstances surrounding certain subject matter, particular persons endeavouring to discuss them, etc. However, there is no intention to deal with specifics per se in this posting, merely certain theological presuppositions that must inform a mature and accurate elucidation of more complex theological/philosophical/geopolitical/ethical subject matters. These are matters that even those who are at times touted as presumed "experts" in any of those fields often approach myopically for more reasons than can be noted in a brief posting such as this. Nonetheless, it suffices to denote here a key factor that gets to the root and matrix of facile or otherwise specious commentaries on more complex and nuanced subject matter so here goes.
With general norms, one has to tread carefully and this is a subject not often understood even by many who are considered "experts" in these matters. This is part of the reason why your host rolls his eyes when those with partisan agendas quote too freely from certain portions of Gaudium et Spes or from any source without taking into account certain factors which mitigate against a false interpretation (and thus misrepresentation of) those sources. To go into details on this at the present time is not viewed as necessary but briefly: there are magisterial sources and there are sources which are not magisterial. Failing to make a proper distinction here is a common problem{1} another is failing to be careful in the citing of sources which are magisterial such as Gaudium et Spes. The Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium gave a not-so-subtle hint to some of the factors involved in a proper interpretation of texts when it noted with regards to the pope's statements the following points:
[R]eligious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. [Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium 25 (circa November 21, 1964)]
These are certainly not the only ingredients involved in the equation but they are key ones and in this post, we will focus them now on the document Gaudium et Spes. To start with, it is a Pastoral Constitution which means it probably has fairly low authority compared to many of the other documents from the synod. Certainly it is trumped by the dogmatic constitutions and the declarations of teaching. It is probably more authoritative than a decree but that is to some extent speculative and cannot therefore be presumed. Nonetheless, it is certainly a magisterial text so it carries some degree of authority to it...of this no Catholic could deny. So we have established the nature of the document. And as repetition of a teaching applies to not a particular text but to a teaching across a spectrum of texts, that criteria would not be a factor here. That brings us to the manner of speaking.
A frequently overlooked clarifying note in that text explains the manifested intentions of the document and its contents in this fashion:
The Pastoral Constitution "De Ecclesia in Mundo Huius Temporis" is made up of two parts; yet it constitutes an organic unity. By way of explanation: the constitution is called "pastoral" because, while resting on doctrinal principles, it seeks to express the relation of the Church to the world and modern mankind. The result is that, on the one hand, a pastoral slant is present in the first part, and, on the other hand, a doctrinal slant is present in the second part. In the first part, the Church develops her teaching on man, on the world which is the enveloping context of man's existence, and on man's relations to his fellow men. In part two, the Church gives closer consideration to various aspects of modern life and human society; special consideration is given to those questions and problems which, in this general area, seem to have a greater urgency in our day. As a result in part two the subject matter which is viewed in the light of doctrinal principles is made up of diverse elements. Some elements have a permanent value; others, only a transitory one. Consequently, the constitution must be interpreted according to the general norms of theological interpretation. Interpreters must bear in mind-especially in part two-the changeable circumstances which the subject matter , by its very nature, involves. [Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes Preface Footnote (circa December 7, 1965)]
This is why one cannot haphazardly reference any text and properly represent the intention manifested thereof. Even with magisterial texts, there is a gradation involved and GS in particular contains this in the second part of the text not only by the nature of the material covered but even by its own textual admission.
Now then, there are certain themes in the second part of the the text which are touched on briefly and they include the following ones (major chapter headings in black font, subsections in blue):
Marriage and the family (GS 46-52)
The Proper Development of Culture (GS 53-62)
---The Circumstances of Culture in the World Today (GS 54-56)
---Some Principles for the Proper Development of Culture (GS 57-59)
---Some More Urgent Duties of Christians in Regard to Culture (GS 60-62)
Economic and Social Life (GS 63-72)
---Economic Development (GS 64-66)
---Certain Principles Governing Socio-Economic Life as a Whole (GS 67-72)
The Life of the Political Community (GS 73-76)
The Fostering of Peace and the Promotion of a Community of Nations (GS 77-92)
---The Avoidance of War (GS 79-82)
---Setting Up An International Community (GS 83-93)
It bears noting that much of this section from GS 46-72 probably retains its value in light of subsequent magisterial pronouncements (and further developments still) by Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II. The subjects covered in those texts were also dealt with in subsequent apostolic letters, encyclicals, exhortations, etc. by those popes. From GS 73 onward though (particularly from GS 77 onward), the text becomes more transient and speculative and thus (by theological norms of interpretation) cannot be given the same benefit of the doubt as the previously noted sections. Pope John Paul II made it very clear more than once that he viewed the UN as being in need of replacement{1} and the whole "avoidance of war" subject has been put into a new situation in light of technological advances which have mitigated the situation the world found itself in at that time viz. war armarments.
Now certainly much more could be noted than this but what is done in this brief treatment will have to suffice for now. Hopefully it is clear by what is denoted above why your host and not a few others roll their eyes and have no respect whatsoever for the manner which many ideologues misquote sources to try and fill in for the lacuna of solid arguments for their positions. This is done by neophytes as well as even many seasoned apologists, social commentators, etc so by no means is it a localized problem at all but instead one that is more universal in its scope. And while normally these factors do not come up when dealing with boilerplate issues, with geopolitical matters and more complex moral/ethical matters, there is quite a minefield out there. Far too often (and with an alarming frequency in recent years), seasoned apologists social commentators, etc. have stepped on those mines with regrettable yet predictable results.
The bottom line is that no Catholic should presume that because they may be able to adequately discuss matters with a clear magisterial sanction on them that they can likewise do so where there is a lack of similar clarity involved. Or put another way: social commentary and the analysis of more complex geopolitical factors should be left to those who know how to do it.
Note:
{1} And yes, this could be demonstrated lest anyone wonder about the veracity of this assertion by the present writer.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
On occasion your host has seen a need for various and sundry reasons to expound on intricacies of theological matters as a result of variegated subject matters requiring it, circumstances surrounding certain subject matter, particular persons endeavouring to discuss them, etc. However, there is no intention to deal with specifics per se in this posting, merely certain theological presuppositions that must inform a mature and accurate elucidation of more complex theological/philosophical/geopolitical/ethical subject matters. These are matters that even those who are at times touted as presumed "experts" in any of those fields often approach myopically for more reasons than can be noted in a brief posting such as this. Nonetheless, it suffices to denote here a key factor that gets to the root and matrix of facile or otherwise specious commentaries on more complex and nuanced subject matter so here goes.
With general norms, one has to tread carefully and this is a subject not often understood even by many who are considered "experts" in these matters. This is part of the reason why your host rolls his eyes when those with partisan agendas quote too freely from certain portions of Gaudium et Spes or from any source without taking into account certain factors which mitigate against a false interpretation (and thus misrepresentation of) those sources. To go into details on this at the present time is not viewed as necessary but briefly: there are magisterial sources and there are sources which are not magisterial. Failing to make a proper distinction here is a common problem{1} another is failing to be careful in the citing of sources which are magisterial such as Gaudium et Spes. The Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium gave a not-so-subtle hint to some of the factors involved in a proper interpretation of texts when it noted with regards to the pope's statements the following points:
[R]eligious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. [Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium 25 (circa November 21, 1964)]
These are certainly not the only ingredients involved in the equation but they are key ones and in this post, we will focus them now on the document Gaudium et Spes. To start with, it is a Pastoral Constitution which means it probably has fairly low authority compared to many of the other documents from the synod. Certainly it is trumped by the dogmatic constitutions and the declarations of teaching. It is probably more authoritative than a decree but that is to some extent speculative and cannot therefore be presumed. Nonetheless, it is certainly a magisterial text so it carries some degree of authority to it...of this no Catholic could deny. So we have established the nature of the document. And as repetition of a teaching applies to not a particular text but to a teaching across a spectrum of texts, that criteria would not be a factor here. That brings us to the manner of speaking.
A frequently overlooked clarifying note in that text explains the manifested intentions of the document and its contents in this fashion:
The Pastoral Constitution "De Ecclesia in Mundo Huius Temporis" is made up of two parts; yet it constitutes an organic unity. By way of explanation: the constitution is called "pastoral" because, while resting on doctrinal principles, it seeks to express the relation of the Church to the world and modern mankind. The result is that, on the one hand, a pastoral slant is present in the first part, and, on the other hand, a doctrinal slant is present in the second part. In the first part, the Church develops her teaching on man, on the world which is the enveloping context of man's existence, and on man's relations to his fellow men. In part two, the Church gives closer consideration to various aspects of modern life and human society; special consideration is given to those questions and problems which, in this general area, seem to have a greater urgency in our day. As a result in part two the subject matter which is viewed in the light of doctrinal principles is made up of diverse elements. Some elements have a permanent value; others, only a transitory one. Consequently, the constitution must be interpreted according to the general norms of theological interpretation. Interpreters must bear in mind-especially in part two-the changeable circumstances which the subject matter , by its very nature, involves. [Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes Preface Footnote (circa December 7, 1965)]
This is why one cannot haphazardly reference any text and properly represent the intention manifested thereof. Even with magisterial texts, there is a gradation involved and GS in particular contains this in the second part of the text not only by the nature of the material covered but even by its own textual admission.
Now then, there are certain themes in the second part of the the text which are touched on briefly and they include the following ones (major chapter headings in black font, subsections in blue):
Marriage and the family (GS 46-52)
The Proper Development of Culture (GS 53-62)
---The Circumstances of Culture in the World Today (GS 54-56)
---Some Principles for the Proper Development of Culture (GS 57-59)
---Some More Urgent Duties of Christians in Regard to Culture (GS 60-62)
Economic and Social Life (GS 63-72)
---Economic Development (GS 64-66)
---Certain Principles Governing Socio-Economic Life as a Whole (GS 67-72)
The Life of the Political Community (GS 73-76)
The Fostering of Peace and the Promotion of a Community of Nations (GS 77-92)
---The Avoidance of War (GS 79-82)
---Setting Up An International Community (GS 83-93)
It bears noting that much of this section from GS 46-72 probably retains its value in light of subsequent magisterial pronouncements (and further developments still) by Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II. The subjects covered in those texts were also dealt with in subsequent apostolic letters, encyclicals, exhortations, etc. by those popes. From GS 73 onward though (particularly from GS 77 onward), the text becomes more transient and speculative and thus (by theological norms of interpretation) cannot be given the same benefit of the doubt as the previously noted sections. Pope John Paul II made it very clear more than once that he viewed the UN as being in need of replacement{1} and the whole "avoidance of war" subject has been put into a new situation in light of technological advances which have mitigated the situation the world found itself in at that time viz. war armarments.
Now certainly much more could be noted than this but what is done in this brief treatment will have to suffice for now. Hopefully it is clear by what is denoted above why your host and not a few others roll their eyes and have no respect whatsoever for the manner which many ideologues misquote sources to try and fill in for the lacuna of solid arguments for their positions. This is done by neophytes as well as even many seasoned apologists, social commentators, etc so by no means is it a localized problem at all but instead one that is more universal in its scope. And while normally these factors do not come up when dealing with boilerplate issues, with geopolitical matters and more complex moral/ethical matters, there is quite a minefield out there. Far too often (and with an alarming frequency in recent years), seasoned apologists social commentators, etc. have stepped on those mines with regrettable yet predictable results.
The bottom line is that no Catholic should presume that because they may be able to adequately discuss matters with a clear magisterial sanction on them that they can likewise do so where there is a lack of similar clarity involved. Or put another way: social commentary and the analysis of more complex geopolitical factors should be left to those who know how to do it.
Note:
{1} And yes, this could be demonstrated lest anyone wonder about the veracity of this assertion by the present writer.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Points to Ponder:
(On Making an Argument in a Paper)
Once you've identified the theme of your paper, you'll frame your theme as an argument. One of the hardest parts in writing a long paper is developing and maintaining an argument.
In simple terms, an argument is the point of view that you assert and back up with evidence. An opinion is a [sic] simply a point of view. The critical difference between an opinion and an argument is the evidence. An argument is a statement or theory that someone else could disagree with, but still follow your logic.
In a Critical Biography, your best evidence is a quotation (from your interview or a scholarly source) or a specific example from your subject's life.
In other words, an argument isn't simply pointing out something that is obvious, and it isn't a statement of you or your subject's opinion on a topic. An argument is the development of a case demonstating that your interpretation of evidence, events, or situations is valid. [Katy Birckmayer Ph.D (Director of College Mission Programs at Rutgers University): Excerpt from Reading and Writing Tips on Developing an Argument]
[Note: For further reading on what a theory is and how it differs from a thesis, see this thread from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG circa two years ago - ISM]
(On Making an Argument in a Paper)
Once you've identified the theme of your paper, you'll frame your theme as an argument. One of the hardest parts in writing a long paper is developing and maintaining an argument.
In simple terms, an argument is the point of view that you assert and back up with evidence. An opinion is a [sic] simply a point of view. The critical difference between an opinion and an argument is the evidence. An argument is a statement or theory that someone else could disagree with, but still follow your logic.
In a Critical Biography, your best evidence is a quotation (from your interview or a scholarly source) or a specific example from your subject's life.
In other words, an argument isn't simply pointing out something that is obvious, and it isn't a statement of you or your subject's opinion on a topic. An argument is the development of a case demonstating that your interpretation of evidence, events, or situations is valid. [Katy Birckmayer Ph.D (Director of College Mission Programs at Rutgers University): Excerpt from Reading and Writing Tips on Developing an Argument]
[Note: For further reading on what a theory is and how it differs from a thesis, see this thread from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG circa two years ago - ISM]
Briefly on President Bush's State of the Union Address:
(Dialogue with Kevin Tierney)
For the first time in this administration, I did not watch a State of the Union Address last night. I also did not watch much of the Alito hearings though thus far I am batting between .800 and 1.000 on my predictions viz. that situation.{1} Before people think I am showing too much detachment on these matters, the truth is, this is an election year and I am pacing myself at the moment both for practical and tactical reasons among others which could be noted.{2}
However, I have recognized in recent years that some of my friends are quite astute on geopolitical matters (even when I do not necessarily agree with some of their interpretations of said matters). One of those persons is Kevin Tierney who sent me an email earlier today with a link in it and some commentary on his part. Here is what was sent...Kevin's words will be in blue font:
Symposium on the State of the Union
So far it seems like typical Bush. Great on foreign policy, and downright scary on domestic policies in that he is supposed to be a conservative.
That is why I elected not to watch the speech...Bush is so predictable that I could have sketched that out as his modus opperandi even before being notified of that distinction by Kevin in his email.
Wanna solve our addiction to foreign oil? Drill ANWR and build more refineries. Let's see a serious push for these two things.
Precisely. I wrote on the economics of high gas prices and what causes them last year. It is a key factor in the whole energy issue and Kevin is on target in what he says on the matter.
The training [of 70,000] teachers to be [competitive], as Mark Steyn says, "barely passes the laugh test." Make them competitive with school vouchers.
I have not written publicly on the school vouchers issue at this weblog yet (at least I cannot recall doing so) but in general, I am and have been a supporter of the idea for over ten years.
Along with the democrats rebuttal, and we have a true blue conservative on the airwaves to present what a real conservative would do?
Well, to outline what a true conservative would do would be to write a post the size of a small pocket thesarus. That is why I have always written on principles of authentic conservatism and applied those principles to situations and events as they have arisen in the public forums. But certainly the things Kevin notes are part and parcel of what a true conservative worthy of the label would do. And as I have noted many times before (including here), President Bush is no true conservative no matter how you slice it. Ergo, I am not surprised that his proposed agenda is half-baked.
For what it is worth, even on one of the key issues where he is considered "conservative"{3} that notion does not resonate convincingly with me. For reasons I briefly revisited late last year{4}, his position contains an internal inconsistency that is maddening to say the least. But that is all I intend to say on the matter{5} at the present time.
Notes:
{1} Depending on how those predictions are interpreted of course. I hope with the three remaining to go two for three on them but only time will tell.
{2} As well as a general lack of time to write much due to work-related issues.
{3} Read: being in favour of strong national security. But from a fiscal standpoint, Bush has been anything but truly conservative.
{4} On the Subjects of National Security, the Patriot Act, Etc. (circa December 31, 2005)
{5} Though I reserve the right to actually read the speech and comment on it later on (depending on my inclinations of course), I think what is briefly noted in this post is adequate for the time being.
(Dialogue with Kevin Tierney)
For the first time in this administration, I did not watch a State of the Union Address last night. I also did not watch much of the Alito hearings though thus far I am batting between .800 and 1.000 on my predictions viz. that situation.{1} Before people think I am showing too much detachment on these matters, the truth is, this is an election year and I am pacing myself at the moment both for practical and tactical reasons among others which could be noted.{2}
However, I have recognized in recent years that some of my friends are quite astute on geopolitical matters (even when I do not necessarily agree with some of their interpretations of said matters). One of those persons is Kevin Tierney who sent me an email earlier today with a link in it and some commentary on his part. Here is what was sent...Kevin's words will be in blue font:
Symposium on the State of the Union
So far it seems like typical Bush. Great on foreign policy, and downright scary on domestic policies in that he is supposed to be a conservative.
That is why I elected not to watch the speech...Bush is so predictable that I could have sketched that out as his modus opperandi even before being notified of that distinction by Kevin in his email.
Wanna solve our addiction to foreign oil? Drill ANWR and build more refineries. Let's see a serious push for these two things.
Precisely. I wrote on the economics of high gas prices and what causes them last year. It is a key factor in the whole energy issue and Kevin is on target in what he says on the matter.
The training [of 70,000] teachers to be [competitive], as Mark Steyn says, "barely passes the laugh test." Make them competitive with school vouchers.
I have not written publicly on the school vouchers issue at this weblog yet (at least I cannot recall doing so) but in general, I am and have been a supporter of the idea for over ten years.
Along with the democrats rebuttal, and we have a true blue conservative on the airwaves to present what a real conservative would do?
Well, to outline what a true conservative would do would be to write a post the size of a small pocket thesarus. That is why I have always written on principles of authentic conservatism and applied those principles to situations and events as they have arisen in the public forums. But certainly the things Kevin notes are part and parcel of what a true conservative worthy of the label would do. And as I have noted many times before (including here), President Bush is no true conservative no matter how you slice it. Ergo, I am not surprised that his proposed agenda is half-baked.
For what it is worth, even on one of the key issues where he is considered "conservative"{3} that notion does not resonate convincingly with me. For reasons I briefly revisited late last year{4}, his position contains an internal inconsistency that is maddening to say the least. But that is all I intend to say on the matter{5} at the present time.
Notes:
{1} Depending on how those predictions are interpreted of course. I hope with the three remaining to go two for three on them but only time will tell.
{2} As well as a general lack of time to write much due to work-related issues.
{3} Read: being in favour of strong national security. But from a fiscal standpoint, Bush has been anything but truly conservative.
{4} On the Subjects of National Security, the Patriot Act, Etc. (circa December 31, 2005)
{5} Though I reserve the right to actually read the speech and comment on it later on (depending on my inclinations of course), I think what is briefly noted in this post is adequate for the time being.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Some Brief Wrapup Comments on the Previous Guest Editorial:
(From the Webmaster at Rerum Novarum)
The editorial being commented on is the one posted HERE.
It must be noted in the interest of disclosure that your host had admittedly considered making a final brief thread in syllabus form sketching out in bulletform the various arguments made at this humble weblog which Mr. Armstrong has ignored from the very beginning. Certainly from a personal standpoint it would provide another opportunity to illuminate Our own vindication on the matter if that project were to be undertaken. However, at some point, it is advisable to recognize that an issue has run its course and the mark of a mature writer (be they an apologist or as in the case of the present writer, a commentator) is recognizing that point when it arrives. Dr. Art Sippo's counsel in that area meshes well with that of Sun Tzu from the Art of War on when one should or should not fight:
The enlightened ruler lays his plans well ahead; the good general cultivates his resources.
Move not unless you see an advantage; use not your troops unless there is something to be gained; fight not unless the position is critical.
No ruler should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no general should fight a battle simply out of pique.
If it is to your advantage, make a forward move; if not, stay where you are.
What has been covered up to this point by your host conforms without difficulty to the above counsel, achieving three key and critical purposes:
---Clarifying to a reasonable degree the primary reason why this subject needed to be readdressed after Mr. Armstrong unwisely reopened it in the public forum.
---Publicly vindicating once again Our original assertions in this discussion since the subject was exited by Us last year and then recently (and unfortunately) reopened by Mr. Armstrong.
---Setting the historical record straight on aprofoundly disingenuous{1} misuse of Our previous statements by Mr. Armstrong in recent weeks.
However, while those postings had solid purposes to them, your host admittedly cannot see how the project mentioned at the start of this epilogual comments achieves anything of a similar nature. For that reason, there is concern on his part that it would be too much of an exercise in public gratification to complete it.
Ergo, this writer fails to see what more needs to be covered on these subjects of a necessary import and for that reason, he will recognize Dr. Sippo's call to let the issue drop. The aforementioned stance will remain the position taken at this weblog in perpetuity from this point onward. (All things to the contrary notwithstanding.)
Note:
{1} As Mr. Armstrong has publicly retracted and apologized for his usage of the aforementioned statements, your host hereby retracts the assertion of that usage as being disingenuous in nature and chalks it up instead to the kinds of excesses that can sometimes happen in these kinds of disputations. These are excesses it might be added that your host has with reasonable certainty not been completely exempt from and for which he apologizes for at this time to Dave and to the readers of this weblog for any such excesses on Our part thereof (be they real or perceived). -ISM 2/1/06 12:40pm]
(From the Webmaster at Rerum Novarum)
The editorial being commented on is the one posted HERE.
It must be noted in the interest of disclosure that your host had admittedly considered making a final brief thread in syllabus form sketching out in bulletform the various arguments made at this humble weblog which Mr. Armstrong has ignored from the very beginning. Certainly from a personal standpoint it would provide another opportunity to illuminate Our own vindication on the matter if that project were to be undertaken. However, at some point, it is advisable to recognize that an issue has run its course and the mark of a mature writer (be they an apologist or as in the case of the present writer, a commentator) is recognizing that point when it arrives. Dr. Art Sippo's counsel in that area meshes well with that of Sun Tzu from the Art of War on when one should or should not fight:
The enlightened ruler lays his plans well ahead; the good general cultivates his resources.
Move not unless you see an advantage; use not your troops unless there is something to be gained; fight not unless the position is critical.
No ruler should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no general should fight a battle simply out of pique.
If it is to your advantage, make a forward move; if not, stay where you are.
What has been covered up to this point by your host conforms without difficulty to the above counsel, achieving three key and critical purposes:
---Clarifying to a reasonable degree the primary reason why this subject needed to be readdressed after Mr. Armstrong unwisely reopened it in the public forum.
---Publicly vindicating once again Our original assertions in this discussion since the subject was exited by Us last year and then recently (and unfortunately) reopened by Mr. Armstrong.
---Setting the historical record straight on a
However, while those postings had solid purposes to them, your host admittedly cannot see how the project mentioned at the start of this epilogual comments achieves anything of a similar nature. For that reason, there is concern on his part that it would be too much of an exercise in public gratification to complete it.
Ergo, this writer fails to see what more needs to be covered on these subjects of a necessary import and for that reason, he will recognize Dr. Sippo's call to let the issue drop. The aforementioned stance will remain the position taken at this weblog in perpetuity from this point onward. (All things to the contrary notwithstanding.)
Note:
{1} As Mr. Armstrong has publicly retracted and apologized for his usage of the aforementioned statements, your host hereby retracts the assertion of that usage as being disingenuous in nature and chalks it up instead to the kinds of excesses that can sometimes happen in these kinds of disputations. These are excesses it might be added that your host has with reasonable certainty not been completely exempt from and for which he apologizes for at this time to Dave and to the readers of this weblog for any such excesses on Our part thereof (be they real or perceived). -ISM 2/1/06 12:40pm]
A Followup Guest Editorial on the Atomic Bombings, the Continued Emphasis on it Publicly by Certain Apologists, and the Goal of Catholic Apologetics:
(Written by Dr. Art Sippo)
I am very dismayed that Dave Armstrong continues his ranting about the American use of the atomic bombs on Japan in 1945. To support his claims he takes quotations from non-magisterial papal documents which mention the incident but which are irrelevant to his point. He also takes blanket condemnations of the horrors of modern warfare from Catholic sources and then inappropriately applies them retrospectively to the atomic bomb issue in order to render his own magisterial statement on the matter. While he is entitled to his opinion, I am disappointed that he feels the need to manufacture support for his position where it does not exist.
I would be very surprised if the Popes would ever give support to any specific military action without decrying the loss of life associated with that action. If you remember, the Vatican stayed neutral during World War II despite the overwhelming evidence for Nazi aggression and the horrible policies that the Germans pursued both at home and abroad. Pius XII always sought a peaceful solution that did not involve bloodshed and offered himself as an intermediary towards that end. Yet anyone who knows the period realizes that a peaceful solution was not feasible and that the Vatican's position was ideological, not practical. Nevertheless, I do not think that the Church could have done otherwise.
Likewise the decrying of the destruction at Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the Popes in private correspondence or in speeches during a visit to Japan were ideological and in fact inevitable. How could they praise the destruction of life during those and other bombings? The Popes decried the whole of World War II because of the death and misery that it caused, but which of us would dare to say that fighting against Nazism and Japanese aggression was not morally justifiable?
As to the comments Dave used allegedly from the Church Magisterium against "Total War," these are similarly irrelevant. These were directed against a "counter-values " nuclear policy during the Cold War in which nuclear armaments could be used indiscriminately to destroy both valid military targets and non-military targets of no tactical or strategic import. This was not the case at Hiroshima and Nagasaki both of which were valid military targets selected specifically to demonstrate the power of the atomic bombs and to coax the Japanese into surrender without further loss of life.
In fact Dave has not produced a single Magisterial document that condemns the specific use of nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki as immoral. He has just shown that the Church opposes the indiscriminate use of weapons of mass destruction (with which all civilized people will agree) and that she also decried the suffering caused by the atomic bombs dropped on Japan (with which again all civilized person will agree). This is a far cry from condemning President Truman for his decision and denouncing him as a war criminal.
I think that the following paragraph from The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response written by the American bishops in 1983 sums up the true Catholic position on this matter:
12. This passage acknowledges that, on some complex social questions, the Church expects a certain diversity of views even though all hold the same universal moral principles. The experience of preparing this pastoral letter has shown us the range of strongly held opinion in the Catholic community on questions of war and peace. Obviously, as bishops we believe that such differences should be expressed within the framework of Catholic moral teaching. We urge mutual respect among different groups in the Church as they analyze this letter and the issues it addresses. Not only conviction and commitment are needed in the Church, but also civility and charity.
I think that enough time and effort has been wasted on this issue. This issue has nothing to do with Catholic apologetics and a valid diversity of opinion exists within the Catholic fold about it so that no one has the right to claim he holds to THE Catholic position on it.
Adults often must agree to disagree so that they can get on with the truly pressing business at hand. I have no desire to argue any further about this issue. Mr. Armstrong may continue to hold his opinion. I remain unconvinced by his arguments and continue to hold my own. Nothing more needs to be said.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro!
#######
Our comments on this editorial and its recommendations can be viewed HERE.
(Written by Dr. Art Sippo)
I am very dismayed that Dave Armstrong continues his ranting about the American use of the atomic bombs on Japan in 1945. To support his claims he takes quotations from non-magisterial papal documents which mention the incident but which are irrelevant to his point. He also takes blanket condemnations of the horrors of modern warfare from Catholic sources and then inappropriately applies them retrospectively to the atomic bomb issue in order to render his own magisterial statement on the matter. While he is entitled to his opinion, I am disappointed that he feels the need to manufacture support for his position where it does not exist.
I would be very surprised if the Popes would ever give support to any specific military action without decrying the loss of life associated with that action. If you remember, the Vatican stayed neutral during World War II despite the overwhelming evidence for Nazi aggression and the horrible policies that the Germans pursued both at home and abroad. Pius XII always sought a peaceful solution that did not involve bloodshed and offered himself as an intermediary towards that end. Yet anyone who knows the period realizes that a peaceful solution was not feasible and that the Vatican's position was ideological, not practical. Nevertheless, I do not think that the Church could have done otherwise.
Likewise the decrying of the destruction at Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the Popes in private correspondence or in speeches during a visit to Japan were ideological and in fact inevitable. How could they praise the destruction of life during those and other bombings? The Popes decried the whole of World War II because of the death and misery that it caused, but which of us would dare to say that fighting against Nazism and Japanese aggression was not morally justifiable?
As to the comments Dave used allegedly from the Church Magisterium against "Total War," these are similarly irrelevant. These were directed against a "counter-values " nuclear policy during the Cold War in which nuclear armaments could be used indiscriminately to destroy both valid military targets and non-military targets of no tactical or strategic import. This was not the case at Hiroshima and Nagasaki both of which were valid military targets selected specifically to demonstrate the power of the atomic bombs and to coax the Japanese into surrender without further loss of life.
In fact Dave has not produced a single Magisterial document that condemns the specific use of nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki as immoral. He has just shown that the Church opposes the indiscriminate use of weapons of mass destruction (with which all civilized people will agree) and that she also decried the suffering caused by the atomic bombs dropped on Japan (with which again all civilized person will agree). This is a far cry from condemning President Truman for his decision and denouncing him as a war criminal.
I think that the following paragraph from The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response written by the American bishops in 1983 sums up the true Catholic position on this matter:
12. This passage acknowledges that, on some complex social questions, the Church expects a certain diversity of views even though all hold the same universal moral principles. The experience of preparing this pastoral letter has shown us the range of strongly held opinion in the Catholic community on questions of war and peace. Obviously, as bishops we believe that such differences should be expressed within the framework of Catholic moral teaching. We urge mutual respect among different groups in the Church as they analyze this letter and the issues it addresses. Not only conviction and commitment are needed in the Church, but also civility and charity.
I think that enough time and effort has been wasted on this issue. This issue has nothing to do with Catholic apologetics and a valid diversity of opinion exists within the Catholic fold about it so that no one has the right to claim he holds to THE Catholic position on it.
Adults often must agree to disagree so that they can get on with the truly pressing business at hand. I have no desire to argue any further about this issue. Mr. Armstrong may continue to hold his opinion. I remain unconvinced by his arguments and continue to hold my own. Nothing more needs to be said.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro!
#######
Our comments on this editorial and its recommendations can be viewed HERE.
Naked Anticipation:
(A Poem by Albert Cipriani)
A silver blemish in a cloudless sky
moved slow as all the minute hands about
Hiroshima in 1945
to stop. It crawled too high to make a sound
that’d prophesy their baptism of fire,
making them a chosen people by
our high command which set aside, till now,
their un-bombed town to better showcase ground
zero. Some looked up and saw the speck,
a spore, descending from the apogee
of science, from mankind’s intelligence,
the germ of military brilliancy
and radiation sickness, saw what we
just fear, like Jews beneath the shower heads.
(A Poem by Albert Cipriani)
A silver blemish in a cloudless sky
moved slow as all the minute hands about
Hiroshima in 1945
to stop. It crawled too high to make a sound
that’d prophesy their baptism of fire,
making them a chosen people by
our high command which set aside, till now,
their un-bombed town to better showcase ground
zero. Some looked up and saw the speck,
a spore, descending from the apogee
of science, from mankind’s intelligence,
the germ of military brilliancy
and radiation sickness, saw what we
just fear, like Jews beneath the shower heads.
Monday, January 30, 2006
"Tracking the Ever-Elusive So-Called 'Neo Con'" Dept.
The previous installment in the series can be read HERE while one would go HERE to start from the beginning of the thread.
Shawn,
Thanks for responding to my note. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the terminology of "neo-cons" with you. You pretty much hit the nail on the head with the characterization:
"Would you be referring essentially to those who see conservatism in some kind of reactionary and static preservationism as opposed to those who see conservatism as something pro-active and vibrant???"
That is precisely the kind of person I was thinking of.
I thought so...that is a common division made by people when discussing the subject of conservatism. I have long argued that conservatism properly understood is ressourcement oriented and thus not strictly speaking reactionary or preservationist in its essential nature.
To answer an indirect question, I am Catholic, and note that none of the people I cited as "deep-in-the-bones" conservative are Catholic, at least to my knowledge.
Indeed. Those I am being critical of with this challenge happen to be Catholics who try to use the "neo-con" label to essentially deadagent those whom they do not agree with rather than interact with their arguments. I can conclude nothing else in light of their cowardice to respond to this very simple challenge as I have set it down to define their use of terms.
Those three people have attitudes (again, to the best of my knowledge) that range from ambivalent to mostly positive towards Christianity, but nothing like the integration of faith and practice I see in Father Neuhaus, George Weigel, or Michael Novak.
Well, with Neuhaus and Weigel they are ressourcement oriented in their approach. I think Novak is too but I have not read enough of his stuff to pronounce on the matter with certainty. For that I recommend asking either Justin Nickelson or Christopher Blosser. I firmly believe they are in a much better position to talk about Novak than I am...particularly Justin from a theological ressourcement perspective and Chris from a geopolitical one.
It is clear that the tradition and doctrine of the Church demands of us a active commitment to building a just social order.
Yes...this understanding was recently reaffirmed by Pope Benedict XVI in Deus Caritas Est.
I read a lot of Chesterton on my way to joining the Church, and I had to agree with him that if I merely loved my country because it was just and fair, I would keep it unchanged. But if I loved my country and my countrymen because it is my country and they are my countrymen, I would lay it waste in order to create the New Jerusalem. (Orthodoxy, pg. 75, Ignatius Press 1995)
Well said. One can have a firm love for their country and recognize at the same time that it is imperfect and in need of purification. That has always been my approach to the matter and is part of the reason I noted in my weblog profile that I support "nationalism (within limits)." There are many things in this nation that need fixing and I have not been shy to discuss a number of those factors as they pertain either to the contemporary issues in question or my particular mood to discuss them around the time they are blogged.
While there is a touch of hyperbole in that,
Hyperbole in Chesterton??? Surely you jest ;-)
I'm guessing that may be why I might be flattered to be perjured as a "neo-con".
Makes sense to me...assuming for a moment that these so-called "neo-cons" actually exist. Assertions by certain public critics without supplying proof (or by explaining what they mean by their usage of that term) is essentially petitio prnncipii; ergo I reject such assertions without hesitation.
To be Continued...
The previous installment in the series can be read HERE while one would go HERE to start from the beginning of the thread.
Shawn,
Thanks for responding to my note. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the terminology of "neo-cons" with you. You pretty much hit the nail on the head with the characterization:
"Would you be referring essentially to those who see conservatism in some kind of reactionary and static preservationism as opposed to those who see conservatism as something pro-active and vibrant???"
That is precisely the kind of person I was thinking of.
I thought so...that is a common division made by people when discussing the subject of conservatism. I have long argued that conservatism properly understood is ressourcement oriented and thus not strictly speaking reactionary or preservationist in its essential nature.
To answer an indirect question, I am Catholic, and note that none of the people I cited as "deep-in-the-bones" conservative are Catholic, at least to my knowledge.
Indeed. Those I am being critical of with this challenge happen to be Catholics who try to use the "neo-con" label to essentially deadagent those whom they do not agree with rather than interact with their arguments. I can conclude nothing else in light of their cowardice to respond to this very simple challenge as I have set it down to define their use of terms.
Those three people have attitudes (again, to the best of my knowledge) that range from ambivalent to mostly positive towards Christianity, but nothing like the integration of faith and practice I see in Father Neuhaus, George Weigel, or Michael Novak.
Well, with Neuhaus and Weigel they are ressourcement oriented in their approach. I think Novak is too but I have not read enough of his stuff to pronounce on the matter with certainty. For that I recommend asking either Justin Nickelson or Christopher Blosser. I firmly believe they are in a much better position to talk about Novak than I am...particularly Justin from a theological ressourcement perspective and Chris from a geopolitical one.
It is clear that the tradition and doctrine of the Church demands of us a active commitment to building a just social order.
Yes...this understanding was recently reaffirmed by Pope Benedict XVI in Deus Caritas Est.
I read a lot of Chesterton on my way to joining the Church, and I had to agree with him that if I merely loved my country because it was just and fair, I would keep it unchanged. But if I loved my country and my countrymen because it is my country and they are my countrymen, I would lay it waste in order to create the New Jerusalem. (Orthodoxy, pg. 75, Ignatius Press 1995)
Well said. One can have a firm love for their country and recognize at the same time that it is imperfect and in need of purification. That has always been my approach to the matter and is part of the reason I noted in my weblog profile that I support "nationalism (within limits)." There are many things in this nation that need fixing and I have not been shy to discuss a number of those factors as they pertain either to the contemporary issues in question or my particular mood to discuss them around the time they are blogged.
While there is a touch of hyperbole in that,
Hyperbole in Chesterton??? Surely you jest ;-)
I'm guessing that may be why I might be flattered to be perjured as a "neo-con".
Makes sense to me...assuming for a moment that these so-called "neo-cons" actually exist. Assertions by certain public critics without supplying proof (or by explaining what they mean by their usage of that term) is essentially petitio prnncipii; ergo I reject such assertions without hesitation.
To be Continued...
Christopher Blosser gives a roundup of varied responses to Pope Benedict XVI's first encyclical letter
Thus far, I have not said much about the document publicly except linking to it earlier. However, I did quote certain passages of it in the most recent installment of the "tracking the elusive so-called 'neo-con'" series pertaining to matters of church and state as well as the church's role in political life. Beyond that,{1} I am likely to follow my usual pattern of letting others "get the scoop" on the matter first so that I can respond with a less-hurried and more penetrating analysis of the contents of the letter should I have the time and inclination to do so in the coming weeks.
Note:
{1} And it does bear noting in brief that those who like to claim that a certain group of "neo-cons" exist will not be too happy with the parts of the letter I quoted in the aforementioned series installment on trying to find these so-called "neo-cons" and if they even exist or not.
Thus far, I have not said much about the document publicly except linking to it earlier. However, I did quote certain passages of it in the most recent installment of the "tracking the elusive so-called 'neo-con'" series pertaining to matters of church and state as well as the church's role in political life. Beyond that,{1} I am likely to follow my usual pattern of letting others "get the scoop" on the matter first so that I can respond with a less-hurried and more penetrating analysis of the contents of the letter should I have the time and inclination to do so in the coming weeks.
Note:
{1} And it does bear noting in brief that those who like to claim that a certain group of "neo-cons" exist will not be too happy with the parts of the letter I quoted in the aforementioned series installment on trying to find these so-called "neo-cons" and if they even exist or not.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
The Arguments Opposed to the War in Iraq As Sent By Us to Our Dialogical Opposition For Their Development Thereof:
This is a continuation of the subject of an upcoming dialogue on the war in Iraq -the previous installment of which can be read HERE. (The first part of which explains the genesis of this idea being accessible HERE.) The arguments themselves will be in black font and some of the words of Our humble interlocutor in response to the thread will be in darkgreen font.
I have not found the time to compile all the arguments yet and am not sure I will at this stage. (They are in my other gmail account somewhere but with about 5000 threads, they will not be easy to find even with the built in google searcher.) Nonetheless, here are seven which I either recall previously or have thought up on the spot including (arguably) the most trenchant one of all...
1) The war was not a just war according to just war criteria.
This argument is one with a lot of variables to it which could be interpreted in different ways. Certainly a good case can be made for it not being a just war (and I have no doubt you will make a good case should you go that route) but it will not be an incontrovertible one anymore than my case for it being a just war would be. In short, this one will at best end in a stalemate though that should not discourage you from making this argument if you are so inclined to.
I will argue this.
2) There should not have been an invasion because there were no WMD's as previously claimed.
This is not the slam dunk that it may appear for your side so I would argue it carefully if I were you. (Cause I know how to respond to it.)
This has no value other than as an adjunct to #1.
3) Bush lied about WMD to go to war, etc.
I have (and would once again) nuke this argument should it be presented. Certainly you may touch on it in your piece but it should be peripheral at best so that your main theory is not harmed when I decimate this thesis.
My opinion is "who gives a damn"? Are we supposed to change our policy based on the subjective moral dispositions of our leaders?...Nobody thinks we have to repeal the First Amendment because Thomas Jefferson constructively raped a slave, and the morality of invading Iraq isn't contingent on Bush being a liar or a stupid opportunist.
4) The war in Iraq was a violation of international law.
I have argued the converse before and would do so again; nonetheless, this is a far stronger foundation than the third example given and a good argument can be made for this view.
Bingo, but this is tied into #1 insofar as the UN Charter allows unilateral military action in just-war scenarios.
5) The popes and their representatives condemned the use of force in Iraq without the concurrence of the UN; ergo Catholics could not support the war as it was undertaken by the Bush Administration.
You know presumably that I will vaporize this argument...and I doubt you would try to make it anyway in anything but a peripheral capacity. Nonetheless, it is one which has circulated so you may have to at least touch on it in brief contra the Stephen Hand's/Zwicks of the Catholic world.
Yes they did, but they did it on terms that leave it open to question whether the theories about just war they're using are obligatory magisterial teachings (this is true even for His late Holiness). Don't want to make an argumentarium alla vericundimicelli, do I?
6) Those who oppose the war in Iraq are defacto supporters of the old regime and by logical extension its innumerable atrocities against human rights and violations of international law.
I could possibly argue the third point above but would not bother with the first two because I think they are examples of overly jingoistic approaches to this matter which do neither side any good. (The converse from your side would be the Handian "those who support the war have no conscience about broken bones and crushed lives, yadda yadda yadda": an argument as equally absurd as the first two attempted arguments in the paragraph above.)
I plan to spend some time on this, since [someone] tagged me with this one about a year ago. It's nonsense.
7) Apprising the past and considering the delicate geopolotical situation with attempting to overthrow existing governments in general (and the particular tinderbox that is the Middle East in particular), there is always a risk that the medicine proposed for such a cure would be worse than the disease itself. If one looks at Czarist Russia in 1917, the Czar was overthrown by a provisional government headed by Lvov and then Kerensky but that provisional government was overthrown by the Bolshiveks in its infancy; thus creating a far greater problem than there was with the original Czar.
In the case of Iraq, one could argue that the idea of overthrowing Saddam Hussein and installing a democratic government in Iraq both (i) in a country where Shi-ites are the majority population and (ii) within such a close proximity to a fanatical Shi-ite theocracy like Iran is a gamble that (if it fails) would pave the way for a Shi-ite theocracy in Iraq which would closely align itself with Iran and create a Shi-ite theocratic powerblock in the Middle East with potential nuclear capacities in the near future. The latter scenario would be a far greater problem than the retention of Hussein in power. For this reason, I judge it as an unwise and potentially catastrophic policy to invade/have invaded Iraq with the intention of overthrowing the Hussein government and attempt to replace it with a democratic government as the Bush Administration has done and is in the process of seeking to do.
I had to sketch this one out a bit to explain it for those who do not know their history. (Obviously historical ignorance does not apply to you XXX.) I will disclose up front that the above argument (based as it is in an examination of the past ala Santayana's dictum) is by far the strongest argument against what the Bush Administration have sought to do in Iraq since March of 2003. I almost have anxiety actually sending it to you but heck, I have wanted to see good arguments for the contra-the-war stance so I am obligated out of conscience as well as a innate sense of fair play to do so.
I've argued this before, the invasion is just plain stupid because (a) we've actually forfeited any long-term chance to do anything valuable with the Arab and Muslim world, (b) we're gonna get an Islamofascist state or a Biggie-Size-It version of Lebanon / no-man's land existing between Greater Turkey and Greater Iran.
Anyway folks, the cards have been dealt and We at Rerum Novarum anticipate (based on the trackrecord this person has have had in dialogue with Us over the years) that this will be a good vigorous and (most importantly) charitable dialogue. Furthermore, We anticipate an authentic dialogue rather than a sham one so wherever you stand on this issue, stay tuned to this same Bat blog for the aforementioned event when it materializes. (Read: whenever Our most humble of interlocutors finishes the draft of his opening comments...since We had the last word in the previous war dialogue, it seems fitting that they have the first word this time around.)
This is a continuation of the subject of an upcoming dialogue on the war in Iraq -the previous installment of which can be read HERE. (The first part of which explains the genesis of this idea being accessible HERE.) The arguments themselves will be in black font and some of the words of Our humble interlocutor in response to the thread will be in darkgreen font.
I have not found the time to compile all the arguments yet and am not sure I will at this stage. (They are in my other gmail account somewhere but with about 5000 threads, they will not be easy to find even with the built in google searcher.) Nonetheless, here are seven which I either recall previously or have thought up on the spot including (arguably) the most trenchant one of all...
1) The war was not a just war according to just war criteria.
This argument is one with a lot of variables to it which could be interpreted in different ways. Certainly a good case can be made for it not being a just war (and I have no doubt you will make a good case should you go that route) but it will not be an incontrovertible one anymore than my case for it being a just war would be. In short, this one will at best end in a stalemate though that should not discourage you from making this argument if you are so inclined to.
I will argue this.
2) There should not have been an invasion because there were no WMD's as previously claimed.
This is not the slam dunk that it may appear for your side so I would argue it carefully if I were you. (Cause I know how to respond to it.)
This has no value other than as an adjunct to #1.
3) Bush lied about WMD to go to war, etc.
I have (and would once again) nuke this argument should it be presented. Certainly you may touch on it in your piece but it should be peripheral at best so that your main theory is not harmed when I decimate this thesis.
My opinion is "who gives a damn"? Are we supposed to change our policy based on the subjective moral dispositions of our leaders?...Nobody thinks we have to repeal the First Amendment because Thomas Jefferson constructively raped a slave, and the morality of invading Iraq isn't contingent on Bush being a liar or a stupid opportunist.
4) The war in Iraq was a violation of international law.
I have argued the converse before and would do so again; nonetheless, this is a far stronger foundation than the third example given and a good argument can be made for this view.
Bingo, but this is tied into #1 insofar as the UN Charter allows unilateral military action in just-war scenarios.
5) The popes and their representatives condemned the use of force in Iraq without the concurrence of the UN; ergo Catholics could not support the war as it was undertaken by the Bush Administration.
You know presumably that I will vaporize this argument...and I doubt you would try to make it anyway in anything but a peripheral capacity. Nonetheless, it is one which has circulated so you may have to at least touch on it in brief contra the Stephen Hand's/Zwicks of the Catholic world.
Yes they did, but they did it on terms that leave it open to question whether the theories about just war they're using are obligatory magisterial teachings (this is true even for His late Holiness). Don't want to make an argumentarium alla vericundimicelli, do I?
6) Those who oppose the war in Iraq are defacto supporters of the old regime and by logical extension its innumerable atrocities against human rights and violations of international law.
I could possibly argue the third point above but would not bother with the first two because I think they are examples of overly jingoistic approaches to this matter which do neither side any good. (The converse from your side would be the Handian "those who support the war have no conscience about broken bones and crushed lives, yadda yadda yadda": an argument as equally absurd as the first two attempted arguments in the paragraph above.)
I plan to spend some time on this, since [someone] tagged me with this one about a year ago. It's nonsense.
7) Apprising the past and considering the delicate geopolotical situation with attempting to overthrow existing governments in general (and the particular tinderbox that is the Middle East in particular), there is always a risk that the medicine proposed for such a cure would be worse than the disease itself. If one looks at Czarist Russia in 1917, the Czar was overthrown by a provisional government headed by Lvov and then Kerensky but that provisional government was overthrown by the Bolshiveks in its infancy; thus creating a far greater problem than there was with the original Czar.
In the case of Iraq, one could argue that the idea of overthrowing Saddam Hussein and installing a democratic government in Iraq both (i) in a country where Shi-ites are the majority population and (ii) within such a close proximity to a fanatical Shi-ite theocracy like Iran is a gamble that (if it fails) would pave the way for a Shi-ite theocracy in Iraq which would closely align itself with Iran and create a Shi-ite theocratic powerblock in the Middle East with potential nuclear capacities in the near future. The latter scenario would be a far greater problem than the retention of Hussein in power. For this reason, I judge it as an unwise and potentially catastrophic policy to invade/have invaded Iraq with the intention of overthrowing the Hussein government and attempt to replace it with a democratic government as the Bush Administration has done and is in the process of seeking to do.
I had to sketch this one out a bit to explain it for those who do not know their history. (Obviously historical ignorance does not apply to you XXX.) I will disclose up front that the above argument (based as it is in an examination of the past ala Santayana's dictum) is by far the strongest argument against what the Bush Administration have sought to do in Iraq since March of 2003. I almost have anxiety actually sending it to you but heck, I have wanted to see good arguments for the contra-the-war stance so I am obligated out of conscience as well as a innate sense of fair play to do so.
I've argued this before, the invasion is just plain stupid because (a) we've actually forfeited any long-term chance to do anything valuable with the Arab and Muslim world, (b) we're gonna get an Islamofascist state or a Biggie-Size-It version of Lebanon / no-man's land existing between Greater Turkey and Greater Iran.
Anyway folks, the cards have been dealt and We at Rerum Novarum anticipate (based on the trackrecord this person has have had in dialogue with Us over the years) that this will be a good vigorous and (most importantly) charitable dialogue. Furthermore, We anticipate an authentic dialogue rather than a sham one so wherever you stand on this issue, stay tuned to this same Bat blog for the aforementioned event when it materializes. (Read: whenever Our most humble of interlocutors finishes the draft of his opening comments...since We had the last word in the previous war dialogue, it seems fitting that they have the first word this time around.)
A Minor Rerum Novarum Update:
The webmaster's comments will be interspersed in purple font.
Shawn's Eastern Catholic Corner Approved Links
Orthodox-Catholic Relations: An Orthodox Reflection -Fr. Chrysostom Frank [>>>]
Seldom have We seen such a well-written and balanced article on the subject of ecclesial reunion that coheres so well with Our own knowledge and sentiments on the matter and written from an Orthodox perspective at that. (We also learned some new knowledge from the article which is always a good thing also...it is worth reading more than once for those interested in ecumenical matters.)
33 Articles Concerning Union With The Roman Church [>>>]
Those who find disturbing the degree to which the Roman Church will go these days to faciliate a reunion of Christian churches and ecclesial communities should consider the above late sixteenth century example of propositions accepted by the Roman Church under Pope Clement VIII to foster reunion of the Ruthinian Church with the Catholic Church.
As the above thread is actually an Orthodox thread, it seems appropriate to rename this category title henceforth as follows: Shawn's Eastern Corner Approved Links.
Fixed Links
Anamnesis, not Amnesia: The Healing of Memories and the Problem of Uniatism - Fr. Robert Taft, S.J.
Other Recommended* Web-Sites
The Chronicles of Hand [>>>]
In light of the hypocritical double standards of a certain party whom shall not be named, it seems appropriate to have a place to chronicle the rash and intemperate ad hominems of his new comrade; ergo the purpose of the above weblog. To facilitate insertion into this category, the title of the section will be changed henceforth to refer to recommended sites.
[Update: I changed the title of my Launchcast radio station to Radio Enslaved Washington. -ISM 1/31/06 1:15pm]
These matters are hereby confirmed for a perpetual remembrance all things to the contrary notwithstanding other sites and threads worthy of special mention.
The webmaster's comments will be interspersed in purple font.
Shawn's Eastern Catholic Corner Approved Links
Orthodox-Catholic Relations: An Orthodox Reflection -Fr. Chrysostom Frank [>>>]
Seldom have We seen such a well-written and balanced article on the subject of ecclesial reunion that coheres so well with Our own knowledge and sentiments on the matter and written from an Orthodox perspective at that. (We also learned some new knowledge from the article which is always a good thing also...it is worth reading more than once for those interested in ecumenical matters.)
33 Articles Concerning Union With The Roman Church [>>>]
Those who find disturbing the degree to which the Roman Church will go these days to faciliate a reunion of Christian churches and ecclesial communities should consider the above late sixteenth century example of propositions accepted by the Roman Church under Pope Clement VIII to foster reunion of the Ruthinian Church with the Catholic Church.
As the above thread is actually an Orthodox thread, it seems appropriate to rename this category title henceforth as follows: Shawn's Eastern Corner Approved Links.
Fixed Links
Anamnesis, not Amnesia: The Healing of Memories and the Problem of Uniatism - Fr. Robert Taft, S.J.
Other Recommended* Web-Sites
The Chronicles of Hand [>>>]
In light of the hypocritical double standards of a certain party whom shall not be named, it seems appropriate to have a place to chronicle the rash and intemperate ad hominems of his new comrade; ergo the purpose of the above weblog. To facilitate insertion into this category, the title of the section will be changed henceforth to refer to recommended sites.
[Update: I changed the title of my Launchcast radio station to Radio Enslaved Washington. -ISM 1/31/06 1:15pm]
These matters are hereby confirmed for a perpetual remembrance all things to the contrary notwithstanding other sites and threads worthy of special mention.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
As readers of this weblog are aware, there was the publicly manifested intention of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum to hand over to a positional adversary some arguments against the war in Iraq. This will be done for them to fashion into coherent arguments with which to have a fruitful dialogue on the matter which is true to the discipline and not a sham masquerading as a "dialogue" as certain parties of late have tried to do.
To facilitate this occurrence happening sometime in February, some examples were jotted down into a private email to be sent approximately five minutes after the posting of this thread. The email thus sent will be reproduced on this weblog with Our initial comments on each argument advanced as they were noted to Our positional adversary. Anyway, the process is now underway and the ball is in the court of Our most humble of interlocuters to utilize which of the arguments (to be sent by Us) into the overarching theory (with its corroborating theses) they have constructed thus far (and intend to defend in the upcoming dialogue).
[Update: The most recent thread on this subject can be read HERE. - ISM 1/29/06 2:20pm]
To facilitate this occurrence happening sometime in February, some examples were jotted down into a private email to be sent approximately five minutes after the posting of this thread. The email thus sent will be reproduced on this weblog with Our initial comments on each argument advanced as they were noted to Our positional adversary. Anyway, the process is now underway and the ball is in the court of Our most humble of interlocuters to utilize which of the arguments (to be sent by Us) into the overarching theory (with its corroborating theses) they have constructed thus far (and intend to defend in the upcoming dialogue).
[Update: The most recent thread on this subject can be read HERE. - ISM 1/29/06 2:20pm]
Friday, January 27, 2006
"Tracking the Ever-Elusive So-Called 'Neo Con'" Dept.
The previous installment in the series can be read HERE while one would go HERE to start from the beginning of the thread.
It seems appropriate to remind the readers of something posted back on December 4, 2005 (when launching this series at Rerum Novarum) about this whole so-called "neo-con" and whether or not they actually exist. Pardon Us a bit of indulgence in quoting Our past work on this matter in some detail to reframe the subject before moving onto the contents of this current installment:
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 have 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[...] for their claims...
[W]ith 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[...] 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 thus far so it seems appropriate to establish a series where this issue can be dealt with intermittently. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa December 4, 2005)]
Of course as predictably as the sun rising in the east, the parties called to account for their usage of this term (and labeling others with it) without explaining what they mean by the term first have been quieter than a tick passing gas in the fur coat of a sheepdog. But once again it seems appropriate to remind readers of their cowardice before moving onto another reader who sent this note back in December of last year for Our consideration. Their words will be in shale font.
Shawn,
I have been pondering the use of the term "neo-con" after reading your recent posts. I too have wondered about it's definition. "Neo-con" is clearly used as a pejorative, but nonetheless there does seem to be something behind it, a kind of visceral reaction to something.
I concur with that observation.
Let me be clear that I have never used the term myself, except about myself as a joke. I told Christopher Blosser I laughed and laughed when he posted the quote from Stephen Hand on his masthead, ". . . hoping to turn good Catholics into good, card carrying, NeoCons." I half suspect that if I had a blog, I might get tagged as a "neo-con" since I have a great fondness for Fr. Neuhaus snd "First Things".
Yes, Fr. Neuhaus is labeled as a "neo-con" by the same people who do not bother to explain what the meaning of the term is. Or as I noted to another emailer on the matter back in December:
[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??? [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 4, 2005)]
These are all trenchant questions and frankly deserve to be answered by anyone who would label Fr. Neuhaus or anyone else as a "neo-con."
Last night I was reading Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of [Visions]". The thought occurred to me that those who use the term "neo-con" are often, although probably not exclusively, exemplars of what Sowell called the constrained vision. I fear that I may be over generalizing, but the people who I have seen use the term often have a strong preference for tradition in a Burkean sense, a kind of cultural conservatism that resides deep in their bones. I feel I should clarify what I mean by cultural conservatism, since I mean not a conservative in the culture wars, but someone whose conservative outlook was more absorbed from the environment than arrived at by rational reflection.
Hmmmmmmm, that is an interesting theory actually. I will have to ponder it over before commenting on it with any degree of certainty.
I am not entirely satisfied with this criterion, but perhaps the specific examples that I used may help. When I think of conservatives-in-their-bones, I think of people like Steve Sailer, Fred Reed, or John Derbyshire. In contrast to these men, I think of conservatives like Father Neuhaus, George Weigel, or Michael Novak, all neo-conservatives in the original sense. Although today, "neo-con" is just as often used to describe most anyone who writes for "National Review", regardless of their path to conservatism.
Would you be referring essentially to those who see conservatism in some kind of reactionary and static preservationism as opposed to those who see conservatism as something pro-active and vibrant???
While I can discern some difference between the thinking of these two groups of men, I can also see a number of similarities. In some ways it could perhaps be attributed to the way in which they use reason to articulate their positions, but that isn't entirely correct, because Steve Sailer is as much an intellectual as Michael Novak.
This is why an outline by those who use that term so liberally (and usually in a pejorative sense) is something that if those people had any integrity whatsoever they would consider important enough to set forth. But we all know why they will not do this presumably: it is easier to make assertions without backing them up or take a position without sustaining it by viable argumentation than to do the work necessary to present a theory properly constituted for the perusal and critique of others.
Perhaps it comes down to something of a slight, but important, difference in outlook. The men I've identified as deep-in-the-bones conservatives seem a little more likely to feel that we are sharply limited in what we can do to limit the negative consequences of human frailty, while the "neos" have a slightly larger, but I really mean slightly, sphere of action where we can try to make a more good and just public life through the prudent application of right reason.
Perhaps so, but until the parties in question define their terms, we will never know what their "rationale" is or even if they have any at all. And (of course) without that information, there is no reason whatsoever to presume that they have any real motives of credibility{1} for anything they say on this matter whatsoever.
So perhaps the term "neo-con" is then something of a visceral reaction against what is perceived to be impossible, or at least very imprudent, namely the attempt to guide events in the public sphere in a positive direction.
Well if that is so, then such individuals are a hindrance to society and not a help. And if they are Catholics, it would do them well to consider what Pope Benedict XVI wrote in his first encyclical letter published a couple of days ago about the role of the laymen in society:
The Church's social teaching argues on the basis of reason and natural law, namely, on the basis of what is in accord with the nature of every human being. It recognizes that it is not the Church's responsibility to make this teaching prevail in political life. Rather, the Church wishes to help form consciences in political life and to stimulate greater insight into the authentic requirements of justice as well as greater readiness to act accordingly, even when this might involve conflict with situations of personal interest. Building a just social and civil order, wherein each person receives what is his or her due, is an essential task which every generation must take up anew. As a political task, this cannot be the Church's immediate responsibility. Yet, since it is also a most important human responsibility, the Church is duty-bound to offer, through the purification of reason and through ethical formation, her own specific contribution towards understanding the requirements of justice and achieving them politically.
The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper. A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church. Yet the promotion of justice through efforts to bring about openness of mind and will to the demands of the common good is something which concerns the Church deeply...
We can now determine more precisely, in the life of the Church, the relationship between commitment to the just ordering of the State and society on the one hand, and organized charitable activity on the other. We have seen that the formation of just structures is not directly the duty of the Church, but belongs to the world of politics, the sphere of the autonomous use of reason. The Church has an indirect duty here, in that she is called to contribute to the purification of reason and to the reawakening of those moral forces without which just structures are neither established nor prove effective in the long run.
The direct duty to work for a just ordering of society, on the other hand, is proper to the lay faithful. As citizens of the State, they are called to take part in public life in a personal capacity. So they cannot relinquish their participation “in the many different economic, social, legislative, administrative and cultural areas, which are intended to promote organically and institutionally the common good.” [21] The mission of the lay faithful is therefore to configure social life correctly, respecting its legitimate autonomy and cooperating with other citizens according to their respective competences and fulfilling their own responsibility. [Pope Benedict XVI: Encyclical Letter Deus Caritas Est §28; §29 (circa January 25, 2006)]
Now I do not know if you are a Catholic or not but those whom I had in my rangefinder who like to use the term "neo-con" in a pejorative sense and refuse to explain what they mean by it would not find comfort in what was just quoted above. Nor for that matter could similar statements in the writings of previous pope give them comfort. They in other words make pretensions of being loyal but in reality their loyalty is to their own ideologies. They have shown that when push comes to shove that the teaching of the popes is only accepted by them when it is convenient for the advancement of their agendas which I must say (in the cases of some of them) looks and sounds a lot like marxism under a clever mask of "social justice", "peacemaking", and the like.
In short, even if your description of the term is correct, the so-called "neo-cons" (if these people actually exist mind you) would be acting in accordance with the teaching of Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessors viz. the importance of taking a proper and pro-active role in the shaping of society. Meanwhile, those who hurl the epithets and frequently claim to be the most "loyal" to the popes would be the ones abdicating proper responsibility.
But of course all of this is a moot point if those who throw the term around do not have the integrity to explain what they mean by it. At the very least sir, you have provided us with some food for musing which is a lot more than those I have been critical of have done.
To be Continued...
Note:
{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. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 4, 2005)]
The previous installment in the series can be read HERE while one would go HERE to start from the beginning of the thread.
It seems appropriate to remind the readers of something posted back on December 4, 2005 (when launching this series at Rerum Novarum) about this whole so-called "neo-con" and whether or not they actually exist. Pardon Us a bit of indulgence in quoting Our past work on this matter in some detail to reframe the subject before moving onto the contents of this current installment:
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 have 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[...] for their claims...
[W]ith 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[...] 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 thus far so it seems appropriate to establish a series where this issue can be dealt with intermittently. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa December 4, 2005)]
Of course as predictably as the sun rising in the east, the parties called to account for their usage of this term (and labeling others with it) without explaining what they mean by the term first have been quieter than a tick passing gas in the fur coat of a sheepdog. But once again it seems appropriate to remind readers of their cowardice before moving onto another reader who sent this note back in December of last year for Our consideration. Their words will be in shale font.
Shawn,
I have been pondering the use of the term "neo-con" after reading your recent posts. I too have wondered about it's definition. "Neo-con" is clearly used as a pejorative, but nonetheless there does seem to be something behind it, a kind of visceral reaction to something.
I concur with that observation.
Let me be clear that I have never used the term myself, except about myself as a joke. I told Christopher Blosser I laughed and laughed when he posted the quote from Stephen Hand on his masthead, ". . . hoping to turn good Catholics into good, card carrying, NeoCons." I half suspect that if I had a blog, I might get tagged as a "neo-con" since I have a great fondness for Fr. Neuhaus snd "First Things".
Yes, Fr. Neuhaus is labeled as a "neo-con" by the same people who do not bother to explain what the meaning of the term is. Or as I noted to another emailer on the matter back in December:
[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??? [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 4, 2005)]
These are all trenchant questions and frankly deserve to be answered by anyone who would label Fr. Neuhaus or anyone else as a "neo-con."
Last night I was reading Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of [Visions]". The thought occurred to me that those who use the term "neo-con" are often, although probably not exclusively, exemplars of what Sowell called the constrained vision. I fear that I may be over generalizing, but the people who I have seen use the term often have a strong preference for tradition in a Burkean sense, a kind of cultural conservatism that resides deep in their bones. I feel I should clarify what I mean by cultural conservatism, since I mean not a conservative in the culture wars, but someone whose conservative outlook was more absorbed from the environment than arrived at by rational reflection.
Hmmmmmmm, that is an interesting theory actually. I will have to ponder it over before commenting on it with any degree of certainty.
I am not entirely satisfied with this criterion, but perhaps the specific examples that I used may help. When I think of conservatives-in-their-bones, I think of people like Steve Sailer, Fred Reed, or John Derbyshire. In contrast to these men, I think of conservatives like Father Neuhaus, George Weigel, or Michael Novak, all neo-conservatives in the original sense. Although today, "neo-con" is just as often used to describe most anyone who writes for "National Review", regardless of their path to conservatism.
Would you be referring essentially to those who see conservatism in some kind of reactionary and static preservationism as opposed to those who see conservatism as something pro-active and vibrant???
While I can discern some difference between the thinking of these two groups of men, I can also see a number of similarities. In some ways it could perhaps be attributed to the way in which they use reason to articulate their positions, but that isn't entirely correct, because Steve Sailer is as much an intellectual as Michael Novak.
This is why an outline by those who use that term so liberally (and usually in a pejorative sense) is something that if those people had any integrity whatsoever they would consider important enough to set forth. But we all know why they will not do this presumably: it is easier to make assertions without backing them up or take a position without sustaining it by viable argumentation than to do the work necessary to present a theory properly constituted for the perusal and critique of others.
Perhaps it comes down to something of a slight, but important, difference in outlook. The men I've identified as deep-in-the-bones conservatives seem a little more likely to feel that we are sharply limited in what we can do to limit the negative consequences of human frailty, while the "neos" have a slightly larger, but I really mean slightly, sphere of action where we can try to make a more good and just public life through the prudent application of right reason.
Perhaps so, but until the parties in question define their terms, we will never know what their "rationale" is or even if they have any at all. And (of course) without that information, there is no reason whatsoever to presume that they have any real motives of credibility{1} for anything they say on this matter whatsoever.
So perhaps the term "neo-con" is then something of a visceral reaction against what is perceived to be impossible, or at least very imprudent, namely the attempt to guide events in the public sphere in a positive direction.
Well if that is so, then such individuals are a hindrance to society and not a help. And if they are Catholics, it would do them well to consider what Pope Benedict XVI wrote in his first encyclical letter published a couple of days ago about the role of the laymen in society:
The Church's social teaching argues on the basis of reason and natural law, namely, on the basis of what is in accord with the nature of every human being. It recognizes that it is not the Church's responsibility to make this teaching prevail in political life. Rather, the Church wishes to help form consciences in political life and to stimulate greater insight into the authentic requirements of justice as well as greater readiness to act accordingly, even when this might involve conflict with situations of personal interest. Building a just social and civil order, wherein each person receives what is his or her due, is an essential task which every generation must take up anew. As a political task, this cannot be the Church's immediate responsibility. Yet, since it is also a most important human responsibility, the Church is duty-bound to offer, through the purification of reason and through ethical formation, her own specific contribution towards understanding the requirements of justice and achieving them politically.
The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper. A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church. Yet the promotion of justice through efforts to bring about openness of mind and will to the demands of the common good is something which concerns the Church deeply...
We can now determine more precisely, in the life of the Church, the relationship between commitment to the just ordering of the State and society on the one hand, and organized charitable activity on the other. We have seen that the formation of just structures is not directly the duty of the Church, but belongs to the world of politics, the sphere of the autonomous use of reason. The Church has an indirect duty here, in that she is called to contribute to the purification of reason and to the reawakening of those moral forces without which just structures are neither established nor prove effective in the long run.
The direct duty to work for a just ordering of society, on the other hand, is proper to the lay faithful. As citizens of the State, they are called to take part in public life in a personal capacity. So they cannot relinquish their participation “in the many different economic, social, legislative, administrative and cultural areas, which are intended to promote organically and institutionally the common good.” [21] The mission of the lay faithful is therefore to configure social life correctly, respecting its legitimate autonomy and cooperating with other citizens according to their respective competences and fulfilling their own responsibility. [Pope Benedict XVI: Encyclical Letter Deus Caritas Est §28; §29 (circa January 25, 2006)]
Now I do not know if you are a Catholic or not but those whom I had in my rangefinder who like to use the term "neo-con" in a pejorative sense and refuse to explain what they mean by it would not find comfort in what was just quoted above. Nor for that matter could similar statements in the writings of previous pope give them comfort. They in other words make pretensions of being loyal but in reality their loyalty is to their own ideologies. They have shown that when push comes to shove that the teaching of the popes is only accepted by them when it is convenient for the advancement of their agendas which I must say (in the cases of some of them) looks and sounds a lot like marxism under a clever mask of "social justice", "peacemaking", and the like.
In short, even if your description of the term is correct, the so-called "neo-cons" (if these people actually exist mind you) would be acting in accordance with the teaching of Pope Benedict XVI and his predecessors viz. the importance of taking a proper and pro-active role in the shaping of society. Meanwhile, those who hurl the epithets and frequently claim to be the most "loyal" to the popes would be the ones abdicating proper responsibility.
But of course all of this is a moot point if those who throw the term around do not have the integrity to explain what they mean by it. At the very least sir, you have provided us with some food for musing which is a lot more than those I have been critical of have done.
To be Continued...
Note:
{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. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 4, 2005)]
The Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG has been updated!!!
The subject dealt with in that update is my long-held policy towards private correspondence.
The subject dealt with in that update is my long-held policy towards private correspondence.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Guest Editorial on the Atomic Bombings, the Continued Emphasis on it Publicly by Certain Apologists, and the Goal of Catholic Apologetics:
(Written by Dr. Art Sippo)
I am astonished that the American use of the Atomic bombs on Japan which occurred over 60 years ago would continue to be a source of controversy among Catholic apologists after the extended discussion we had over the Summer. I think that it is clear that there is no one Catholic position on this and that no one can claim to speak Magisterially on this matter other than the Pope and the Bishops in union with him. While I respect Dave Armstrong's right to his opinion, I do not agree with him and I think he has been seriously misinformed about the facts surrounding these historical events. Furthermore, the only competent authorities who could give a definitively Catholic response to this matter have remained scrupulously silent about it. This includes six Popes and one Ecumenical Council.
Catholic apologetics has as its goal the defense of the faith against attack both within and without the Church. Competence as an apologist does not extend to the moral casuistry necessary for complex moral issues such as the uses of the Atomic bomb in WWII. In fact this topic has no relevance to Catholic apologetics. Consequently, I would call upon all Catholic apologists to return to the real business of apologetics and not be distracted away from it by peripheral issues of no real importance to our current problems.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro!
(Written by Dr. Art Sippo)
I am astonished that the American use of the Atomic bombs on Japan which occurred over 60 years ago would continue to be a source of controversy among Catholic apologists after the extended discussion we had over the Summer. I think that it is clear that there is no one Catholic position on this and that no one can claim to speak Magisterially on this matter other than the Pope and the Bishops in union with him. While I respect Dave Armstrong's right to his opinion, I do not agree with him and I think he has been seriously misinformed about the facts surrounding these historical events. Furthermore, the only competent authorities who could give a definitively Catholic response to this matter have remained scrupulously silent about it. This includes six Popes and one Ecumenical Council.
Catholic apologetics has as its goal the defense of the faith against attack both within and without the Church. Competence as an apologist does not extend to the moral casuistry necessary for complex moral issues such as the uses of the Atomic bomb in WWII. In fact this topic has no relevance to Catholic apologetics. Consequently, I would call upon all Catholic apologists to return to the real business of apologetics and not be distracted away from it by peripheral issues of no real importance to our current problems.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro!
For Preserving the Historical Record:
For only the fourth time in the history of this weblog, it has been necessary to backpost a thread to preserve historical continuity of sorts or (in this case) not post after the recent guest editorial. Having noted that, We at Rerum Novarum found it interesting that in one of Dave Armstrong's comments boxes, he invites Greg Mockeridge and your humble servant to participate and then deletes what We posted there. Obviously the more "you got slapped like a redheaded stepchild" threads are one thing to remove{1} but We also weighed in there with a correction to Dave's egregious misrepresntation of something written by Us to him via an email over three years ago (which he used in a paper with Our concurrence to do so).
The subject in question pertained to the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the official journal of the Holy See where all official texts are published. In writing on the matter involving a papal epistle clarifying the intention of Pope Pius X on a matter pertaining to doctrine over three years ago or so, We wrote the following which Dave quoted at the time at length:
Catholic apologist Shawn McElhinney adds another clarifying comment, pertaining to matters of authority of various papal writings:
Sidebar: We bristled then at the reference to Us as an "apologist" and it is even less palatable to Our eyes to see it now. Nonetheless, onto what was written as quoted by Dave...
Mr. King is correct that if this document was solely a private correspondence, there would be no "official bearing" per se (though the idea that someone would express privately a sense of interpretation so remarkably at variance with his own official statements is a remarkably schizophrenic outlook). But I digress . . .
But the Acta Apostolae Sedis (prior to 1915 it was referred to as the Acta Sancte Sedis) is a catalogue, if you will, of papal pronouncements that have official sanction. A document does not necessarily have to be in this compendium to be binding of course (particularly if it is simply reaffirming previous teaching). However, correspondence of less than a normal degree of official sanction (such as Allocutions or private letters) which the pope intends to make official are listed in this directory.
The fact that it was listed in the Acta makes it binding teaching. In this sense the pope supplied an interpretation of his own encyclical letter. Hence, anyone claiming that the pope contradicted this interpretation two years later with the Oath Against Modernism has the weight of proof on their shoulders.
Besides, anyone who knows what they are talking about on this issue knows that the "evolution of doctrine" referred to in Lamentabili was directed towards the theories of one Alfred Loisy. Abbe Loisy asserted (in responding to his contemporary Adolph Harnack) that Catholic dogma was "an evolution with its roots in the Primitive Church". Many of the texts from Lamentabili were taken practically verbatim from the writings of Loisy, Tyrrel, and others of their ilk. If Mr. King does not know this, then he has absolutely no business commenting on these subjects as if his view is somehow "certain".
So in closing, as this common protocol can be easily verified by Mr. King -- if he is as committed to honesty as he claims -- he has some reassessing to do. The question, of course, is this:
Will Mr. King admit that he erred here on this point and do so as publically as he made the original assertion???
My guess is that he will ignore it and post his next objection in the tradition of "apologists" who appear to have an axe to grind with Rome. But of course I am open to being surprised by Mr. King should he decide to take the higher road here.
Now then, a careful reading of what I wrote above (which Dave has prooftexted more than once absent context in that comments box thread btw) points out that I was referring to the Acta being a collection of texts of varying grades. Once again, I noted in the above blurb (which was written off-the-cuff btw) the following:
But the Acta [Apostolicae] Sedis (prior to 1915 it was referred to as the Acta Sancte Sedis) is a catalogue, if you will, of papal pronouncements that have official sanction.
That is, the texts there are official. However, there are two kinds of official texts in the Acta: ones which are magisterial (i.e. pertain to matters of doctrine or discipline) and official statements or acts of the pope which do not meet this criteria. Dave has attempted to use a text I wrote which was dealing with a text pertaining to a matter of doctrine (i.e. the orthodoxy of Newman's theory on development) and has sought to make every utterance he can find from the popes on his new pet issue and treat an inclusion in the Acta as being defacto binding and magisterial. That is not how it works at all. I even noted this in an email correspondence to Greg which was duplicated in Dave's comments boxes (the aforementioned fourth deleted thread) in these words:
As you can see, it was a matter pertaining to doctrine which was the issue, not particular events or circumstances. The former inclusions in the Acta are magisterial, the latter ones denote official policy. Dave is once again engaging in context-switching on the matter. [Email Correspondence to Greg Mockeridge (circa January 23, 2006) later posted to Cor ad Cor Loquitur Comments Box and Deleted by Dave Armstrong]
When one understands this key distinction, the rest of what was written makes perfect sense:
A document does not necessarily have to be in this compendium to be binding of course (particularly if it is simply reaffirming previous teaching). However, correspondence of less than a normal degree of official sanction (such as Allocutions or private letters) which the pope intends to make official are listed in this directory.
Notice once again the two tiered classification: texts pertaining to doctrine or matters of ecclesiastical discipline which are considered binding when included in the Acta and other texts which are matters of official policy which are not.
The fact that it was listed in the Acta makes it binding teaching. In this sense the pope supplied an interpretation of his own encyclical letter. Hence, anyone claiming that the pope contradicted this interpretation two years later with the Oath Against Modernism has the weight of proof on their shoulders.
Once again, the context of that correspondence was on a matter pertaining to doctrine. In retrospect,We should have made a better distinction but it was also thought that Dave was capable of discerning the distinction. Obviously based on his current Handian antics, it is clear that he either cannot or will not.
Oh and something else noted by Us in that thread Dave removed was this observation on what was said in retrospect about David King then and the parallels to Dave Armstrong now:
Ironically, what I noted about David King in that example applies in spades to Dave in this one. But that is neither here nor there as you can see, I refer to the Acta as having pronouncements that have "official sanction" and the one in question in that citation as being "binding teaching." Dave's attempt to apply the latter bit to the entire scope of the Acta is blatantly disingenuous and shows that he has a very fundamentalist understanding of these matters. [Email Correspondence to Greg Mockeridge (circa January 23, 2006) later posted to Cor ad Cor Loquitur Comments Box and Deleted by Dave Armstrong]
And that is not the only example of Dave playing the role of the marxist who airbrushes the historical record...indeed We posted an entire thread earlier this week where even more examples were given. But rather than end at that point, let Us consider some recent comments by Kevin Tierney when the latter read Dave's latest "the circle is really a square" posting:
[Update: What was noted here previously was an example of Dave engaging in ad hominem. He apologized to Kevin Tierney for what was included there; ergo at Kevin's request, I am snipping that part of the text. -ISM 1/27/06 11:52am]
Though the above text has been omitted, the principle behind its posting remains intact: that Dave attempts to spin things as his adversaries engaging in ad hominem sans argumentation while Dave attempts to make himself look as if he actually takes on all comers and interacts with their arguments.But the above examples are just a few which disprove this notion. Indeed, from From what We can discern on the matter in question, Dave has an amazing double standard in place if we consider his own words on interacting with the views of others:
Ah, the time has come for new year's resolutions! I have kept to my resolution for 2005, which was to not debate theology any longer with anti-Catholics (with the exception of those who attempt point-by-point refutations of any of my papers). To understand the reasons why I made this decision, see the resolution itself. I engaged in exactly one theological "debate" in the year 2005 under these "loophole conditions": with James White on the Bible and Tradition matter of "Moses' Seat". I mistakenly (albeit charitably) thought he had answered point-by-point, because he did indeed issue a very lengthy reply to some writing of mine on that subject, and so I issued a rebuttal.
Of course anyone with a normal intact functioning brain can see that and all he can do is focus on the tone of the piece which (if you consider how he has acted) was completely justified on Our part. Apparently, Dave would rather interact with anticatholic sorts and prefers to ignore point by point demolishings of one of his papers by a fellow Catholic. What was Dave's response to the anticatholic he refers to above whom he wrote a response to???
Needless to say, he fled for the hills after my long reply (as he always does after the first round), and hasn't been heard from since (with regard to his usual potshots and personal attacks against yours truly).
Gee Dave, that is what you have been doing...not so much the personal attacks as much as Oh and lest anyone forget, Dave has admitted to what your host asserted all along about that btw.{2}
The man does at least know when he has been bested in argument, whether or not he will admit it.
Which is an improvement over your situation Dave since you do not realize when you have been beaten and soundly at that.
Some folks go on and on replying, no matter how ridiculous and irrational further answers are (e.g., Steve Hays, or Frank Turk, to a lesser extent). Others know when it is futile to continue and so cease (with or without conceding defeat; usually the latter).
A fine example of self-diagnosis on Dave's part in Our opinion...
2) I still remain committed to responding to attempted point-by-point rebuttals of any of my papers. As such replies are exceedingly rare (virtually no one ever tries to do it), this won't come up very often, if at all. But it remains true that if any of these anti-Catholic fools truly want to engage me in debate, the opportunity is still there. They need only take on one of my papers point-by-point. No one who does that will ever lack a reply from me: even anti-Catholics.
So much for that new year's resolution on Dave's part. But enough on this matter for the immediate future. The bottom line is, when it comes to Dave and the historical record, as far as people such as Kevin, Greg Mockeridge, and your humble servant are concerned (to paraphrase that great western philosopher Joe Louis) "Dave can run but he cannot hide."
Notes:
{1} It is his comments box and Dave has shown to have a very thin skin but those are not significant threads anyway. Thus, We do not object to their removal in the same way as We do to the other example covered in this note...though if Dave really meant what he said about participation in those boxes, he would have left those threads in. (Of course some of the points We made in those threads were pretty damning of his actual position so We can see why he removed them...if your host was in his shoes and had a similar lack of concern for the historical record and for truth in publishing, the same thing probably would have been done by Us that he did.)
{2} Dave, I made a very logical and factual analysis with many facets to the equation and backed up every bit of it with sound analysis and you treated it from the get-go without an ounce of respect. Furthermore, you have admitted now exactly what I said all along about not only dodging my arguments but refusing to dialogue properly. Thanks for vindicating me Dave even if only in private. [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence With Dave Armstrong and Some Others (circa January 19, 2006) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa January 23, 2006)]
For only the fourth time in the history of this weblog, it has been necessary to backpost a thread to preserve historical continuity of sorts or (in this case) not post after the recent guest editorial. Having noted that, We at Rerum Novarum found it interesting that in one of Dave Armstrong's comments boxes, he invites Greg Mockeridge and your humble servant to participate and then deletes what We posted there. Obviously the more "you got slapped like a redheaded stepchild" threads are one thing to remove{1} but We also weighed in there with a correction to Dave's egregious misrepresntation of something written by Us to him via an email over three years ago (which he used in a paper with Our concurrence to do so).
The subject in question pertained to the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the official journal of the Holy See where all official texts are published. In writing on the matter involving a papal epistle clarifying the intention of Pope Pius X on a matter pertaining to doctrine over three years ago or so, We wrote the following which Dave quoted at the time at length:
Catholic apologist Shawn McElhinney adds another clarifying comment, pertaining to matters of authority of various papal writings:
Sidebar: We bristled then at the reference to Us as an "apologist" and it is even less palatable to Our eyes to see it now. Nonetheless, onto what was written as quoted by Dave...
Mr. King is correct that if this document was solely a private correspondence, there would be no "official bearing" per se (though the idea that someone would express privately a sense of interpretation so remarkably at variance with his own official statements is a remarkably schizophrenic outlook). But I digress . . .
But the Acta Apostolae Sedis (prior to 1915 it was referred to as the Acta Sancte Sedis) is a catalogue, if you will, of papal pronouncements that have official sanction. A document does not necessarily have to be in this compendium to be binding of course (particularly if it is simply reaffirming previous teaching). However, correspondence of less than a normal degree of official sanction (such as Allocutions or private letters) which the pope intends to make official are listed in this directory.
The fact that it was listed in the Acta makes it binding teaching. In this sense the pope supplied an interpretation of his own encyclical letter. Hence, anyone claiming that the pope contradicted this interpretation two years later with the Oath Against Modernism has the weight of proof on their shoulders.
Besides, anyone who knows what they are talking about on this issue knows that the "evolution of doctrine" referred to in Lamentabili was directed towards the theories of one Alfred Loisy. Abbe Loisy asserted (in responding to his contemporary Adolph Harnack) that Catholic dogma was "an evolution with its roots in the Primitive Church". Many of the texts from Lamentabili were taken practically verbatim from the writings of Loisy, Tyrrel, and others of their ilk. If Mr. King does not know this, then he has absolutely no business commenting on these subjects as if his view is somehow "certain".
So in closing, as this common protocol can be easily verified by Mr. King -- if he is as committed to honesty as he claims -- he has some reassessing to do. The question, of course, is this:
Will Mr. King admit that he erred here on this point and do so as publically as he made the original assertion???
My guess is that he will ignore it and post his next objection in the tradition of "apologists" who appear to have an axe to grind with Rome. But of course I am open to being surprised by Mr. King should he decide to take the higher road here.
Now then, a careful reading of what I wrote above (which Dave has prooftexted more than once absent context in that comments box thread btw) points out that I was referring to the Acta being a collection of texts of varying grades. Once again, I noted in the above blurb (which was written off-the-cuff btw) the following:
But the Acta [Apostolicae] Sedis (prior to 1915 it was referred to as the Acta Sancte Sedis) is a catalogue, if you will, of papal pronouncements that have official sanction.
That is, the texts there are official. However, there are two kinds of official texts in the Acta: ones which are magisterial (i.e. pertain to matters of doctrine or discipline) and official statements or acts of the pope which do not meet this criteria. Dave has attempted to use a text I wrote which was dealing with a text pertaining to a matter of doctrine (i.e. the orthodoxy of Newman's theory on development) and has sought to make every utterance he can find from the popes on his new pet issue and treat an inclusion in the Acta as being defacto binding and magisterial. That is not how it works at all. I even noted this in an email correspondence to Greg which was duplicated in Dave's comments boxes (the aforementioned fourth deleted thread) in these words:
As you can see, it was a matter pertaining to doctrine which was the issue, not particular events or circumstances. The former inclusions in the Acta are magisterial, the latter ones denote official policy. Dave is once again engaging in context-switching on the matter. [Email Correspondence to Greg Mockeridge (circa January 23, 2006) later posted to Cor ad Cor Loquitur Comments Box and Deleted by Dave Armstrong]
When one understands this key distinction, the rest of what was written makes perfect sense:
A document does not necessarily have to be in this compendium to be binding of course (particularly if it is simply reaffirming previous teaching). However, correspondence of less than a normal degree of official sanction (such as Allocutions or private letters) which the pope intends to make official are listed in this directory.
Notice once again the two tiered classification: texts pertaining to doctrine or matters of ecclesiastical discipline which are considered binding when included in the Acta and other texts which are matters of official policy which are not.
The fact that it was listed in the Acta makes it binding teaching. In this sense the pope supplied an interpretation of his own encyclical letter. Hence, anyone claiming that the pope contradicted this interpretation two years later with the Oath Against Modernism has the weight of proof on their shoulders.
Once again, the context of that correspondence was on a matter pertaining to doctrine. In retrospect,We should have made a better distinction but it was also thought that Dave was capable of discerning the distinction. Obviously based on his current Handian antics, it is clear that he either cannot or will not.
Oh and something else noted by Us in that thread Dave removed was this observation on what was said in retrospect about David King then and the parallels to Dave Armstrong now:
Ironically, what I noted about David King in that example applies in spades to Dave in this one. But that is neither here nor there as you can see, I refer to the Acta as having pronouncements that have "official sanction" and the one in question in that citation as being "binding teaching." Dave's attempt to apply the latter bit to the entire scope of the Acta is blatantly disingenuous and shows that he has a very fundamentalist understanding of these matters. [Email Correspondence to Greg Mockeridge (circa January 23, 2006) later posted to Cor ad Cor Loquitur Comments Box and Deleted by Dave Armstrong]
And that is not the only example of Dave playing the role of the marxist who airbrushes the historical record...indeed We posted an entire thread earlier this week where even more examples were given. But rather than end at that point, let Us consider some recent comments by Kevin Tierney when the latter read Dave's latest "the circle is really a square" posting:
[Update: What was noted here previously was an example of Dave engaging in ad hominem. He apologized to Kevin Tierney for what was included there; ergo at Kevin's request, I am snipping that part of the text. -ISM 1/27/06 11:52am]
Though the above text has been omitted, the principle behind its posting remains intact: that Dave attempts to spin things as his adversaries engaging in ad hominem sans argumentation while Dave attempts to make himself look as if he actually takes on all comers and interacts with their arguments.
Ah, the time has come for new year's resolutions! I have kept to my resolution for 2005, which was to not debate theology any longer with anti-Catholics (with the exception of those who attempt point-by-point refutations of any of my papers). To understand the reasons why I made this decision, see the resolution itself. I engaged in exactly one theological "debate" in the year 2005 under these "loophole conditions": with James White on the Bible and Tradition matter of "Moses' Seat". I mistakenly (albeit charitably) thought he had answered point-by-point, because he did indeed issue a very lengthy reply to some writing of mine on that subject, and so I issued a rebuttal.
Of course anyone with a normal intact functioning brain can see that and all he can do is focus on the tone of the piece which (if you consider how he has acted) was completely justified on Our part. Apparently, Dave would rather interact with anticatholic sorts and prefers to ignore point by point demolishings of one of his papers by a fellow Catholic. What was Dave's response to the anticatholic he refers to above whom he wrote a response to???
Needless to say, he fled for the hills after my long reply (as he always does after the first round), and hasn't been heard from since (with regard to his usual potshots and personal attacks against yours truly).
Gee Dave, that is what you have been doing...not so much the personal attacks as much as Oh and lest anyone forget, Dave has admitted to what your host asserted all along about that btw.{2}
The man does at least know when he has been bested in argument, whether or not he will admit it.
Which is an improvement over your situation Dave since you do not realize when you have been beaten and soundly at that.
Some folks go on and on replying, no matter how ridiculous and irrational further answers are (e.g., Steve Hays, or Frank Turk, to a lesser extent). Others know when it is futile to continue and so cease (with or without conceding defeat; usually the latter).
A fine example of self-diagnosis on Dave's part in Our opinion...
2) I still remain committed to responding to attempted point-by-point rebuttals of any of my papers. As such replies are exceedingly rare (virtually no one ever tries to do it), this won't come up very often, if at all. But it remains true that if any of these anti-Catholic fools truly want to engage me in debate, the opportunity is still there. They need only take on one of my papers point-by-point. No one who does that will ever lack a reply from me: even anti-Catholics.
So much for that new year's resolution on Dave's part. But enough on this matter for the immediate future. The bottom line is, when it comes to Dave and the historical record, as far as people such as Kevin, Greg Mockeridge, and your humble servant are concerned (to paraphrase that great western philosopher Joe Louis) "Dave can run but he cannot hide."
Notes:
{1} It is his comments box and Dave has shown to have a very thin skin but those are not significant threads anyway. Thus, We do not object to their removal in the same way as We do to the other example covered in this note...though if Dave really meant what he said about participation in those boxes, he would have left those threads in. (Of course some of the points We made in those threads were pretty damning of his actual position so We can see why he removed them...if your host was in his shoes and had a similar lack of concern for the historical record and for truth in publishing, the same thing probably would have been done by Us that he did.)
{2} Dave, I made a very logical and factual analysis with many facets to the equation and backed up every bit of it with sound analysis and you treated it from the get-go without an ounce of respect. Furthermore, you have admitted now exactly what I said all along about not only dodging my arguments but refusing to dialogue properly. Thanks for vindicating me Dave even if only in private. [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence With Dave Armstrong and Some Others (circa January 19, 2006) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa January 23, 2006)]
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
In light of Sunday's steamrolling of a very tough Carolina Panther team, it is officially a very good season for the Seattle Seahawks now. (Depending on how they do on February 5th it could possibly be upgraded to a phenomenal season.) I was almost too leery to predict they would make it to the Superbowl in light of how often in the past my predictions of their season have blown up in my face{1}, but they are there now and will be in for a heck of a war. Pittsburgh is frankly the last team I wanted to make to the Superbowl{2} because they are the one team in the AFC who can play smashmouth ball as the Hawks do. But I have to say, I was spooked about getting Carolina over Chicago in the NFC championship and other than the second play of the game, I was not concerned once the game started. Heck, when you have a team starting their backup QB at wide receiver in the game and he gets his first reception for nearly 30 yards and a first down, you know things are going like clockwork for your team but I digress.
I predict this will be a lowscoring game, a game with a lot of hard hits, and I predict a Hawks victory by seven points or less. Scorewise, I will say Hawks 17 Steelers 10. It may be higher or lower scorewise, but I see a spread of seven points or less. In other words, I do not see either team dominating the other the way the Hawks did the Panthers or the Steelers did the Broncos. It should be a sensational matchup and I like the fact that the sixth seed Steelers are being favoured over the first seed Hawks...gives our boys motivation to not try and mail it in come February 5th in Detroit. To slightly modify a lyric from that great western philosopher Aaron "T-Bone" Walker:
"The eagle will fly on February 4th...and on the fifth the Hawks will come to play"
Go Hawks!!!
Notes:
{1} See this thread for details on that if you are interested in seeing your host's botched football predictions over the years.
{2} And I took that view despite the Steelers being my second or third favourite team over the years btw.
I predict this will be a lowscoring game, a game with a lot of hard hits, and I predict a Hawks victory by seven points or less. Scorewise, I will say Hawks 17 Steelers 10. It may be higher or lower scorewise, but I see a spread of seven points or less. In other words, I do not see either team dominating the other the way the Hawks did the Panthers or the Steelers did the Broncos. It should be a sensational matchup and I like the fact that the sixth seed Steelers are being favoured over the first seed Hawks...gives our boys motivation to not try and mail it in come February 5th in Detroit. To slightly modify a lyric from that great western philosopher Aaron "T-Bone" Walker:
"The eagle will fly on February 4th...and on the fifth the Hawks will come to play"
Go Hawks!!!
Notes:
{1} See this thread for details on that if you are interested in seeing your host's botched football predictions over the years.
{2} And I took that view despite the Steelers being my second or third favourite team over the years btw.
Monday, January 23, 2006
I heard the other day about the death of the mother of one of my oldest friends. I mentioned her inevitable passing back in December and it has now come to pass. Before I forget to mention it on the weblog, I want to post this thread to ask if you can please remember both her and her family in your prayers.
God rest her soul...
God rest her soul...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)