Taking Dale Vree and Certain Catholic Figures Who Defend Him On a Much Needed Trip to the Woodshed:
(Guest Editorial by Greg Mockeridge)

[Editor's Note: I will be supplying a writing of my own to supplement and (in some respects) take a different approach to the subject matter Greg will talk about in this writing. Nonetheless, at the end of this piece I will include some threads where in some form or another these subjects were discussed either explicitly or tacitly at this humble weblog in the past six months to a year.

In the meantime, because there is a revolving cast of characters in the text below, it seems appropriate to note them by colour at this time. Greg's words will be in regular blog font and any sources he cites other than the words of others will be in darkblue font. Dale Vree's words will be in black font and Karl Keating's will be in fire coloured font. Furthermore, Dr. Philip Blosser's words will be in green font, Rosemarie's will be in steel blue font, and Dr. Ed Peters' words will be in a magenta colouring. Without further ado, here goes...]

#######
The article "Sock It To Us! Fling Us Into That Brier Patch" that appeared the New Oxord Notes portion of the New Oxford Review, whining about Pete Vere's rather terse criticism of their "critique" of a Michael O' Brien article about the tyrannical foothold militant homosexual activists have gained up in Canada with the passage of C-250 (legislation that makes any public criticism of the homosexual lifestyle a hate crime, punishable by jail time) is a recent example of the descent into the abyss of the asinine by Dale Vree of the New Oxford Review over the last couple of years.

Vree laments:

On Vere's Internet blog, The Lidless Eye Inquisition (Feb. 16 and 17), he socks it to the NOR because of our critique of Michael O'Brien of Canada. O'Brien wrote an article in another magazine where, according to Vere, he "warned [that] the homosexual agenda was leading to a new totalitarianism in Canada." Vere says, "the folks at NOR made use of their first ammendment [sic] rights to attack O'Brien and other Catholics from Canada for standing up to the gay agenda." In our February 2006 issue, we published a long article revealing "The Truth About the Homosexual Rights Movement," and as a result, we've been directly threatened by a homosexual. No First Amendment rights will protect us from violence.

Now I'm not saying that criticism of the methodology Pete employed in his criticism of Dale is off limits. In fact, I told Pete, in private correspondance, that some of the criticisms of the way he went after Vree had some merit. I think he was a bit heavy-handed with the namecalling and should have focused more on the substance (or should I say lack thereof) of Vree's arguments. For one thing, it gave Dale a big enough rabbit hole to jump down to avoid the substance of Pete's criticisms.

Since Mr. O'Brien's forte as a writer is fiction…apocalyptic fiction that is, I was more than willing to take that into account and overlook any literary exaggerations common to that genre. But after reading the article, I saw no need to grant such latitude. O'Brien's characterization of the situation in Canada is spot-on accurate and his language more than appropriate.

But Dale Vree disagrees:

Michael O'Brien is an accomplished Catholic novelist. His strength is fiction. In The Catholic World Report (April), he ventures into nonfiction, specifically political science, and what he writes turns out to be fiction as well.

And:

This is pure hysteria, and is so reminiscent of the New Left in the late 1960s and early 1970s, which claimed that Nixon was Hitler and America is Amerikkka.

Agreeing with Vree, Karl Keating says:

I thought Michael O'Brien's essay was well composed, but Dale Vree happened to be right in saying that O'Brien overstretched in using "totalitarian" to describe the trend of the present situation in Canada. That word has a particular, narrow meaning, and I think O'Brien used it unwisely.

If Messrs Vree and Keating think O'Brien is hyperventilating, consistency would demand that they hand out the paper bags to Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI as well. The former says:

As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism" (Veritatis Splendor #101)

In his homily at the opening mass of the Conclave that elected him pope, the former Cardinal Ratzinger made this well-known and oft repeated statement:

"We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires."

O'Brien's article accurately (and without hysteria I might add) underscores how this "thinly disguised totalitarianism" and "dictatorship of relativism" has concretely taken shape in Canadian society and Canadian laws.

Moreover, I would like to ask both Keating and Vree if "a printing company that declined to print Toronto's annual gay pride day literature was sued under the human rights law, fined heavily, and forced to print the material or close their business" doesn't smack of totalitarianist tactics or militant homosexuals, buoyed by the positions taken by the Canadian legislature, behaving like "Nazi hooligans" in their in protesting outside Archbishop Adam Exner's Episcopal residence in Vancouver because His Excellency "withdrew his Catholic schools from a bank due to their promotion of homosexuality" doesn't contain a " whiff of Germany in the early 1930's" then what the hell does?

Vree quotes Vere stating (correctly I would say) that "New Oxford Review are useful idiots of the gay agenda." In Vree's defense, the Pertinacious Papist (Dr. Phil Blosser) says "That NOR is 'useful idiots of the gay agenda'...is utterly absurd.... Nobody in his right mind who has read such essays [against homosexuality in the NOR] can see such statements as those above [Vere's statements] as anything but absurd."

Dr. Blosser's remark shows that he is either:(a) clueless as to what the term "useful idiot" means , (b) clueless as to the strategy of homosexual advocacy groups and how Vree's statements play into it, or (c) clueless about both. Dale's wanton use of vulgar epithets like "fags" and "rump rangers" (neither of which, especially the latter, have any place in public Catholic discourse) make it much easier for gay activists to portray all of us who oppose societal validation of the homosexual lifestyle as "God hates fags"-chanting Fred Phelps wannabes. I fail to see how this helps to put the proper (and I think badly needed) stigma on homosexual behavior. Then he launches an attack on Michael O'Brien who (at the risk of jail time) courageously speaks out against the Canadian government's attempt to force the gay agenda on the Canadian public by way of legislative fiat. The coupling of these two facts make clear that idiots for the gay agenda don't come any more useful than Dale Vree.

If one reads the article written by O'Brien and then reads what Vree, Keating, and Blosser have said about it, he will see that the former makes an airtight case, replete with examples, to justify the use of his terminology, while the latters demonstrate they know not what they are talking about.

Just so no one misunderstands me, I am in no way saying that constructive criticism of O'Brien's article is off limits. But Vree's BS knee jerk drivel (as well as Keating's and Blosser's agreement with it) misses the mark of constructive criticism by such a long shot it would not have been affected if they had tried to hit it with an atom bomb.

But what I find more disturbing than Vree's drivel is the eagerness employed by prominent Catholic apologist Karl Keating, Catholic philosopher and author Dr. Phil Blosser, and prominent canonist Dr. Ed Peters circling the wagons in Vree's defense. This is especially true when we consider those whom Vree has unfairly attacked. O'Brien and Vere are not the only Catholics who are the targets of Vree's vitriol. Popular scripture scholar and author Dr. Scott Hahn, John Paul II biographer George Weigel, and even Pope Benedict XVI himself come under fire from the NOR editor.

One would think that the prominent Catholic personages, especially the ones listed above, would practice fraternal correction with Mr. Vree. The fact of the absence of such badly needed correction, to say nothing of the defense of such excesses, is a gravely disturbing one.

In the interests of full disclosure, I must point out that Keating does say that he "sometimes disapprove[s] of the way Vree writes (and several times...[has] told him so privately, on the phone)". But as we will see in the paragraph after the next, Karl is clearly talking out of both sides of his mouth.

We have already seen Keating and Blosser embarrass themselves with their defense of Vree's nonsensical attack on O'Brien. But it gets even better---or worse depending on how you look at it.

For starters, we have Dr. Blosser happily informing his readers of the "You didn't have to defend him like you did, but you did, but you did (enter ZZ Top slide and return guitar riff here) and I thank you" phone call from Karl Keating complete with nauseating platitudes about how nice of a guy Vree is.

As we will see when we look at Dr. Phil's apologia pro Dale Vree, he got Mr. Keating's gratitude on the cheap. Dr. Blosser masterfully demonstrates that a Ph.D. in philosophy doesn't guarantee sound argumentation...or intellectual honesty for that matter.

His main post defending Vree was entitled Dale Vree, God's Faithful Pit Bull: Show Some Respect! First of all, for Phil Blosser to demand that people show respect for Dale Vree while not demanding that Vree do the same in light of his vicious treatment of good Catholics is beyond insulting.

Secondly, some "pit bull" this Dale Vree is! He yelps like a whiny poodle when Pete Vere gives him a dose of his own medicine.

He defends Vree's treatment of Dr. Scott Hahn:

Scott Hahn is a very dear personal friend of mine, and I generally repose a near absolute trust in his theological judgments. Whatever may be said of his views concerning the Holy Spirit, however, the broadside derisive dismissal of NOR's discussion of Hahn's Pneumatology represented by such witless folderol is simply embarrassing, for NOR published no such nonsense as this. In fact Karl Keating, one of NOR's contributing editors, argues on Shea's blog that even if Vree's editorials were to be criticized as hyperbolic, the same charge could not be leveled against articles such as the one that appeared in the June 2004 issue entitled "Scott Hahn's Novelties," by Edward O'Neill. Keating writes: "I read that article more than once and saw no hyperbolic language or uncharity in it. It was a low-key look at some of the positions Scott has taken (some of which I hadn't been aware of), and I thought it brought up fair questions." (Source) I read the same article and drew much the same conclusion myself. Most of the emotional rants against the NOR that I have seen have not been based on first-hand acquaintance the journal, but with secondhand hype and balderdash.

Dr. Blosser's preface "Scott Hahn is a very dear personal friend of mine…" strikes me as reminiscent of what Dan Rather said to Bernard Goldberg before Mr. Rather went ballistic over the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed Goldberg wrote about liberal media bias, "Bernie, we were friends yesterday, we're friends today, and we'll be friends tomorrow." Well, just as Bernie got "Mugged by the Dan"(Bias pp.33-34), Dr. Scott Hahn (along with George Weigel) got flayed by the Phil in the interests of protecting Dale Vree.

Dr. Blosser portrays NOR's criticisms of Dr. Hahn's views regarding the "femininity" of the Holy Spirit as they though are constructive and when they are nothing of the sort. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Ed O'Neill's article is as Karl Keating says, "low-key look at some of the positions Scott has taken…" and "brought up fair questions", it does not even come close to giving the full picture as to NOR's treatment of Hahn. To wit:

In our New Oxford Note "Burn, Baby, Burn!" (Sept. 2002), we took on the highly esteemed Dr. Scott Hahn for saying outrageous and scandalous things. We noted: "Feminist theologians and their Queer cheerleaders have been campaigning for a feminine Holy Spirit for decades. How odd — how depressing, actually — to see Dr. Hahn jump on the bandwagon."

Does Phil Blosser consider this "low key" and "fair"? Or is he unaware of this article or the "Burn Baby Burn" article? This doesn't seem to be the case since, as Dr. Blosser makes clear, he is very familiar with the NOR and would, therefore, be aware of them. If he is not, he is not as familiar with NOR as he claims. So he is either deliberately, by way of omission, not giving his readers sufficient information as to NOR's characterization of Hahn's views or he is not sufficiently familiar with them to mount a credible defense of them. Either way, it seems clear that he is being less than honest with his reader.

I find Dr. Blosser's characterization of the comments made at Mark Shea's blog as "witless folderol"to be…well…witless folderol. Since comments boxes on weblogs are venues given more to sound byte-type off-the-cuff remarks instead of lengthy explanation or arguments supporting a position, as Dr. Blosser seems to demand, one should not expect such. That being said, I thought that the remarks made regarding Vree's criticisms of Dr. Hahn generally accurate. I also think Blosser is less than honest in his portrayal of the comments box statements. For instance, he totally avoids the trenchant (and very relevant) explanation Rosemarie gives of Hahn's position vs. Vree's criticisms:

Having studied "Christian feminism," I'd hardly call Scott Hahn's speculation on the Holy Ghost "feminism." I read that controversial passage in First Comes Love; Hahn explicitly denies that the Third Person of the Trinity is essentially "feminine" and states outright that we cannot call God "Mother." That would annoy any "Christian feminist."Hahn basically cites certain Christian sources who spoke of the Holy Spirit in maternal terms over the centuries (he avoids heretical sources like Gnosticism). He then speculates that, since a mother is the "bond of love" in a human family and the Spirit is the "bond of love" in the heavenly family that is the Church, then perhaps the Spirit plays a "mother-like" role in our heavenly family. Since He also has a special bond with Blessed Mother and Holy Mother Church (the Spirit is "soul of the Church"), Hahn speculates that the Spirit's "mother-like" role may be somehow related to the Motherhood of Mary and the Church.

And:

Here's an example of how Dale Vree completely misconstrues Scott Hahn's argument. In his "Burn, Baby, Burn" Newsnotes he writes the following:"Dr. Hahn goes so far as to say the Holy Spirit is "bridal" and that "Mary's maternity is mystically one with that of…the Spirit." The imagery here is blatantly and scandalously lesbian."Here, Vree gives readers the false impression that Scott is saying that the Holy Spirit is the "bride" of Mary. Nothing could be further from the truth! He has taken Hahn's statements grossly out of context. On page 135 of First Comes Love, Hahn writes:"As the Father made Eve from the rib of Adam, so Methodius called the Holy Spirit 'the rib of the Word' - the uncreated principle of maternity".This comment from St. Methodius relates to the mystery of the Church as Bride of Christ. As Eve was taken from Adam's side, so the Church was born from the New Adam's pierced side on the Cross. St. Methodius represented the Spirit as coming forth from Christ's side on the Cross as well.What Scott Hahn is saying is: since the Holy Spirit is the Soul of the Church, and the Church is the Bride of Christ, in some mysterious sense the Spirit may be said to have a "bridal" relationship to the Word by means of the Church, the Bride of Christ. He relates this to Methodius' statement that the Holy Ghost is "the rib of the Word."He is NOT saying that the Spirit is Mary's bride, but that the Spirit is the "Soul" of Christ's Bride! This is a further example of how Vree misrepresents Scott Hahn's argument, making it seem he said something which he did not in fact say!The statement "Mary's maternity is mystically one with that of the Spirit" does not indicate lesbianism, either. It simply means that, since the Holy Spirit has a close bond with Our Lady (as St. Maximilian Kolbe taught), Mary's motherly love for Jesus and for us is imbued with the Holy Spirit, Whom Fr. Manteau-Bonamy called "the maternal love" of God the Father for the Son.It does not mean that the Holy Spirit is a "mother of Jesus" in addition to Mary. Scott Hahn makes no such argument. When you really understand what he is saying, you'll see there is no lesbianism there at all.Vree 's malfunction is in part due to his erroneous idea that the Holy Ghost played a "sexual" role in the Incarnation. That is why he reads Hahn's work and thinks, "Lesbianism!!!" He's reading it through the lens of his own misunderstanding of the Spirit's role in the Incarnation, which was not a paternal -or maternal- role at all!

Lest anyone think Rosemarie is simply carrying the water for Dr. Hahn, she goes on to say:

Scott Hahn may be right, he may be wrong, and one can certain question whether that book, intended for popular consumption, was really the best place to engage in such nuanced theological speculation. But he did not deserve to be slammed with feminist/pro-gay marriage libel because of it.

Amen Rosemarie. Who's operating from "hearsay" and "second hand" information? Dale Vree and Phil Blosser, not Rosemarie or anyone else in the comments box.

Dale Vree appears to have a serious axe…more like a guillotine…to grind against Pope John Paul II biographer George Weigel. He calls Weigel George "Humpty Dumpty Weigel" and characterizes his book The Cube and the Cathedral as "rhetorical witchcraft". If Dr. Blosser is so damned adamant about Vree's critics showing him respect why doesn't he demand that Vree show respect for Weigel? In fact, he defends Vree:

But the real issue here is the definition of "freedom" and whether Vree misinterpreted Weigel. The answer, I contend, is quite simple: Vree turns out to be right here, and it is Weigel who is fudging. Let me explain. In his original article, ( "A Nation Defining Election", The Tidings, April 2004), Weigel is concerned to distinguish two senses of the word "freedom": (1) freedom in the sense of doing things "my way"; and (2) freedom in the sense "doing the right thing for the right reasons in the right way, as a matter of habit (which is another name for 'virtue)." There is nothing new about this distinction. Out of the multifarious senses of "freedom" one might distinguish (here Mortimer Adler's Freedom: A Study of the Development of the Concept in the English and American Traditions of Philosophy is probably definitive), Weigel has singled out two -- the former, a sense with modern associations stemming from the Enlightenment and Kant's notion of the autonomous executive will ("doing what I want") -- and the latter, a sense with classical associations stemming from the Greek, or more specifically, Aristotelian ideals of virtue ("doing what I should," or "acting in accordance with the inner telos of my true nature"). The latter is also susceptible of overlays of biblical understandings ("the Truth shall set you free") and Thomistic and Lockean natural law ("freedom is discerned through the naturalis ratio") and their respective modes of apprehending the Good.Now it is true, of course, as the Catholic Encyclopedia, and Weigel, and Aristotle and all of classical thought are agreed, that 'virtue' is a kind of 'habit.' Just as by repeatedly smoking cigarettes, one acquires the habit of smoking, so by repeatedly performing acts of moral goodness (like telling the truth) or evil (like telling lies), one acquires moral habits (virtues such as truthfulness, or vices, such as untrustworthiness). This much is a given.But now, when Weigel writes in his letter to NOR: "I have never written that 'freedom' is 'another name for virtue,'" and that what he had originally written was that "'habit' is 'another name for virtue,'" this may be true; but it is also beside the point and misleading. For the question is not whether "freedom" is "another name for virtue" -- which it isn't -- but whether it is conceptually linked with virtue in Weigel's second sense of "freedom," which it essentially and ineluctably is. Therefore it seems to me that Weigel is being not a trifle disingenuous here, probably still smarting from Vree's treatment of him in his Sept. 2004 New Oxford Note ("George 'Humpty Dumpty' Weigel") to which he obviously took strong exception. Vree's answer to Weigel sounds flippant, but it would be unwise to dismiss it precipitously as conceptually mistaken on that account, because it's not. Vree wrote:

What's not to understand? What you wrote is crystal clear: Freedom is habit is virtue. Therefore, freedom is virtue. Sorry, but there's no "plausible deniability" here. You can't wiggle out of it. You said it, and you can't pass the buck on to Fr. Pinckaers.

It's true that the terms and concepts of "freedom" and "virtue" are not identical. But in Weigel's second definition of freedom, he defines freedom in the sense of a habit of virtue; hence, Vree is entirely within his epistemic rights in concluding that, for purposes of that definition, freedom = habit = virtue. Thus Vree is the one who's got his philosophy right here, no matter how flippant he may sound, whereas it's Weigel who is blowing smoke and confusing the issue, no matter how diplomatic and scholarly he may sound. What's Weigel up to? Why would he do such a thing? Why would someone who is the object of sharp criticism react in this way? To distance himself from his critic? To give the appearance of having bested his critic in any way possible? You tell me.

Even if we were to concede some of Vree's portrayals of Weigel's definition of freedom had any merit (or that Vree is within his "epistemic rights"), Dr. Blosser would have to acknowledge that Vree's attack on Weigel was way over the top. Given the insulting tone Vree employs in his "critique" of Weigel, I think Weigel's "snippety" response was well justified.

Anyone with any familiarity with NOR knows, contrary to what Dr. Blosser claims, what is really at issue here is that Vree's personal animus against Weigel and the rest of the Catholic "neo-con" establishment over issues like the war in Iraq is what fuels his vitriolic criticism of Weigel's definition of freedom. And since Vree knows he cannot effectively take on Weigel or any of the other dreaded "neo-cons" in arena of ideas on this issue, he has to divert attention from that fact by starting a tempest in a teacup, pole-vaulting over the mouse turds of Weigel's minor epistemological errors (real or perceived) on the nature of freedom. Anyone who actually Weigel's article knows what he is talking about and just how petty Vree is being.

I find it disturbing, to say the least, for Blosser to not only refuse to hold Dale Vree accountable for conduct that is clearly unbecoming of an editor of a Catholic periodical, but hold Vree is high regard: "With very few and comparatively minor exceptions -- generally constituting, at worst, indiscretions of tact -- my judgment is that Vree's editorial performance has been utterly irreproachable."

Let's take a look at a few more examples of Dale Vree's "utterly irreproachable" editorial performance, shall we?

To wit:

In an unjust war -- which is what the Catholic Church said the war on Iraq is -- killing soldiers, killing civilians who get in the way of military targets, and killing civilians on purpose are all murder. (And just what is the difference between terrorism and murder in warfare?) (emphasis added)

Now, Mr. Vree should know that when he says the "Catholic Church" said the war in Iraq is unjust that is ascribing magisterial authority to the opposition to the war of Pope John Paul II and then Cardinal Ratzinger despite the latter explicitly stating otherwise on two separate occasions:

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia. (Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion — General Principles #3 with emphasis added)

Furthermore, the former Cardinal made clear that political matters (under which category the war in Iraq qualifies) are "not within his competence" and are "not a matter of Catholic doctrine":

"Of course, [The Pope] did not impose this position as a doctrine of the Church but as the appeal of a conscience enlightened by faith. The Holy Father's judgment is also convincing from the rational point of view: There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq." (Cardinal Ratzinger interview with Zenit News in May 2, 2003)

Vree has, recently, made his belief regarding the magisterial status of Vatican opposition to the war in Iraq even more clear:

So all in all, opposition to the war on Iraq can be considered a teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium, that is, not infallible. The moral teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium are to be given "loyal submission of the will and intellect" (Vatican II's Lumen Gentium, #25). This should be reason enough for loyal Catholics to oppose the war on Iraq.

But is this teaching infallible? Stick with us, for in a roundabout way, the condemnation of the invasion of Iraq is infallible. (emphasis added)

If we are to follow Vree's logic here, Cardinal Ratzinger, by saying that Vatican opposition of the war in Iraq is not part of Catholic doctrine, is guilty of the same kind of Mater, sí; Magístra no refusal to submit to the Ordinary Magisterium viz. Lumen Gentium 25, as the peo-war "neo-cons".

In the interests of full disclosure, I have to admit that the latter Vree quote came some time after Dr. Blosser's defense. However, as the first quote indicates, the trajectory towards the latter was rather clear. Moreover, Dr. Blosser, I am sure, is well aware of the second quote and has yet to raise any objections to it. Considering Dr. Blosser's willingness to go to pains to defend Mr. Vree in the past and the heterdox nature of Vree's position as stated in the latter quote, I think Dr. Blosser ought to at least make clear that he objects to it.

Now enter in canonist Dr. Ed Peters. He weighs in on the Contra Dale Vree affair in his guest blogger post of February 20th of this year on Jimmy Akin's blog. I would like to say that his approach was more reasoned than that of Karl Keating and Dr. Phil Blosser, but it wasn't. He begins with:

"Lately it seems that ripping Dale Vree and the New Oxford Review has become many people's favorite past time."

Yeah, it's because Dale deserves the "ripping" he has been getting.

"Of course, Vree is no stranger to intellectual street-fighting, so knocking NOR is nothing new. But to this observer, the pile-on looks like it's getting out of hand."

Given the way Vree whines when he gets his comeuppance, he isn't much of a streetfighter. Seeing as how Dr. Peters seems to express no concern over what caused the "pile-on" to begin with, namely Vree's beyond-the-pale vitriol, "this observer" isn't all that observant.

"For example, just recently, Pete Vere, an early-30s, fairly well-known, orthodox Catholic blogger from Canada, thrice taunted Dale Vree (who is twice Vere's age) for virtually being at death's door and therefore practically out of time to repent of his publishing sins lest he go to hell. (I am not making this up). That does it. Somebody, hold my glasses. I'm going in."

Well, given the blindness with which Peters flails about in this post, he would have been better off if he kept his glasses on (or at least wore contacts). Again, I think the manner Pete Vere choose in some of his criticisms of Vree left something to be desired, but the way Peters minimizes Vree's faults in comparison to Pete's is both embarrassing and intelligence-insulting. Note how Dr. Peters plays the "youth card" against Vere. What does Pete's age (or Dale's for that matter) have to do with any of this? Can we stick to the issues please?

"Dale Vree is not omniscient, his logical skills are not perfect…"

No one is demanding this, so why even bother with this non-sequiter?

"…and sometimes he fails in patience and charity. In other words, he's a lot like me."

Anyone who has even a cursory acquaintance with Vree's writings over the past couple years knows that Vree's failures far exceed a momentary or even an occasional lapse in charity and good judgment. Vree's rantings regularly display a gross lack of charity and concern for accuracy. In this light, I must now defend Dr. Peters against his own self-flagellation. No, Ed you are not like Vree. I don't think anyone could find anything written by you that shows anything like the kind of lack of charity and concern for accuracy that has become par for the course with Vree.

"I've been reading NOR off and on for some 25 years—almost as long as Pete Vere has been alive—and there's an old saying I just made up: 'Blessed are the believing GenXers, for theirs is a world with abundant outlets for orthodox expression.' "

If Peters has been "reading NOR off and on for some 25 years—almost as long as Pete Vere has been alive" he should know just how rancid Vree's polemics have become and just how silly and insulting his attempt at defending him is. Well , here's an "old saying" I just made up "Blessed are those abundant outlets for they prevent expressions of Catholic orthodoxy from being controlled by the apologists' old boys club."

"They can't remember the bad ole days, when virtually every organ of religious and secular media was dominated by the monolithic chant of 'Burn, baby, burn."

"Burn, Baby Burn"? Wasn't that a title of one of Vree's hit pieces on Scott Hahn? Yep, I think it was.

"Fewer people remember when, for his articulate defense of Catholic principles, Dale Vree was perhaps the loneliest man in Catholic publishing."

So how does Vree's past good work justify the gutter ploemics he presently engages in? I mean, how many historians use Benedict Arnold's earlier heroics (which by far exceed Vree's--real or perceived) to justify his later act of treason?

"But I remember those days, and say that if, in the twilight of his career, Dale Vree is making some unnecessary enemies, that is a genuine matter for concern and individual confrontation by his peers, not for disrespectful rebukes from youth."

Well, if you guys who consider yourselves his peers would stop circling the wagons and actually confront him, there would be no need for "disrespectful rebukes from youth". Peters' statement here smacks of an elitism that has become all too commonplace amongst certain prominent Catholic apologists. Again Ed, can we stick to issues and put the youth card back in the deck? Thank you.

This gives rise to the question of why a Catholic apologist of the caliber of Jimmy Akin (who IMO is the most responsible and the most scholarly of the professional apologists) would allow his blog to be a venue for this. Now I don't think Jimmy did it out of deference to Vree as much as to Peters, since he and Peters have a well-established working relationship. But I think Jimmy should have known better and examined what Peters wrote more closely or at least made some explicit qualifications.

Last fall when the conservative base of the Republican party was up in arms over President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court and pressured him to pull her nomination (which he eventually did), some characterized it as a "crack-up" within the conservative base. Rush Limbaugh responded to that charge in an Wall Street Journal Op-Ed piece entitled "Holding Court There's a crackdown over Miers, not a 'crackup'" The title said all that really needed to be said about that issue.

Likewise here, this piece I have written, if understood and assimilated properly, will serve as a "crackdown" on what is going astray in Catholic apologetics and aid in its getting back on proper course, not a "crack-up".

If Catholic apologetics is going to be taken seriously by those outside the Church, Catholic apologists (especially those most prominent) have to demonstrate that they are willing to hold themselves and their fellows to at least the same standard as they hold their non-Catholic opposition. In fact, I think they need to hold fellow Catholics (particularly those whom they have close working relationships with as Keating does with Vree and Akin does with Peters) to an even higher standard.

I have taken the time and energy to write this not only out of my respect for Catholic apologetics and the inestimable assistance it has provided to many (this writer included) in coming a proper understanding of what the Catholic Church is and what it teaches and why, but also out of respect for those who have made Catholic apologetics their life's work, including those whom I have taken to task here.

Karl Keating's "Catholicism and Fundamentalism" was the first work of Catholic apologetics I ever read. I found it to provide a valuable framework within which to understand certain controversial and difficult Catholic doctrines such as papal infallibility, the Real Presence, Mary etc. I would not hesitate in recommending it to anyone seeking a better understanding of the Catholic faith. I also believe that Catholic Answers, the organization founded by Keating, has provided an indispensable service to the Church as well.

Ed Peters' canon law work, especially in regards to marriage and annulment issues is, in my view, second to none. He has also been more than generous in sharing his expertise on these matters, including his agreement to my request to give a presentation on annulments to a marriage and family (more like anti-marriage and family but I digress) class I was taking at a local community college about ten years ago.

I am not as familiar with the work of Dr. Phil Blosser, but I did find his work "War and the Eclipse of Moral Reasoning" a well-done work. The only significant, but harmless, error he made in the paper was about Ginger Baker dying of a drug overdose in 1960's, unless of course he was miraculously resurrected for the 2005 Cream reunion concert at Royal Albert Hall. In fact, Baker looks better now in his 60's than he did in his 20's. And he's still a great drummer.

Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for his defense of Dale Vree. The defense of Dale Vree by Dr. Peters and Mr. Keating, as well as Dr. Blosser is, in my view extremely harmful to the credibility that Catholic apologetics and scholarship needs to have if it is going to be able have any real impact today. Finally, let me ask them how do they expect the non-Catholic, to say nothing of the anti-Catholic world to give them a fair hearing when they engage in the same kind of behavior they have so often rightly upbraided their opposition for?
#######

[Epilogual Notes: Listed below are are some threads I have written on the subject of Dale Vree and/or the problems I have long noted with his methodology:

"Blosser vs. Blosser" Dept. (circa February 12, 2006)

On Zeal, Nature and Ecclesiology, Dale Vree and New Oxford Review, Etc. (circa February 23, 2006)

"Vreebird" Dept. (circa March 6, 2006)

"From the Mailbag" With Christopher Blosser (circa April 8, 2006)

[As for the rest, I refer the reader to this paper which I wrote recently where I hope to outline in the form of a hypothesis a potential theory for why we have been seeing for some time a serious problem in the Catholic apologetics community and why the latter is making themselves essentially impotent as a positive force in the culture wars of today. -ISM]

Points to Ponder:

"A bad peace is even worse than war." [Tacitus]

Points to Ponder:

"Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me.'"[George Orwell]

Before I forget to mention it, the Mariners have gone without mention at this weblog for a couple of years because basically they have either stunk or shown a propensity for boneheaded decision making that borders on the serial. However, some of the trades from the offseason of 2004 were good ones and those players (Beltre and Sexton) who started off this year so horribly have gotten back on track and the results in the past couple of months has been winning more games.

I was expecting (based on their history of ineptitude here) that the Mariners would either stand pat at the midseason trade deadline, make a useless trade, or make one or more trades that shot their team in the head under the pretext of "rebuilding" or whatever. However, this year, they actually pulled their head out of their rectum and made a solid midseason acquisition during a year where they are contenders: something that has not been done since 1995.{1} But this season, they got a solid acquisition in Ben Broussard from Cleveland to accompany Eduardo Perez whom they got from the Indians last month for minor league talent.

Designated for assignment was Carl Everett{2} whose offense had been as invisible in the past month as logic and reason in an antiwar.com position paper. In Everett's place, we now have a platooned DH which should supply a significant bump in offense compared to what that position had been getting us before.

So for the first time in years, I am sensing that the Mariners are on the right track. Now if they can only pick up a quality starter on waivers in September and make the playoffs...

Notes:

{1} Even 1995 technically should not be counted here cause I say it in retrospect: the trades were made when the team was pretty much dead in the standings and they just happened to launch one of the greatest comebacks to make the playoffs in baseball history as a result.

{2} Referred to as "C. Everett Kook" by some for his weird scientific theories (including that dinosaurs never existed).

Points to Ponder:

When a new source of taxation is found it never means, in practice, that the old source is abandoned. It merely means that the politicians have two ways of milking the taxpayer where they had one before. [H. L. Mencken]

Briefly Dispatching With A Standard Pseudo-"Peacemaker" War "Argument" Yet Again:

Based on an email received earlier today, it seems that one of the readers wants to revisit the so-called "chickenhawk" subject to some extent. Frankly, I have shot that dog dead already. Twice. (Once on my birthday last year and once again on Mayday this year.) For that reason, I see no need to waste any more ammunition on that illogical excuse for an "argument." Nonetheless, to show for the umpteenth time in the past four odd years that I do to some extent take reader emails into account with what is blogged at this humble weblog, I will briefly recount one of those threads at this time -starting with the preface of the thread from May 1, 2006:

The material in this posting was originally blogged back in October as a birthday fisking under the title Another Flawed Argument From Pseudo "Peacemakers" Bites the Dust. Without wanting to reconstitute the entire post at this time, I nonetheless want to remind readers of why this kind of argumentation is so flawed. For that reason, a truncated version of the earlier posting will suffice to avoid reinventing the wheel innecessarily. Without further ado, here goes...[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 1, 2006)]

To read the rest, click on the link above.

The readers are advised to not expect anything in the way of a substantive argument against what is outlined in the above thread by the more rabid of the self-styled "peacemakers."{1} Instead, any attempted responses by those sorts will consist of illogical and irrational rants based not on reason and logic but instead on said party's solipsistic view of the war in Iraq and war in general -be it actual arguments they attempt to advance, links to similarly flawed articles by other parties they consider to be "allies", etc.

Note:

{1} I remind you readers that this does not involve the issue of the war in general, only one particularly stupid and easily confutable argument that is a stock talking point amongst the self-styled "progressivists" and pseudo-"peacemakers."

"All The News That We Think Fits Or Can Be Made To Fit" Dept.

Who wants yesterdays papers
Who wants yesterdays girl
Who wants yesterdays papers
Nobody in the world

Apparently, the New York Times is in trouble and they are taking actions to try and regain viability. After fourteen years of obvious decline, here are some of my suggestions{1} for improving the paper overnight -starting with what they should really do:

---Have "Pinchy" Sulzberger arrested, tried for sedition{2} (if not downright treason), and then promptly executed.

But since that is not likely, lets consider some other approaches they can take. Before doing that however, it would help to recall some of what your host wrote last year on the problems with the journalistic profession in the aftermath of the whole Deep Throat subject:

The journalistic profession has become one where you "make it" by finding someone whose reputation you can destroy. Ethics are often not a factor, indeed morals and ethics often get the screw from journalists who are trying to "make it" and then (for those who "make it") the same tactics are utilized to try and stay "on top." The same is the case with the legal profession and the political profession: oftentimes those who "make it" do so by screwing other people. So the parallel to prostitution is an apt one. The only difference of course is that prostitutes are somewhat honest about it. But enough on that subject for now.

To summarize these musings, Woodward and Bernstein by their approach to "Deep Throat" ushered in a new era of journalism which is rotten to the core. It is comprised of people who seek to create news and who are interested in spinning the facts to advance an agenda rather than report on what is happening and letting the readers draw their own conclusions. The ethics in this field are abysmal and a strong reason why the MSM is slowly becoming more and more irrelevant in this new age of alternative media is because they are no longer a monopoly.

Unlike in the days of the Watergate scandal and even in the days of the so-called "Iran Contra scandal", the MSM does not have their former capabilities to propagandize the public discourse. Instead, today they must peddle their wares in the marketplace with a variety of viewpoints now and do not have the luxury of monopolizing the media as they once did. This has made many of them take an approach from being wary to being skeptical (if not downright hostile) towards alternative media. And they will find out in the coming weeks that the conventional wisdom about W. Mark Felt being a "hero" in the early 1970's will not play with the public in quite the sameway they think it will. And when that happens, the MSM's disconnect with the populace will again be set forth in bold relief. The present writer would not bet on them figuring it out at that point though for those who are wondering. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 1, 2005)]

Having diagnosed the core problems with modern day "journalism", a real remedy could be suggested for their predicament but it is not as if the New York Times sorts would accept it. Therefore, lets consider some of the more absurd possibilities since it seems with these sorts the propensity for them to accept an idea is in direct proportion to its absurdity, illogic, etc. With that in mind, here are this writer's suggestions for them to consider:

--Changing the paper to resemble the Weekly World News format except on a slightly larger scale of course.

--Changing "All the News that is Fit to Print" to "All the News We Can Find or Create That We Think You Should Accept Blindly and Uncritically Like the Moronic Sheeple That You Are." A bit windier to read but nonetheless it would be quite forthright of them to admit to their agenda up front like that.

--Inaugurating a special position called Al Jazeera Quality Control Inspector to review all stories and insure that they conform to the proper groupthink view of events.

--Create two different posts within the aforementioned position: one for national affairs and one for international affairs.

--Give the above posts to Jayson Blair for national affairs and Noam Chomsky for international affairs.

Since a working definition of insanity is doing exactly the same things over and over again while expecting a different result each time, this writer recommends that the NYT do more of the same but somewhat differently. Meaning: do more of the same but be more open and honest with your viewpoints and what you think of your readers and the public at large.

Notes:

{1} In accordance with the suggested "assignment" at this link.

{2} Much as I hate to remind people, we are at war and no amount of closing one's eyes and wishing it was not so will change that. There have been a lot of actions taken by the MSM which in a time of war should not be tolerated by a logical and sane people. The extent to which "political correctness" has been involved in these occurrences taking place is obvious; nonetheless, whatever idiocies are tolerated outside of a time of war should not be tolerated when at war. And that is the bottom line really.

Miscellaneous Musings on Grocery Store Etiquette

Points to Ponder:
(On The Proper Way to Make and Present Arguments)

Mike Mentzer was the man who refined and developed further Arthur Jones' theories on exercise science. He also was one who was an even larger influence in a subsequent refining of my intellectual approach than Arthur Jones was. (Indeed it was through Mike that I learned about Jones to begin with.) Mike used to often dissuade people from accepting what he had to say on subjects of exercise science simply on the basis of him possessing one of the hallmark "credentials" in the particular field he was involved in. (In this case, being one of the greatest physical specimens of all time.) Indeed, rather than base any of his arguments on this factor, Mike would instead often make statements akin to the following:

I've always reasoned that if the material I presented was valid in and of itself, was offered in a logical manner, and designed to appeal to one's reason and common sense, then the likelihood of it being accepted for its intrinsic worth was greater.

That is a direct quote taken from his last written work (published shortly after he passed on) but he often made statements in that vein of thought throughout his lifetime. And that is how I have throughout my life approached discussing any subject matter as a rule. It should go without saying that I therefore recommend the same approach to anyone who wants to make a contribution of value to the arena of ideas: focus only on the intrinsic validity or lack thereof of any argument proposed. For that is what really matters in the legitimate advancement of ideas if we take it down to brass tacks. [I. Shawn McElhinney: Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 27, 2004)]

On Marxists and Their Methodology:
(A Visit to the Rerum Novarum Archives)

[Note: This is part of a longer posting I wrote a year ago last Thursday. In light of the kinds of drivel continuing to permeate cyberspace and the MSM on the subject of current wars, it seems appropriate to point out the underlying weltanschauung of many who try to pass themselves off as so-called "peacemakers" and the foundation of their solipsistic view of the world. -ISM]

[W]ith the marxists it is not actual results which are important but instead it is the intentions of the advocates.... I have no patience whatsoever for pseudo-"peacemakers" anymore when it comes to the subject of the current military involvement in the Middle East. These pseudo-"peacemakers" have no proactive plan behind US withdrawal from Iraq and they would not be willing to face up to what would happen in that scenario: because they would claim that their intentions were good.

Remember, there was no shortage of marxists who were masquerading under the masks of "peacemakers" and "social justice advocacy" who celebrated the US withdrawal from Vietnam. However, these very same seditionists never took responsibility for the aftermath. The very same people who (i) protested the war, (ii) tried to paint our soldiers in the worst light possible, and (iii) often were vocal about wanting to see a communist victory in SE Asia managed to get their way. They then lie and make stupid statements like "the violence ended when the US was forced out of the country" and then they wonder why no one familiar with history[...] takes them seriously for a second.

The United States scaled down military operations in 1972 shortly before the elections. After the elections, there was some continued bombing -particularly over Christmas of 1972 to bring the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table. The war ended in 1973 and the US military presence was absent the country after April of 1973. That is not to say that we were completely gone but the presence that remained there until 1975 was very minimal. It was not until 1975 that it could be said (albeit rather disingenuously) that the US was "forced out of the country" and that "force" was a result of the curtailing of funding by the congress -certainly not by the North Vietnamese themselves.

Lest there be any misunderstandings, from 1975-1978, there were more people massacred by the communist Vietnamese and Cambodian regimes than killed in any fashion during the period of US involvement from the earliest date we sent in so-called "military advisors" in 1957 to the final vestiges leaving Saigon in 1975. But the more activist of the hippie scumbags who sought to undermine our efforts in Vietnam refuse to face up to the results of what their seditious (if not downright treasonous) actions brought about. Again, results do not matter to marxists much as facts do not matter. All that matters is their intentions - a point which raises another interesting theme to consider.

The marxists --and every promoter of socialism is a defacto marxist in some form or another[...]-- have a notorious double standard from which they operate. Essentially, they judge their own policies not by the uniform and undeniable[...] failure of their policies every time they have been tried. No, with the marxists it is on the intentions behind their policies that they focus on. But they then judge their political enemies -and America is probably first on that list- by the results of their policies. And since America --despite its overall success as a bastion of freedom unlike any nation in history-- is imperfect, then there are always points that can be focused on to America's discredit. But the marxist intentions of a "paradise on earth" are far more idyllic than the even the significant results that America has achieved. For that reason, the results of marxist policies are ignored while the intentions of the marxists are their point of focus.

Now granted, the marxists fabricated a lot of stuff to make things appear even worse than they actually were but that point aside, there is enough in the historical record without fabrications to enable America to always look bad next to the ideal that marxists claim to repine for. And that is the secret essentially to why marxists can lie, cheat, steal, murder, and commit any atrocity and still be held up as icons for the marxist cause ala the near-veneration of predators like Castro, Guevera, Ortega, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Lenin, etc. by not a few who disingenuously claim the mantles of "progressivist" or "peacemakers." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 20, 2005)]

"Illustrating Absurdity By Being Absurd" Dept.

With the exception of the last line, the mentality of the following joke explains adequately what is wrong with the approach towards the war on terror which pseudo-"peacemakers"{1} advocate...

Little Melissa comes home from first grade and tells her father that they learned about the history of Valentine's Day.

"Since Valentine's Day is for a Christian saint and we're Jewish," she asks, will God get mad at me for giving someone a valentine?"

Melissa's father thinks a bit, then says "No, I don't think God would get mad. Who do you want to give a valentine to?"

"Osama Bin Laden," she says.

"Why Osama Bin Laden?" her father asks, in shock.

"Well," she says, "I thought that if a little American Jewish girl could have enough love to give Osama a valentine, he might start to think that maybe we're not all bad, and maybe start loving people a little. And if other kids saw what I did and sent valentines to Osama, he'd love everyone a lot. And then he'd start going all over the place to tell everyone how much he loved them and how he didn't hate anyone anymore."

Her father's heart swells with pride and he looks at his daughter with new found admiration. "Melissa, that's the most wonderful thing I've ever heard!"

"I know," Melissa says. "And once that gets him out in the open, the Marines could blow the shit out of him."


Note:

{1} Or as I have referred to in the past: false "peacemaking" being one of the many masks of modern marxism.

A Minor Rerum Novarum Pre-Update Update:

It has been four months since this weblog was last updated. For that reason, it seemed appropriate to me to start the process now by pruning the side margin a bit and adding some weblogs to my webroll. Basically the blogs in the blogroll are not to my knowledge in any of the blogrolls that I have been part of since earlier this year. And to the aforementioned blogs, two which I had followed for varying degrees of time were added: Right Reason and Flit(tm). I also anticipate making some divisions in the blogrolling format when that account is updated to premium though I am not sure at the moment when I will do that. But enough on blogroll additions for now.

I have also deleted from the sidemargin (but not from the archives themselves) several posts which were once categorized there. That is hardly unusual with a weblog update but this time (unlike any update I can ever recall), I actually retitled some of the posts as they were long labeled in the side margin to account for past tense instead of the present tense which they were originally titled under. (Though the original titles used in the postings themselves remains untouched.) Here are the lions share of the posts whose titles were changed in the side margin earlier today along with the new titles they were given and the reasons for the title change:

Why I Am Becoming A Reluctant Hawk [>>>]

That posting was written in January of 2003 before I reached a definitive synthesis on my views on utilizing the military option in Iraq -though I was rapidly approaching at that time the position I would later outline in no small detail. Nonetheless, to remove confusion and to put the title in the past tense in the side margin, it was retitled to read as follows:

Why I Am Gradually Became A Reluctant Hawk [>>>]


Why Peaceful Solutions With Iraq Are Pointless [>>>]

Time has passed (almost three and a half years to be exact) but as my position as outlined in that thread has not, the title of the posting was changed to read as follows:

My Definitive Pre-War Position on the Eventual War in Iraq [>>>]

I have yet to see anyone seriously interact with what I wrote in that post and do not expect any of the irrational pundits who repeatt the same vapid catchphrases again and again to do so. I say the position taken is "definitive" because it was based on non-normative criteria and not normative criteria for the most part; ergo, the judgment was based in objectivity and not subjectivity. Furthermore, I paid no heed at the time to the whole WMD subject viewing the arguments for utilizing the military option to be sufficient without taking what was then thought about WMD's into account. That is why I was not one of those who based their position on the WMD's and then changed their view when the latter were not found shortly after the war was started. But enough on that subject for now except to note the new title of that posting in the side margin.


Why I Disagree With the Pope on the War and Remain a Faithful Catholic [>>>]

I changed present to past tense and retitled it thusly:

Why I Disagreed With the Pope on the War and Remained a Faithful Catholic [>>>]


On the War and Certain Props for the Pope [>>>]

That posting was retitled to read as follows:

On the War and Certain Props for the Late Pope John Paul II


Briefly on Colonel Muammar Khadafi's Situation [>>>]

That posting was retitled to read as follows:

Briefly on Colonel Muammar Khadafi's Situation in Late 2003

The situation has a date but the principles I outlined in that posting are still viable ones; ergo the post was left in the side margin and changed to reflect the time it was posted.

On David Kay and His Testimony [>>>]

That posting was retitled to read as follows:

On David Kay and His Testimony in Early 2004 [>>>]

My rationale with the above change was the same as with the post preceding it. (All subsequent title changes where a date is inserted or something of a then-current nature was excised from the previous titling were modified according to this principle.)


Briefly on the Founding Fathers and Propagandistic Uses of Their Words by AntiWar Activists [>>>]

That posting was frankly too irenic in its original wording but I had not had a falling out with one of the parties in which I had in mind with that posting at the time. (The post was generally directed albeit it was taken from a specific site.) Since then though, the vitriol has been thick at times and the party in question has revealed themselves to be something I do not intend to go over at this time. Nonetheless, the post was retitled to read more appropriately as thus:

Briefly on the Founding Fathers and Propagandistic Uses of Their Words by Pseudo-"Peacemakers" [>>>]


Miscellaneous Reflections on the Most Recent Beheadings and the War on Terror --Part I (An Audio Post) [>>>]

Miscellaneous Reflections on the Most Recent Beheadings and the War on Terror --Part II (An Audio Post) [>>>]

In the above postings, the words "most recent" were excised and replaced with "Beheadings of September of 2004."


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

The above thread title was changed to read as follows:

A Rerum Novarum Recapitulation of Threads on the Recent War, the Politics Involved, and War in General Circa Pre-April 2005 [>>>]


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

Though the content of the post remains unchanged, the post itself in the side margin has been retitled to read as follows:

On the Pope, Moral Principles, the UN, Etc. [>>>]


The So-called "Bush Regime" and the "Free Tibet" Hypocrisy of the Braindead Communists and Their Sympathizers Progressives [>>>]

Retitled to read as follows:

The So-Called "Bush Regime" and the "Free Tibet" Hypocrisy of the Braindead Communists and Their Sympathizers Pseudo-"Peacemakers" [>>>]


Miscellaneous Musings on the Presidential Debate, the War on Terror, "Weisbach's Theorem", Etc. --Part I (An Audio Post) [>>>]

Miscellaneous Musings on the Presidential Debate, the War on Terror, "Weisbach's Theorem", Etc. --Part II (An Audio Post) [>>>]

In the above posting, the part referring to the then-current presidential debate was excised.


Briefly on the Upcoming Conclave [>>>]

Changed to read as follows:

Preliminary Musings Prior to the 2005 Papal Conclave [>>>]


An About Face From John Allen on the New Pope [>>>]

Now titled as follows:

An About Face From John Allen on Pope Benedict XVI (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) [>>>]

The side margin will be updated subsequent to March 25, 2006 (and possibly have some current links pruned from it) as I have time to do so...though it should be completed before the end of the month all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Points to Ponder:

Though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays. [Sun Tzu]

"Texas Death Match" Dept.
(Eric Johnson vs. Mark Shea)

It seems that Mark Shea{1} has once again provided a solid piece of evidence to substantiate your host's decision to avoid making even a tacit connection with certain sorts of people.{2} I was content to allude to a problem I have seen for some time with one of St. Blog's bigger kahunas in a miscellaneous threads posting from last month and using a specific example.{3} However, the latest one seems to be worth more than a mere aside comment.

Fortunately, it often happens that when I am too swamped to write on an issue I feel needs to be addressed, Providence{4} provides someone who covers the issue adequately enough for me to give at least a macro concurrence with what they have to say. In this case, the batter who stepped up to the plate and went yard was Eric Johnson of Catholic Light. It would seem in light of the title that Eric has given his posting{5} that there may be some animosity between him and Mark Shea. My interest is not in focusing on that possibility but instead on what Eric had to say in response on this particular issue. For that reason, I recommend that readers give Eric's posting a read through first before I continue. Here it is:

From the Bulging "Mark Shea Outbursts" File (Eric Johnson)

Normally, something like this would be relegated to a miscellaneous threads roundup but there are significant factors in the equation here which I have alluded to before{6} and very recently noted in an explicit example blogged to this very weblog.{7} It bothers me to have to note these things publicly because of the perception that some would get in me doing this. It is particularly problematical when you like the person you are addressing in this fashion and I like Mark a lot. However, this is a pattern that has been increasingly evident over the past year or so whenever he delves into geopolitical issues.

Lest there be any confusion on the matter (i) I like Mark a lot{8} and (ii) Mark is usually a very good apologist.{9} Nonetheless, as often happens with those gifted in apologetics, there is a problem that crops up which at some point will need to be addressed either at this humble weblog or elsewhere.{10} To summarize it in a nutshell, they often come over time to overestimate the degree of their general competence. Once this happens, they inexorably end up writing with as much of a presumed "certainty" on issues where their grasp of the issues involved is obviously razor thin as they do on issues where they have good knowledge and can legitimately discourse with.

For the sake of Mark's overall reputation as a good apologist, writer, and communicator, I hope he recognizes this problem and takes a proactive approach in rectifying it. There is nothing wrong with recognizing that one may have certain lacunas in their overall knowledge of an issue to comment on it. Or (at the very least) approach those matters with greater hesitation than they would if they were writing on something they are well versed on. But enough on this matter for now.

Notes:

{1} And while not belavouring the point, it nonetheless should be noted that if this is a typical example of St. Blog's "best social commentary" for 2005 than the award is about as valuable as confederate currency was in 1867. (Why on earth Southern Appeal lost out in this category among those who were nominated is a mystery to me but I digress.)

{2} In a nutshell, those who out of habit or other reasons resort either in general or on certain issues to utilizing various fallacious forms of argumentation. See this thread for more details:

Some Recent and Future Weblog Additions, A Reappraisal of Site Principles, Reapplying Said Principles, and Other Applicable Tidbits (circa June 23, 2006)

{3} Mark Shea's "Torture Poll"

This whole scenario is reminding us of something spoken of last year pertaining to those who use terms they do not bother to define or who otherwise shirk from doing so when challenged to do so.[...] But enough on that matter for now...

[...] [W]atch those who are incapable of giving a reasonable working definition of "rights" to claim that there is one. Definitions are the tools of thought and frankly, those who are not willing to define their terms do not deserve to be taken seriously...whether they are misappropriating the term "rights", "neo cons", or whatever.[Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 26, 2005) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum post (circa July 3, 2006)]

{4} If I may call it that (and it is my weblog so I will).

{5} I say this based on the title he gives the blog post which reads From the Bulging "Mark Shea Outbursts" File. With a title like that, it seems probable that Eric has been following Mark's blog postings for some time and noticing a pattern of sorts.

{6} See footnote three and the quote from December of 2005. (One of the parties I had in mind when originally writing that passage was Mark Shea and the subject involved was the one I referred to back on July 3rd of this year.)

{7} Miscellanous Musings (circa July 10, 2006)

{8} We have met in person several times as we attend the same parish.

{9} On some subjects there is arguably no one in the blogosphere who is better.

{10} Or to quote something I noted the other day in a thread footnote:

This is a subject well worth writing on at some point IMHO -not specifically aimed at Mark but to the problem as it exists in general. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 10, 2006)]

Unfortunately, time is not on my side at the present time to do the subject the justice it will require.

Very Briefly on the Invasion of Lebanon By Israel:

This is a subject I will almost certainly write more on as I have time to but briefly:

I have a very close friend whose family is from Lebanon. (They came to the States when she was a kid during the original occupation.) In two weeks time, her mother was scheduled to return to stay with relatives for about two months but after Beirut International was shelled, that trip has been cancelled.

More will be noted later on but I need to be in a proper frame of mind to handle this with the detachment it will require. (At the moment I am not capable of that so what is noted here is all I will say on the matter at the present time.)

Points to Ponder:
(On Irrational Approaches to Gain Self-Esteem)

[A] lot of people like to see celebrated figures come down a notch or two because their own self-esteem is not very high. They gain a sense of self-esteem when they can say, Look, I'm not like that; that person has shortcomings. And that's not the proper way to gain self-esteem. That's irrational. [Mike Mentzer]

Points to Ponder:

“We should not have an ‘open mind’ because that means we grant plausibility to anything, however, we should have a discerning mind. [Mike Mentzer]

Health Tip: Can Beer Be Good for You? (Forbes.Com)

A wonderful piece of news received via fellow beer connoisseur Greg Krehbiel. For position papers of sorts on beer from this humble weblog, some links will be provided below{1} and there are others in the archives. I recall reading once that beer can be good for bones...if memory serves it was Greg Krehbiel who found that thread too.


Note:

{1} Though there is a lot more that has been noted on this weblog over the years than the link I am about to provide; nonetheless, some of my observations on the subject can be seen in the thread located HERE.

Points to Ponder:

Individuals who have spent enormous amounts of time, energy, and money selling a particular idea or product often become so intent on seeing their [idea/creation] accepted by others that they tend to lose their objectivity...the stakes [involved] are in some manner intellectual/philosophical. [Mike Mentzer]

On Miscellanous Matters:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Note: I originally planned to post the first part of this note on July 6, 2006 with the working title "Damn Kim Jong II" Dept. but decided against it. -ISM]

---Right when I plan to not comment for five days or so, North Korea goes and tests some missiles. I was sorely tempted to write on this matter but to do so would have been to let that little twerp of a dictator interfere with my downtime so I said "sod it" and kept quiet. Thanks are in order to my amigos at the American Conservative Blogroll and The Alliance for dealing more than adequately with this issue. Having noted that, I want to expand on comments I made on Texas Fred's weblog on some other subjects (along with a couple other bits) so here goes...

---With regards to the whole slavery reparations issue, I personally have no sympathy whatsoever for those who whine about wanting "reparations"{1} because my ancestors were also slaves economically{2} or otherwise{3} which is part of the reason they immigrated to this country. They also either arrived here legally or they quickly made themselves legal citizens. If not for the fact that there is no evidence of the Mexican immigrants who arrive here illegally to become legal of their own accord{4}, I would hardly take the stance I do on these matters. But enough on that for now.

---As far as the Congress and being trusted, I do not need to remind those with longer memories that it was the Dems on Congress who cozied up to Commandante Ortega in the 1980’s when the Soviet Union was still around and taking territory like the Cornhusker offense on a Saturday in the fall. They cannot be trusted and should not be trusted with information that is intended to be kept quiet…too many seditionists in that batch along with some of the Republicans who are essentially ”me-too” sorts and thus are not better.

---It was brought to my attention a little while ago that Mark Shea took issue at being called a "distributivst" by yours truly a couple months ago. This stumped me as I could not recall making the assertion -indeed I checked the postings where I wrote/spoke on this matter{5} and gave them a read/listen. Having found nothing in them to substantiate this point, I was wondering where on earth Mark got this idea when I remembered a private email exchange I had with Greg Krehbiel where I wrote him pertaining to the subject of Catholic Church teaching. It was in that note that the assertion of distributivism was made pertaining to Mark Shea.

The purpose of my note to Greg was to point out in a discussion he and Mark were having, areas where each was right and wrong. Or to quote my own words on the matter:

You and Mark [Shea]'s disagreement is more interesting to me because (as I see it) each of you gets part of it right and part of it wrong.

In your case, you [Greg] are correct that on particulars the magisterium has not bound people to much in the way of specifics. However, it appears based on what I read (and I may have misinterpreted your view) that you do not think there is anything the magisterium has said on these matters that is requiring of assent. That would be incorrect. Mark is right that there are general principles that are bound viz. how we need to approach these matters. He errs however in presuming (as he seems to) that the magisterium has bound people to particular economic theories when in fact this has not happened at all.

The problem as I see it with many who would argue as Mark and company do is that they are adherents to an economic theory (distributivism) that is internally contradictory. They are right that one cannot dismiss wholeheartedly the magisterium’s interventions in economic matters; however, they are wrong to presume that said interventions are at all crystal-clear and precise and not admitting of a variation of applications depending on particular circumstances.

There are certain theories which we cannot accept of course (i.e. communism/socialism, forms of capitalism which are utilitarian and shorn of moral proinciples, etc.) but other than that, there is a broad spectrum of acceptable approaches to these matters.

Furthermore, Mark Shea’s assertion that your argument is no different than those who would question the church’s stand on bioethical matters is context-switching since bioethics involves matters which are not contingent ( i.e. when life begins, what is life, etc.) whereas economic theory is admitting of varying interpretations many of them which are contingent. But the thread above touches on these matters adequately for the present time -though I may develop parts of it later on if it seems appropriate or necessary (time-willing of course). [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence With Greg Krehbiel (circa April of 2006)]

For those who wonder how this note made it into the public forum, Greg asked me if he could blog that email and I said he could. Now then, if what I wrote is looked at carefully, the distributivist comment was a side issue to the broader subject matter of discussion. My main criticism was that Mark was not making proper differentiations between matters of teaching and matters of prudential judgment on some issues.{6} Another way of saying it was that Mark was in seeking to affirm that there are certain general principles which Catholics must give assent to was extending this to particular applications. Nonetheless, I did appear to call Mark a distributivist and he is right that in part I did this based on his esteem for G K Chesterton. The latter was a distributivist but it was not for that reason alone that I claimed that Mark was a distributivist.

My comment was based on the latter in part but also on observing that Mark seems to have a definition of capitalism that mirrors the caricatured one that the distributivists use. The rest of what I noted in that email remains intact though and I do believe that Mark and Greg each get certain parts right and certain parts wrong in their dispute.{7} Nonetheless, if Mark claims he is not a distributivist{8}, then I take him at his word, retract the assertion, and with this public notation, apologize to him for it.

---On the World Cup, I was so supportive of Italy in this final that I practically acquired an Italian flag to fly and took on a paizano accent. Anything to see the French go down to a crushing defeat yet again...they are cowards militarily and otherwise and now have been denied the World Cup. Aaaah how I love the smell of raviolli in the morning ;-)

Notes:

{1} Unless they either have actual family members who are slaves or have living relatives who were slaves of course.

{2} My father's ancestors were treated like subhuman crap by the British in the Potato Famine which was pretty much a creation of the British who let Irish who refused to convert to the Anglican religion to starve.

{3} My mother's ancestors (including her grandmother) were either serfs under the Tzar in the Ukraine or perished in the Terror Famine of the 1930's.

{4} In a fashion that respects the role of law in a just society of course -something that the proposed "amnesty" programs do not do. Oh and before I hear any of the "but they cannot speak English" schtick, that will not fly with me cause my ancestors could not speak the language initially either.

{5} On the Acton Institutes' Critique of Distributivism (circa March 27, 2006)

Miscellaneous Musings on Illegal Immigration, Voting Issues, Audioblogger, Fundamental Rights, Activism, Distributivism, Valid Theories and the Criteria Thereof, Etc.--An Audiopost (circa April 8, 2006)

Miscellaneous Musings on Distributivism, Valid Theories and the Criteria Thereof, Illegal Immigration, Activism, Fundamental Rights, Etc.: A Continuation Audiopost (circa April 8, 2006)

{6} This is a subject well worth writing on at some point IMHO -not specifically aimed at Mark but to the problem as it exists in general.

{7} In Greg's defense though, I believe his approach is more common to the general Catholic approach of wanting to live one's life as a Catholic and not wanting to delve too deeply into these kinds of more intricate matters. Let us face it: there is a lot of depth to those waters and no one can successfully navigate them all.

For that reason, those who would rather focus on living the faith instead of trying to understand everything, I can respect that certainly. I am also well aware of the way not a few who call themselves "apologists" overemphasize certain applications of principles and place the latter on a par with the principles themselves. I think part of the reason Greg approaches things as he does is in reaction to what not a few who call themselves "apologists" do either in general or (on certain issues) from time to time. But that is enough on the matter for now.

{8} Distributivist and distributist are two different terms used to explain that economics pseudo-"theory." (And that is what it is: see the threads in footnote five for more than ample substantiation of this assertion if you are interested.)

To add a thread to the miscellaneous thread installment posted back on the third...

Culture Wars' Troubling Praise of Israel Shamir (Christopher Blosser)

I have spoken before on the importance of properly vetting one's sources.{1} The reason should be obvious but unfortunately it often is overlooked. Essentially, there is a connection between those who are not inclined to want to reassess their foundational presuppositions on a reasonable basis and an inability on their part to maintain a sense of perspective. The latter results oftentimes in some pretty glaring blindspots on the part of such ideologues where they accept any argument they can find without concern for either (i) the solidity of the argument itself or (ii) the particular source they get it from. This is an example of the argumentation fallacy of provincialism in a nutshell.

Christopher's article outlines the latter problem with the magazine called Culture Wars which I subscribed to about six years ago (for about a year).{2} Anyway, give the above a read if you want to see a snapshot of what is wrong with ideological approaches to issues and what such persons and groups inexorably have to resort to when they refuse to call into question their operative presuppositions from time to time. But enough on that subject for now as it is brief sabbatical time now...should be back on Monday or so...same Bat time...same Bat blog ;-)

Notes:

{1} This is an important area to consider when seeking to viably advance one's views in the arena of ideas.

{2} One of the reasons I let the subscription expire without renewing it was because of traces of this problem. However, the primary reason at the time involved an even greater problem which I will not go into at the moment except to note that it has been commented upon by various personages in recent years.

Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing:

[Update: See this thread for an addition to the material below which was deemed appropriate to cover briefly in a followup thread. -ISM 7/05/06 3:00pm]

Lots of stuff to touch on briefly before taking a sabbatical for at least a few days if not more...

Was the Pope a Nazi? (Mark Riebling)

Yeah, this subject has been done to death but to his credit, Mark Riebling has some original contributions to this subject matter. Those who are not Catholic but who at the very least have a respect for both history as well as truh will find Mark's piece to contribute in this area quite nicely.

Murtha's Charade! (The Dumb Ox)

A brief snippet if I may{1}:

The Dumb Ox revealed back in early DECEMBER 2005 Murtha's troop withdrawal antics as part of his scheme to avoid ethics and criminal corruption charges...

Now those of us manning Rerum Novarum were hardly completely ignorant on this matter though it did not seem appropriate to comment on at the time. However, with an election coming up soon and with a lot of skeletons on the closet of John Murtha{2}, we are at the point now where it helps to remind people of the kinds of double standards involved viz. the whole "ethics" issues with government officials. But enough on that for now.

Iraq and the WOT - A Roundup (Christopher Blosser)

A good collection of threads on the subjects covered on Iraq and the War on Terror courtesy of Chris' Catholic Just War BLOG.

WMD's? What WMDs? (Greg Mockeridge)

Readers are advised to consider what your humble servant has said all along on the subject of WMD's -recently recapitulated to some extent in an audioposting for your convenience.{4}

Bush Goes Jogging With Iraqi Amputee (Christopher Blosser)

A minor bit this is true but it is nice to see a politician follow through on the kinds of "lets do lunch" offhand comments made to people they visit in hospitals or whatever.

Oh, lest we forget to note it publicly, a happy Blogiversary is extended to Frank Trainor from Franktalk. For those who do not know, Frank is a genuine songwriter who has written for (and personally met) many of the greats out of Nashville and elsewhere. Certainly this interests your host for many reasons and (perhaps) we can get Frank's take on some of those persons in the coming weeks and months.

Mark Shea's "Torture Poll"

This whole scenario is reminding us of something spoken of last year pertaining to those who use terms they do not bother to define or who otherwise shirk from doing so when challenged to do so.{5} But enough on that matter for now.

And finally, among the threads from this weblog which I want to revisit for inclusion in this posting are two from last year at this time:


Points to Ponder on the Many Masks of Modern Marxism (circa July 3, 2005)

America the Beautiful Revisited (circa July 3, 2005)

As the fourth of July is tomorrow, I would like to wish readers and listeners of this humble weblog a most happy and blessed Independence Day.

Notes:

{1} And since it is my weblog, I will do as I like on this matter of course :)

{2} It's odd that the media, which has been fairly unbiased in going after corrupt politicians recently, has gone silent on Mr. Murtha's questionable actions. Or maybe it isn't. Since December, Mr. Murtha has become the darling of the antiwar crowd, and, as we've seen with other such darlings, scrutinizing their behavior is considered disrespectful. But as we're on the subject, few might recall that after the massive 1980 Abscam scandal, Mr. Murtha was named by the FBI as an "unindicted co-conspirator." [The Washington Times: The real Jack Murtha (via Dumb Ox News)]

{3} Anyone who is surprised at the double standard here email me and I will sell you my shares in the Hope Diamond real cheap...

{4} Miscellaneous Musings on the Death of Zarqawi and the Presence of WMD's in Iraq--An Audio Post (circa June 23, 2006)

Greg also makes mention in his article of the Syria Hypothesis which is something your host has opined about for a few years now at sundry times and in diverse places (including on occasion at this very weblog believe it or not).

{5} [W]atch those who are incapable of giving a reasonable working definition of "rights" to claim that there is one. Definitions are the tools of thought and frankly, those who are not willing to define their terms do not deserve to be taken seriously...whether they are misappropriating the term "rights", "neo cons", or whatever. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 26, 2005)]

The request here is for a "working definition" and that is what one should strive for in my view: something that gives at least a reasonable approximation of what a term means if one insists on raising it as a kind of shibboleth in disputations. Or as your host noted in an email correspondence from June of this year:

One of the problems I have with most bloggers or commentators in any genre is their frequent unwillingness to define their terms. Failure in this area is both dishonest as well as lazy. [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa June 23, 2006)]

The above thread was sent in a private email shortly after this post was published earlier in that day. Oh and the request for people to define their terms is far from being an unreasonable one. Instead, it is the minimum that any commentator should do if they expect people to take them seriously in the arena of ideas. And that is the bottom line really.

Points to Ponder:
(On Secular Religious Zealots)

[I]f Christ himself stood in my way, I, like Nietzsche, would not hesitate to squish him like a worm. [Ernesto "Che" Guevara]

Miscellaneous Notes on the Supreme Court Decision on Military Tribunals

Briefly on the New Holy See Secretary of State Appointment:
(With Kevin Tierney)

Kevin's words will be in light red font.

So Cardinal berton is the new secretary of state

Pitty it wasn't Ruini. :) Now I don't know much about Bertone. I know the Fatima types hate his guts. About the most I know is that the man has never been a diplomat, and as far as I'm aware, has never been that active on the geopolitical sphere. Could it be Benedict is changing the Secretary of State, so it isn't the "true pope" office that it was under Sodano? (Sodano wielded more power as Secretary of State than most before him, and was joked to be the real "man in charge" in the Vatican.)

Maybe he wants Cardinal Ruini closer to home for consulting with instead of travelling all over as Secretary of State. Bertone is doctrinally shrewd and he did serve at the CDF under Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) for a number of years. It seems probable to me that Papa Benedict wants to make sure his Secretary of State does not muddle doctrinal matters with geopolitical/prudential ones the way Sodano at times did (among other personages like Cardinal Martino, Cardinal Laghi, Archbishop Tauran, etc). Either way, I think this is a solid B+ pick starting out...only time will tell the real tale of course.

Points to Ponder:

[I]t ain't the time
To learn how to swim
When the tide comes rushin' in. [Frank Trainor]