"Tales From the Crypt Mailbag" Dept.

Unlike a lot of people, your host rarely likes to post laudatory emails he receives because it gives the appearance of tooting our own horn. A general principle we follow in this area is to do so only when it provides the opportunity to clarify something about our methodology, our foundational presuppositions, or something along those lines. When this is possible, it can serve to give the reader a bit of a glimpse into how we approach subjects in general. With that in mind, the following email will provide an opportunity to do that so without further ado...

Dear Shawn,

I have read your website "Rerum Novarum" for a year or so and wanted to thank you profusely for your hard work and thoughtful analysis. I do not agree with everything you write, but I admire your willingness to look at matters objectively and come to your own conclusions.

We live in a divisive 24/7 media culture and the perception has been created that one cannot have principled disagreements with someone else on issues without one side being somehow degraded. Obviously I have a passion for many issues but I am nonetheless aware that there are people who disagree with me on some/many/most/all things. I do not lose sleep over this because of a belief I have that ultimately what is true will have lasting efficacy and what is false will not. As far as objectivity goes, it is appreciated when others realize that there is a conscious striving for that to the fullest extent possible here at Rerum Novarum. As far as not agreeing with everything written on this weblog, heck this writer does not agree with everything on this weblog which while it may sound strange to read nonetheless is true for reasons to be noted in a footnote.{1}

It is also worth noting even if in brief that if someone agrees with another person all the time, then only one person is doing the thinking. There should be divergences in spots even amongst positional allies and I have noted on occasions in the past that I do not expect people to accept my view on anything uncritically. More on this in a moment.

I especially respect the way you have addressed the "Apologetics Oligarchy" that seems to be present on the internet. First off, let me say that I am strictly a lurker in comboxes and blogs. I have never gotten in any discussion or argument in any of them, to my knowledge.

There is nothing wrong with that as far as I am concerned -indeed my own view of comments boxes as a whole is not a flattering one.{2}

I also have attempted to avoid reading much on blogs because I think it a waste of my time, and I tend to get worked up when I do so. This especially happens whenever I read Mark Shea's website.

Considering the kind of agitprop he has with an increasing frequency engaged in, that is not a surprise.

I am very glad you have addressed Mr. Shea's actions on his blog and throughout the blogosphere. Even before Mr. Shea focused on torture, the war in Iraq, and the present administration, I was troubled by the tone of his website, and his tendency to jump to snap judgments. Believe me, I am no supporter of the homosexual agenda, but I found the constant banner "Gay Brownshirts on the March" to be in poor taste.

What motivates me on this as with anything else is principles. Unfortunately, it is sadly evident that too many others who should care about these things do not. I reiterate something I have said many times before and it is this:

--A given viewpoint or position is not right or wrong (or to be perceived as "acceptable" or "unacceptable") on the basis of who holds or espouses a particular view or position. Rather, something is right or wrong on the basis of objective evidences or what can also be called non-normative criteria.

In a nutshell, it is failure to recognize this principle which explains a lot of the hypocrisy and double standards we are seeing -the fallacious provincialism{3} in these people's approach is both undeniable as well as profoundly disturbing (to put it mildly).

I have been very troubled by the tendency among Catholics, lay and clerical, to transform matters on which Catholics may disagree in good faith into pseudu-magisterial teaching. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard the argument: conservatives may be against abortion, but because they are wrong on the other "life" issues (capital punishment, welfare, immigration), it is acceptable to vote for "pro-choice" candidates. That Mr. Shea and others against this war use the same fallacious arguments to justify their vilification of those who disagree with them regarding this war and torture is, for me, the "unkindest cut of all."

I have noted a few times now that these "apologist" sorts are often intellectually dependent and demonstrate serious problems in exercising the thinking mechanism. The examples you note above only touch on the tip of the iceberg but they are by no means insignificant. (Nice use of Shakespeare by the way.)

I must say, I am especially grateful that you systematically addressed the issue of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Prior to reading your postings, I assumed that the bombings were per se immoral under just war principles because they involved deliberately targeting a civilian population. I assumed that the only justification for the bombing was a utilitarian one. I am not by any means convinced that your position is correct, but I certainly appreciate your reasoning.

Now it seems appropriate to outline what the view of this writer is on agreements and disagreements in more detail by citing a rare gem of sorts which we wrote in a weblog update.{4} Without further ado:

We at Rerum Novarum tend to irritate pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists of various stripes because of an inherent refusal on our part to accept uncritically any position whatsoever. And in doing this, there is consistency on our part because when the present writer takes the time to set down a position, he expect those who are genuinely interested in ideas to weigh the position set forth by objective criteria and nothing else.

Unlike the lions share of people from various outlooks who set forth opinions in the public square, the present writer does not expect anyone to accept any of his statements as some kind of arbitrary out of context injunction simply because he says it. This would base the veracity or lack thereof of his statements on a subjectivist context and would imply that truth does not objectively exist.

If you learn to think in principles you learn to think logically. Principles make thinking a lot easier and one of the goals of your host is to focus as much on principles themselves and in how those principles are to be fruitfully applied. For that reason, we will continue to press certain parties who do not seem concerned with principles and logic -either wholly or on arbitrary subject matters- to reconsider their positions. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 30, 2006)]

I am sure that I owe some debt to the late Mike Mentzer (RIP) for some of the phrasing in the above paragraph as essentially I was synthesizing and expounding on a principle he made more than once in his writings: the principle of what determines the truth or falsity of a statement.

Basically, as long as someone is willing to consider a position on its merits, that is all anyone could ask for. And contrary to what some may perceive, that has been the motivating factor for why I have slapped down some of the people who have taken issue with me on that subject. Others who have disagreed with me and sought to make actual arguments for their positions which are grounded in reason and logic while seeking to implement moral and ethical principles have not seen me treat them with anything but courtesy.{5}

However, there is something wrong with the environment when these self-anointed "apologists" cannot discuss these matters calmly and rationally but instead play the agitprop card in a fashion that would make any marxist proud. That is what I have addressed to members of the apologetics oligarchy in the past{6} and they are not in the slightest bit interested in seeing these problems corrected. Now that I am aware in some cases of a $$$ connection{7}, it makes a lot more sense as to why so many of them are "backbone-challenged" (to put it nicely). However, as there are others who do not have that connection who act the same way, it is frankly not as easy a puzzle to unravel and still try and give a charitable interpretation to how they approach these matters.

Perhaps most importantly, I value your dedication to extending Christian charity to those who disagree to you. You are an excellent example for the rest of Catholics on cyberspace.

Well, I do what I can -not always gracefully by my own admission but on the whole I believe I do a lot better than most.

This email has become longer than I intended. I hope to drop you a line in the near future asking you a few questions about magisterial teaching and how specific it needs to be in order to make a particular position normative. I will leave that for a later day.

Feel free to drop a line anytime. Thanks for the email and the opportunity to clarify some points which can at times get overlooked by those more interested in polemics than in truth.

Notes:

{1} There are "points to ponder" installments which encompass viewpoints your blog host does not agree with. There is also the "guest editorial" feature and someone need not agree with the webmaster to post an editorial here as long as (i) it is reasonably written, (ii) is thought-provoking, (iii) it shows a basic grasp of a diverse expression of vocabulary, and (iv) it is a subject that interests the webmaster. Beyond that, anything is fair game really.

{2} Revisiting the Comments Box Subject Again (circa January 26, 2007)

{3} On the Argumentation Fallacy of Provincialism--An Audio Post (circa May 8, 2005)

{4} I said "a rare gem" because as a rule, weblog updates are not places where I expound on points anymore than is necessary to note reasons for adding certain links to the side margin and removing other ones, etc.

{5} This did not go reported by me at the time because I had already discussed these matters enough at that time (read: late summer 2005) to not want to go into it yet again. However, there are some dialogues in the archives of one of my email accounts which I may in the future utilize in some form or another. (If I even bother to delve into these subjects again that is.)

{6} If I have a burr under [my] saddle on anything Jimmy it is (i) the complete lack of sound thinking that permeates Catholic circles on these subjects and (ii) the way Greg and I have been treated by members of the apologetics oligarchy when discussing this subject. I am also aware that if an opinion is reiterated enough, many people will accept it as correct even if it is not. The latter is human nature sadly whereas the former is something that should be of concern to those who believe that Catholics have important contributions to make to the arena of ideas. There are serious problems here which too many want to pretend do not exist which I have noted in past public postings on this subject matter. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 28, 2006)]

{7} Previously I had my suspicions in this area but in recent months, there has been confirmation of at least one significant example of the apologetics oligarchy selling truth down the river for $$$. I do not want to go into it right now but suffice to say, my disgust at the moneychangers has deepened as has my disappointment at the lack of a backbone by many who claim to care about apologetics who are not willing to speak up about these problems. (Preferring instead to stick their heads in the sand and pretend these problems are "no big deal.")

WWTD? Who Cares? (Jonah Goldberg)

Basically, Mr. Goldberg takes issue with the approach to geopolitics as espoused by a certain Republican named Ron Paul running for president. This part summarizes well the gist of the article:

[I]s it really so compelling to say that American foreign policy in the 1930s was America’s finest hour?

The luxury of this stance derives from the fact that Paul can say every foreign policy problem is fruit from the poisoned tree. He can stand outside reality like a contrafactual sci-fi writer, saying that if we only had taken a different fork in the road everything would be fine. I don’t buy that. But even if he were right, that ship has sailed (to horribly mangle a metaphor). Declaring in 2007 that we should adopt Robert Taft’s foreign policy is flatly childish and absurd. But it’s intellectually safe because it forces the opposition to prove a negative.

Those who wonder why your host manifested the intention to write on a significant imbalance in politics today and propose a remedy for the common problems inherent in the political approaches of both major parties{1} last month now understand part of the reason why we will be doing that. The problem is that anyone can be a critic -that is why President Theodore Roosevelt once noted that it is the one in the arena who deserves the credit, not critics.{2} And those who cannot propose a viable alternative to what they are critical of are not deserving of serious consideration by anyone with a normal intact functioning brain. And that is the bottom line really.

Notes:

{1} [I]t seems appropriate to write as time allows on some of the systems and principles that shaped the outlooks of the Founding Fathers of the United States.[...] Part of the reason for this decision is because there is a significant imbalance in politics today and we want to propose a remedy for the common problems inherent in the political approaches of both major parties. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 17, 2007)]

{2} For the full quote from Theodore Roosevelt which is paraphrased above, see the Rerum Novarum "points to ponder" installment circa March 17, 2007.

Points to Ponder:

In our milieu it is often assumed that "factual" simply means "true," and that "facts speak for themselves." But facts seldom do. Our convictions do not arise from facts alone but always from some whole, some picture that we compose from these smaller pieces of information. [Professor Lessl]

On Some Upcoming Post Subjects and Weblog Formatting:(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Update: This posting was just revised a bit to reflect some recategorizations and additional primary categories being added to insure that (to our knowledge) none of the primary categories contain any overlapping of one another. -ISM 5/16/07 7:51pm]

[Update: For easier reading, this posting was further revised and one of the footnotes incorporated into the text along with some new material explaining the reason for one of the primary categories which on the surface would seem an odd addition to any weblog restructuring. -ISM 5/17/07 10:30am]

It was noted last month that your host planned to write on the Founding Fathers, some of the principles and systems that shaped their outlook, and also to point out what he believes is a serious problem of imbalance in the modern political climate.{1} That intention is being worked through bit by bit as we have both time to and also are in the mood to write on that subject.

On another front, your host informed the readers of the arduous task of tagging the posts in our massive archive late last month.{2} The good news is that we figured out a couple more short cuts since writing on that matter last -mainly through finding some natural categorizations in the archives in the process. So while the weblog probably will not be close to fully and thoroughly archived until summertime but as it is, the entire weblog has been given a preliminary go-through. While still far from complete, it can now be said that nearly 100% of the posts to this weblog can be broken down into eighteen non-overlapping primary categories. These categories are as follows -with a brief explanation of each:

--Points to Ponder: Posted tidbits from various sources (including sometimes tidbits written by your host) intended to cultivate the reader's pondering capacities. As of the next posting, there will be 310 installments in the "points to ponder" feature of this weblog.

--Expository Musings: These are threads which are as a rule of a longer and/or more detailed nature generally. However, sometimes there are threads so categorized which are not per se that long but may have taken more time to refine into the shape in which they were blogged than other postings of a similar length or for some other reason were categorized in this format. As of today (and including this posting) there are 370 posts tagged with this label including multi-parts of material in a series format. Among the audio posts, the longer and/or more detailed of them are tagged with this label though some of the others will have to be listened to as time allows for it to see if they should be classified here or not.

--Dialogues/Mailbag Discussions: These are threads posted in a dialogual format which could be derived from various sources. As of today, there are 293 posts tagged with this label.

--Miscellaneous Threads/Briefer Musings: These are generally threads which contain various forms of briefer musings. Among the posts so labeled are various "miscellaneous threads" postings, the shorter or briefer audio posts{3}, etc. This is basically the defacto primary category for any posting unless it is clear that for some reason or another there is not a proper fit. That makes this the largest of the categories by default and thus there are as of this writing 696 of these kinds of postings tagged at this humble weblog.

--Stray Links of Interest: Exactly what it says. As of today, there are 179 posts which involve just stray links on various subjects or links with very little commentary on our part.

--Guest Editorials: These are editorials submitted by others which were posted to this weblog. As of today there are 29 of them posted -though before the end of the week there will be another one posted time-willing.{4}

--Spiritual Instruction: These are postings dealing with facets of spirituality. As of today, there are 39 of them posted.

Taken together, one of the above seven categories is tagged on almost 90% of all postings to this weblog. But those are not the only primary categories we have utilized -indeed the next nine comprise roughly the remaining 10% of the weblog's postings:

--Lyrics/Poetry/Haikus: These are postings which chiefly involve one or more of the subjects in the tagline. There is currently 28 of those postings to this weblog.

--Lyrics/Poetry/Haikus/Plus Musings: These are postings which involve either lyrics, poetry, or haikus but also have some brief musings by your weblog host. There are 11 of these posted to the present weblog.

--Personal: These are postings of a more personal nature. As of today there are 48 of them.

--Personal Musings: These are postings containing musings of a more personal nature. As of today there are 18 of these.

--Humour/Parody/Satire: Self explanatory. There are 13 of these in the archives.

--Humour/Parody/Satire/Plus Musings: Also self-explanatory as these contain the same as the previous category but also some brief musings by your weblog host. There are 8 of these in the archives.

-- Excerpts from Literature/Writings: These are postings which contain excerpts from either literature or from various writings. There are 12 of them in the archives of this weblog as of today.

--Quizzes: Basically as a temporary diversion the occasional online "quiz" has been taken. As of today, there are 42 of them posted to this weblog -the last one from January of 2006.

--Weblog Maintenance/Updates: Self-explanatory. There are 34 of these tagged in the archives.

--Weblog Maintenance/Updates/Plus Musings: Likewise self-explanatory. There are 14 of these in the archives.

--Archivally Obsolete/Duplicate Post/Minutiae: Basically postings which fit one or more of the criteria noted in the tagline for some reason or another. As of today, there are 32 of them though in a testament to this weblog's focus on perennial relevance as well as quality over time, 26 of those postings were in 2002 and 5 were in the first couple months of 2003. As this latter category may appear to be an odd one to include, your host wants to explain briefly the reasons why before wrapping up this posting.

Essentially, we would be less than fully honest if we did not admit that there are some postings in the archive which we do not find to be of value anymore for a variety of reasons which we are not going to delve into at the moment{6} except to note one significant reason which went into this determination.

For you see, your host has refused to purge his archives of stuff which in retrospect he regrets posting. Part of the reason for this is principles as we have been critical of others for trying to airbrush the historical record at their own sites to avoid telling the truth about their past actions or statements in a given point of time. But another reason is that life itself is a process of growth and development across a broad continuum. This includes weblog writing and interests.

We have no problem admitting that it took a bit of time before this weblog really started to take a discernible shape and some of the features and/or principles which have become standard or typical over time were in the "finding their feet" stage early on. The posts noted in the "archivally obsolete/duplicate posting/minutiae" category may also have been a localized kind of project which either was left incomplete due to time or interest factors or which was of a limited applicability back before your host sought to as much as possible make this weblog's contents have both a timeless and general applicability and also a particular circumstantial one.{7} But that is all that this writer intends to say on the matter at the present time except to say that yes, we have even categorized the obsolete or otherwise no-longer-of-any-real-value chaff from the archives.

Taken together, the eighteen categories above comprise by our count 100% of all posts to this weblog as primary categorizations. But besides those primary categories, there are also various additional tags including the following which will at some point be added as applicable to all the various postings on this weblog to which they can be ascertained to apply:

--Beer/Wine/Various Spirits
--Capitalism/Commerce/Economics/Trade
--Culture War
--Excerpts from Literature/Writings
--Gerard Serafin (RIP)
--Immigration
--Mainstream Media (MSM)
--Mea Culpa
--Perversion of Law/Government Theft
--Politics/Elections/Sociological/Geopolitical
--President George W. Bush
--President Ronald Reagan
--Reviews
--Sports
--The Blues
--The Fundamental Rights of Man
--US Constitution/Founding Fathers/Federalist Papers
--War in General/War on Terror/War in Iraq

There will undoubtedly be other secondary categories which are derived as needed as well{8} but at the moment, those are the ones that have been found to be most useful. Anyway, that is what has been done as there has been time here and there. Oh and as we noted last month, there is no anticipation on our part that we will be done with this until some time in the summer at the earliest. The end result will be to make it a lot easier to find things on our part and also for the readers who are interested in perusing nearly five years of blog archives since we undertook this "new thing" (Lat. Rerum Novarum) back in August of 2002.

Notes:

{1} [I]t seems appropriate to write as time allows on some of the systems and principles that shaped the outlooks of the Founding Fathers of the United States.[...] Part of the reason for this decision is because there is a significant imbalance in politics today and we want to propose a remedy for the common problems inherent in the political approaches of both major parties. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 17, 2007)]

{2} Readers of this humble weblog may have noticed the labels on the bottom of the page of many of the blog posts. I have been in recent weeks taking a few minutes here and there and adding labels to various posts by subject. This is an arduous process but thankfully, I know some shortcuts that have enabled me to get a significant jump on it.[...] ... Suffice to say, this will take a while and when the project is completed, I will be able to significantly reduce the number of links in the side margin of my weblog and post there only the categories themselves whatever the total number of them ends up being. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 28, 2007)]

{3} Some audioposts we know are of an expository nature as that was how they were titled after they were recorded or in the recordings themselves. As for the rest, they may be reclassified from this format to another after we have had the opportunity to listen to them anew and determine where they should be placed. (Until we know for sure, if it appears that they were of a "briefer musing" styling, that is where they will be placed.)

{4} We say "time willing" because while we do not write the editorials, we do format them for posting and that does take time on our part to do.

{5} Originally we noted exceptions in this footnote but we are not aware of any as of this post revision.

{6} A few come to mind offhand including (i) because they focused discussion on areas we are not interested anymore in dealing with, (ii) they may have been a near duplicate of a previous posting which may have had a technical glitch in it at the time which was subsequently corrected, or (iii) they simply may have been a kind of inside joke between a couple of people at the time which a casual reader would not get.

{7} This was as much an intuitive decision as a purely rational one so it would not be fair to say it was part of a well-organized plan.

{8} A few that come to mind are the subjects of theology and some equivalent category or categories covering the areas of philosophy, ethics, reason, and logic.

"One From the Vault" Dept.
(On Rider Reform)

As is evident to anyone paying even a modicum of attention to the goings-on up on Capitol Hill, the Democrats in Congress are obviously trying to use the subject of funding the Iraq situation to stuff various elements into the mix which are not germane to the subject at hand. These are of course matters which they are too cowardly to vote on individually. The latter approach to circumventing political accountability is precisely what "riders" attached to legislation are by the way for those who do not know. And for this reason, it seems appropriate to remind readers of this humble weblog of something your host wrote in January of 2004 where a proposal for rider reform was set forth.

We intend at some point (possibly this year) to present that idea at the state level for Washington state and would (of course) like to see this kind of approach work its way across the various state legislatures and eventually into the congressional bodies at the federal level also. But for the time being, we merely intend to remind longtime readers of that proposal and introduce it to those who had not seen it before.

Prayer Requests:

I would ask for prayers for the soul of 17 year-old Brittany Salzano and her family...she was hit by a car last weekend and killed instantly. Please also pray for the driver who hit her. Thanks.

I forgot to post this last week so I will post it now. As one who believes in a concept known as the communion of saints I do believe that prayer for those who have passed on can be beneficial for them much as prayer for those who are on earth can be.

With that in mind, pray please for Gloria Strauss and her family and help them out in other ways too however you can.

Points to Ponder:

War is not the answer to everything, but in the recent past it has been the answer to slavery, German imperialism in 1914, fascism (1922-1945), and communism at various spots around the world until in 1989 -checkmated and wildly overspending on arms- the beast withered from within and gave up the ghost. [Michael Novak]

The Imperial Catholics (Michael Novak)

On the "Unsinkable Cork":
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

Those who are familiar with Bill Cork and an email address/website he once had will know what I mean by the title of this posting. Anyway, I start this post off by noting a recent circumstance that when it was brought to my attention was quite a shock to see. Without further ado:

The Journey Home (Bill Cork)

Much as with Rod Dreher's situation, I predict a storm of people will try to impute to Bill the worst of motives. I repeat now what I said after observing this happen with RodDreher earlier this year then end this with some expository musings on Bill personally and his situation. First though, the noted rehash of my statement pertaining to RodDreher:

I had intended to comment on this thread some time back but circumstances and time constraints made me postpone it until now. I noticed that some of Rod's feedback was of the predictable nasty sort and others tried to play the "let us throw apologetics arguments at Rod" approach which at this point is not going to work. I will simply note that Rod's approach to the historical record is selective and arbitrary on the whole papal issue and if he was consistent in his rationale, it would undermine his current position in very significant ways. That is all I will say about it since no argument has a chance of persuading Rod while he is in the "honeymoon phase" of his religious transition. I therefore wish him the best and only ask that he remain open to reassessing his foundational presuppositions from time to time. (Or as Benjamin Franklin liked to say "question his own infallibility.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 8, 2007)]

The same situation I see as impacting the movement taken by Bill Cork but obviously Dreher has the glorious tradition of Orthodoxy he retreated towards. Bill by contrast went with what I must call a cult and I say that as someone who had my own affiliation with two different cults of my own in my lifetime. The first as some might be aware was the Society of St. Pius X schismatic "Catholic" movement but the second was the cult of the conspiracy theorist. The latter was not a long affiliation but it certainly influenced my views on not a few matters particularly after I intellectually worked my way through it, routed it as a viable theory{1} and cast it aside as logically and rationally specious (to put it nicely). But the purpose here is not to delve into that -I merely note it at the outset so that readers can get a grasp of how I am going to approach this posting to some extent.

To give a bit of history on my familiarity with Bill Cork (to the extent there was a familiarity), I remember Bill as someone who was heavily involved in a large effort against a radical fringe extremist "apologist" five years ago. That was in fact how I became familiar with him and while there were many involved in that endeavour, Bill was among the most tenacious. For that I had a measure of respect for him. Bill was also ahead of the curve on the war in Iraq -heck I remember Bill beating the drums for that when I was still sorting out my own position{2} before taking a definitive stand. It took me longer than Bill but I also set forth a cement-like position that has not wavered and will not. By contrast, I was not comfortable with the position as Bill and not a few other Catholics set it forth -viewing it as being too grounded on tenuous and less definite evidences and less on the more solid and irrefutable factors involved. This had its predictable effect when Bill and several others later did a complete 180 when the foundation they built their houses of argument on washed out and left them with nothing on which to stand.

Bill was also involved in a kind of opposition to Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ and I disagreed with him on this matter in late 2003 by taking a stand on principles which were consistent. I saw at that point and in some later situations a number of things that bothered me about some of Bill's statements but I am never one to rush in on these matters for a variety of reasons. Most significant perhaps is that people need the opportunity to ponder issues and this approach rarely is in a straight line for anyone. Instead, the pondering (note I do not say "thinking"{3}) by its nature involves many facets of the human person and for that reason there will be a waxing and waning, a pulling one way and then another depending on the particular circumstances a given person faces.

The spiritual life (of which I would never be presumptive to say I am anything akin to an expert on) has its ebbs and flows like the tide on a beach. And while I can say that I sensed some of that in Bill's work when I actually looked at it, this was something that happened with less and less frequency over time admittedly. Some of that may have been that there was a perceived difference in priorities subject-wise, differences in core interests, or whatever. Admittedly my own conscious attempt to distance myself from the St. Blogs contingent -a move that happened in stages{4} played a part in that. But that point aside, there were indicators that something was afoot with Bill even if I could not connect all the dots as to what eventually happened.{5} I will go over some of this now since this subject is one that many will probably make uncharitable swipes at Bill on. I hope nonetheless that he will review what I am going to say in the proper spirit of authentic dialogue as I have enunciated it over the years.{6}

As I said already, there were small signs in retrospect that Bill was having a hard time of sorts finding a consistent voice -the first of which was that he kept renaming his weblog. I cannot recall how many Latin names he went with offhand -I remember Pro Deo et Patria at one point, Ut Unum Sint at another point. Then he used Built on a Rock -the latter was not in Latin but one need not have a Latin name for their blog.It was a fashionable sort of thing for Catholics of the "St. Blogs" contingent to give their blogs a Latin name and that was themotivation I took for choosing the name I did initially. Over time, I have come to see a greater depth to the choice of weblog name I made but one can say that a name denotes to some extent an identity. That Bill kept changing his weblog name to me looked as if he was trying to find an identity of sorts. It might sound overly-simplistic to put it that way but that is how I see it. Here is a more complex approach to the same subject and I will use the analogy of the Supreme Court to make.

After recently completing a very good book on the Supreme Court called Supreme Conflict which goes into not only the selection but also the psychology of the court, I see a mirror in Bill with Justice Anthony Kennedy and it gets back to what I said earlier about Bill struggling to find an identity. The book well outlines how this was Kennedy's problem and why he ended up looking so promising to conservatives but has on key conservative issues been such a let-down. Kennedy started with conservative instincts and still to some extent has them but without a solid template of sorts from which to operate from, there were and are inconsistencies in how he comes down on a given issue. Too often without such a template the environment to some extent can play an influence that may well go unnoticed and a sequence of small shifts (each in and of themselves seemingly innocuous) can create over time the materials for a completely different paradigm altogether.

Basically, the identity issue was one clue to me along with his war flip flop{7} and the handling of the whole Mel Gibson Passion of the Christ situation already noted above. To those who would be reading up to this point and wonder why I would bother with the subject in question, I remind them of the subtitle of this weblog in part{8} but also a reason is because Bill was to some extent a minor celebrity of sorts in certain circles in which we both ran in to the extent one can "run" in cyberspace.

I say he was a "minor celebrity" because he was one of those who were in the "Catholic convert" stories -if memory serves his story was in the Surprised by Truth series somewhere.{9} In making this recent decision, Bill did decide to resign his position with the Galveston archdioceses which was certainly a proper thing to do and I am sure Bill will seek to make a more detailed accounting of certain factors motivating his decision over time. This pattern is the natural course of things for a convert to a particular outlook or a revert to a previous outlook to do. (I expect it in other words and would be surprised if he did not actually do this at some point.) In the above thread he makes the following statement which I want to briefly focus on before ending this thread of musings:

I’ve been laying out theological and ecclesial issues over the past two months that were contributing factors to my loss of trust in the authority of Rome and the Catholic Magisterium.

If what I noted above does not give a hint already, I will spell it out here more bluntly: I never thought Bill Cork had a significant grasp of matters theological. Bill would probably expect me to say that but now the cat is out of the bag. It is not unique to Bill but frankly, most Catholics do not and I do not see the apologetics oligarchy as being of much assistance in this area at all. They are such a predictable lot that if they have not done it already I will tell you what many of them will do: they will bombard Bill either with shrieks of how he is "hell bound" for his "apostasy" or they will try to respond to whatever he posits as his reasons or difficulties with apologetics arguments. Those sorts love to argue after all (seemingly for the sake of arguing at times) and I am not saying they are wrong per se in what they will say.{10} They are wrong though to assume it will have an effect on Bill at this stage.

Remember, a change in one's viewpoint is not an instant situation but generally takes a good period of time. There are also a variety of factors involved and not all of them are intellectual ones. Indeed, some of them are of a more personal nature{11} and this is seldom recognized. They can be personal, they can even be financial or whatever but I am not about to engage in assuming nefarious reasons for Bill's recent about face. Indeed, having not seen enough of his stuff in recent years,{12} I am hardly in a position to take a definite statement on it. For this reason, I will only presume that Bill was not adequately formed theologically and I can probably predict some of the issues where there were problems.

Among the biggest of the problems is what happens with those who do not fully understand what is and is not magisterial; namely, what is and is not a matter of required assent in other words and what is not. This is something that apologists in recent years have shown a fairly general consensus on with regards to not understanding these distinctions all that well. Bill was not an apologist but he was involved with church bureaucracy to a certain extent. I also believe this put him in a position where he may have felt he had to defend certain bureaucratic statements which he may well have not been comfortable with. Two in particular come to mind which I will mention briefly in a footnote.{13}

Now admittedly, some of these musings are based on incomplete information and supplemented with intuition. As I noted already, I did not read Bill's weblog much in recent years{14} -certainly not enough to fill in all the blanks. But frankly, even if I had, I would not have seen this one coming. A move to Orthodoxy, sure I could see that to some extent if the problem is the authority issue. Heck, even a move to a kind of Anglo-Catholic view or (stretching it a bit) a form of high church Lutheranism perhaps as Bill was a Lutheran pastor at one point. But a return to Seventh Day Adventism??? No my friends, I would not have seen this one coming for a variety of reasons. And when you consider that Bill is being offered a pastors position at a parish coupled with some of what I have heard through the grapevine{15}, it does lend one to wonder a bit but that is all I will say on those matters. Bill will get a lot of abuse on this from other people -not from me.

I want to note in closing, if it is not obvious in what is noted above that I wish Bill Cork the best and I only ask him to do what I would ask anyone to do: from time to time reappraise their foundational presuppositions. This time, I would request of him to try and fill in those areas where he was lacking before even if only to better understand these issues from an ecumenical context to better serve authentic dialogue with Catholics and Seventh Day Adventists. In a nutshell Bill, be open once again to "questioning a little of your own infallibility" (cf. Benjamin Franklin), that is all I would ask of you, me, or indeed of anyone else.

Notes:

{1} That is not to say that I solved every previous puzzle involved in this mind you. However, by identifying the root causes or foundational presuppositions that guided that particular weltanschauung, I was able in applying them to so many of the positions taken by the conspiracy sorts to see the viability of the overarching theory itself melt away like ice cream on a hot July day. Hence, when I set that outlook aside definitively, I basically imposed a kind of self-agnosticism on the areas I had not yet solved. Over time and with greater research and reflection on a host of issues, most of them have resolved themselves of their own volition without the need for active intellectual involvement on my part. (And on occasion in responding to conspiracy-theorist sorts on issues I once set aside in this fashion, I was able to intellectually overcome them when revisiting them anew.) The very few that remain will likely go by the wayside in the same fashion as most of the others; ergo I see no reason to alter my approach to them taken lo these past eleven odd years.

{2} Bill Cork goes over his recent about-face on the war issue here. I have to admit that these so-called "war protesters" have moved me towards a more hawkish stance myself then even the one I outlined here. I anticipated in that entry the war protesting angle and my view has not changed about protesters. If Bush was handling this as Johnson handled Vietnam, then to some extent I could grant the protesters some leeway. But in my gut I know this is simply liberal idiots trying to play politics. After all, where were they when Clinton was bombing Kosovo???...

If we do go to war and these people try to gum up the machinery, they should be treated the same way a soldier would be treated if he tried to abandon his unit in battle. That is all I will say on the matter at this time because I am starting to get livid thinking about these clowns and that is not a good mindset to be in for blogging. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa January 25, 2003)]

{3} No one can claim to approach issues in a purely abstract way and apart from personal mitigating factors in their apprehension of reality. This is why I have focused more and more on foundational presuppositions and less on the round and round kinds of arguments that go nowhere as I have gotten older and (hopefully) aged with some measure of grace. In a nutshell, someone who is not willing to reassess themselves in this area from time to time -to (in paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin) "doubt a bit of their own infallibility" makes themselves incapable of any potential progress as a human being. Bill certainly did such a reassessment himself as of late and while I do not agree with where it took him, that he did the reassessment certainly earns a measure of respect from me. I only ask of him the same thing I did of Rod Dreher and it is this: remain open to a future reassessment and "doubting your infallibility" again at some point.

{4} There are hints in this in the weblog archives starting in late 2003. The process was a gradual one picking up steam through a series of events and circumstances coupled with realizations about the nature of that group. Eventually, it hit critical mass and compelled me to make my own formal exodus from them as a collective last year for reasons I outlined in no small detail HERE.

{5} And I obviously did not as this news came as a surprise to me. (Though in my own defense, I had not read enough of a cross-section of Bill's work in recent years to likely see such a shift anyway even if it manifested itself in his work which -since he deleted it all- I do not know if it was there all along or not.)

{6} Some Principles For Authentic Dialogue and the Proper Use of Sources in Papers (circa February 9, 2006)

{7} I mean no disrespect to you in phrasing it this way Bill but I would be less than honest if I did not tell you how I viewed that matter.

{8} My musings on ...well...basically whatever I want to muse on...[Subtitle of this weblog from virtually (if not actually) day one]

{9} I am really going off of memory here because I have not read any of those books and have relied for my information of who was in them from second and third hand sources -not the most reliable of ways to get information sometimes but I note it here nonetheless.

{10} Some of them are actually quite good at what they do -either in general or on particular subjects.

{11}I bring up the fact that Bill's entire family is Seventh Day Adventist as a huge factor here far and above any intellectual reason he may give. Those Catholics who seize on this idea and run with it I only hope are not among the same crowd who took issue with me making the exact same argument when I challenged in no small fashion a position espoused by Karl Keating a couple years ago along these same lines. I am only being consistent here, not playing the "it is okay to criticize apostate Bill this way but not Supreme Maximum Leader Karl" hypocritical bullshit that so often permeates those whose vision is so badly impaired with fallacious provincialism that they cannot see the forest for the trees. But I digress.

{12} See footnote five.

{13} The first is the 2002 USCCB subcommittee text on Jewish-Christian relations which was not well formulated and lent itself to being badly misinterpreted as indeed most people did. The second (I suspect but I have nothing to go on here but intuition with the latter one) is the USCCB's campaign in 2005 to abolish the death penalty in the United States. I cannot recall offhand Bill's position on the death penalty but I can only imagine that if he did not share the view of the USCCB on the matter (as I indeed do not) that he could have a serious problem with the manner in which they have gone about this issue.

{14} Which was not that often over time admittedly. Some of that may have been that there was a perceived difference in priorities subject-wise, differences in core interests, or whatever.

{15} I have heard through the grapevine a number of things that I do not believe would be helpful to note here. It remains my view that the family situation as a Catholic in a sea of Seventh Day Adventists was the most significant factor. It is natural to not want to rock the boat on these matters and my guess is that is a more significant factor than most of the others that could be mentioned.

For those who noticed a lighter gray colour to the weblog's layout, worry not, your monitor does not need an adjustment. Under the advice of Chris Blosser who offered me an "asthetic critique" of my weblog, I decided to implement a suggestion from him to go with a slightly lighter gray colour to make some of the lighter fonts used on occasion easier to read. I took the suggestion a step further and made all gray parts of the template lighter for a greater uniformity as well but the end result is a more aesthetically pleasing appearance and for that Chris deserves the credit.

In evenings when I have a bit of time, I am reading a military history of the United States which is in some respects quite iconoclastic. Among the theses{1} that the author seeks to sustain include the following ones (taken from the jacket of the book itself):

• Did America win its independence because British generals were too busy canoodling with their mistresses?

• Should America have annexed Mexico—all of it—and Cuba too?

• Did 1776 justify Southern secession in the nineteenth century?

• Should Patton have been promoted over Eisenhower?

• Did the U.S. military win—and Congress lose—the Vietnam War?

• Was it right to depose Saddam Hussein—and is it wrong to worry about a possible Iraqi civil war?

I went into this book agnostic on the first thesis, strongly inclined towards concurring with the second, not agreeing with the third thesis, pondering the fourth one but inclined against it{2}, concurring with the fifth thesis, and concurring with at least the first half of the sixth. As I read the book, I am willing to give more credence than I was before to the first thesis as probable{3}, definitely concur with the second thesis now{4}, still do not agree with the third thesis{5}, and as I am through the book up to November of 1941, have not read the parts of the book advancing the fourth and subsequent theses yet.

But I would be remiss if I did not note that H. W. Crocker III in this volume has written a magnificent work thus far and one which in the current climate should be given due consideration by those who are ignorant of the US military history. I was by no means ignorant in these areas before but the book has filled in a few gaps for me. It also revisited stuff I already knew and gave me some food for thought in other areas where I may not have considered certain other factors before. And it did all of this in an enjoyable and rather entertaining fashion for a subject which by its very nature involves matters of the most serious of import. I look forward to completing the volume as time allows for it in the coming week and recommend it to everyone reading this post.

Notes:

{1} A good way of looking at this in the current context is to view a thesis as "an abstract principle or proposition to be advanced and maintained by argument"... [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa January 14, 2004)]

{2} This is said despite the fact that General Patton has long been one of our favourite generals.

{3} Certainly the British underestimated the colonialists but the author writes this book from a loyalist perspective to some extent; ergo I believe his take on this point may be a bit too biased even if he does make a good case for it (which he certainly does).

{4} If ever there was any lingering doubts in my mind on the matter which there may have been.

{5} To the credit of the author, he gives a strong argument in favour of the third thesis -and of particular interest is what is written about the bravery and tenacity of the Confederacy during the War Between the States and the genius of General Robert E. Lee which from any objective measurement is inarguable. (Crocker does this while not denigrating the Federalists generally speaking which is something that many who write from a pro-Confederacy standpoint do not succeed in doing.)

However, those points aside, I cannot accept the thesis due to my rock solid position on the fundamental rights of man (most recently synthesized and reiterated anew in this posting on common law and abortion) and how chattel slavery is such an intrinsic violation of said rights no matter how you slice it.

On Sedition and What It Consists Of:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

Longtime readers of this weblog going back to early 2003 may recall that your host had no problem with certain kinds of public opinion prior to the definitive decision to go into Iraq{1} but began taking a less irenic stance both in the hours before March 19, 2003{2} and then after the date in question things tightened up considerably.{3} The reason for this should be obvious but some who give pretensions towards intelligence apparently do not get it. Therefore, it seems appropriate to summarize the principle in question by recalling a points to ponder thread from earlier this year which cited a US Supreme Court case which upheld the US Sedition Act in the following words:

When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. [Schenck v. United States (circa 1919)]

The common knowledge involved here should be obvious but many do not get it and some of them have expressed anger at being referred to by us as poster children for why we need another sedition act in a time of war.{4} But before this position as recently enunciated by us is viewed as shocking, let us revisit anew what sedition does and does not consist of.

A definition of the term can come from any source but for the sake of convenience, let us consider what Wikipedia had to say on the matter as of earlier today:{5}

Sedition is a term of law to refer to convert conduct such as speech and organization that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel.

Because sedition is typically considered a subversive act, the overt acts that may be prosecutable under sedition laws vary from one legal code to another. Where those legal codes have a traceable history, there is also a record of the change of definition for what constituted sedition at certain points in history. This overview has served to develop a sociological persecution.

The difference between sedition and treason consists primarily in the subjective ultimate object of the violation to the public peace. Sedition does not consist of levying war against a government nor of adhering to its enemies, giving enemies aid, and giving enemies comfort. Nor does it consist, in most representative democracies, of peaceful protest against a government, nor of attempting to change the government by democratic means (such as direct democracy or constitutional convention).

Put simply, sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Treason is the violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or state and has to do with giving aid to enemies or levying war. Sedition is more about encouraging the people to rebel, when treason is actually betraying the country. [From the Wikipedia Article Sedition]

From there, let us consider what constitutes seditions libel by the same source:

Seditious libel is a criminal offence under English common law. Sedition is the offence of speaking seditious words with seditious intent: if the statement is in writing or some other permanent form it is seditious libel. A statement is seditious if it "brings into hatred or contempt" the Queen or her heirs, or the government and constitution, or either House of Parliament, or the administration of justice, or if it incites people to attempt to change any matter of Church or State established by law (except by lawful means), or if it promotes discontent among or hostility between British subjects. A person is only guilty of the offence if they intend any of the above outcomes. Proving that the statement is true is not a defence. It is punishable with life imprisonment. [From the Wikipedia Article Seditious Libel]

By logical extension, since President Bush is the leader of the United States or the civil authority in question, his name can be replaced for that of the word "Queen" in the above citation as can the word "American" for the word "British." Now with that lens for viewing the matter in question, readers can consider if anyone this writer has said or inferred was engaging in sedition really did or did not do this. Frankly, the verdict here is such a slam dunk in a couple of cases that it is not even funny. For that reason, those persons ought to pray every night that there is not another sedition act in place right now though for the record, we at Rerum Novarum believe there is a need for one. History shows that wars can be lost if national resolve is compromised even if militarily they are successful.{6} This is why anyone who in any way whatsoever has contributed to such a situation as this is properly considered a seditionist and their words to be seditious libel.

By noting this, we have in mind a number of people here but in particular a so-called "apologist" who cannot keep their trap shut on matter of which they know so little and who has engaged in a weekly (if not worse) regurgitation of stuff on their weblog which by any objective standard{7} constitutes seditious libel and thus acts of sedition. As shocking as this may appear, let us clarify that not all criticisms of the president and the administration would properly constitute sedition. However, any criticisms that would bring into contempt the president, the lawfully elected government, or disrupt just public order and the common good of society during a time of war are properly viewed as seditious.

Readers can judge by the criticisms of certain parties if this criteria is met or not but one thing is certain: as much as President Bush has pissed us off at times, we have never been critical of him in a way that would fall under the criteria as denoted above. Would that many others could make a similar claim but that is their problem not ours and does not change our views on this matter an iota.

Notes:

{1} [A]fter the Presidents speech, my friends our path is now clear war-wise. And since war is now inevitable (barring Hussein's going into exile in the next 48 hours) we are no longer in the realm of speculation. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 17, 2003)]

{2} Though I sought to note conclusively in my stated position as detailed in early February that any attack by us would not be a new war but the legitimate resumption of the old Gulf War (as the terms of the ceasefire as spelled out by the UN have never been followed by Iraq), it does not appear to me that President Bush is for the most part approaching this from the angle that I suggested.

[W]hile [Pope John Paul II] appears to be personally opposed to this war, barring him making it a part of his magisterium, we are not bound to his judgment on the matter. And for those who in good conscience side with the pope on the matter, that is fine as I see it so long as they are in our corner when the war begins. And it will begin - barring extraordinary and unforseen diplomatic progress - within a few days in about thirty three hours from when this post is published. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 18, 2003)]

{3} Reflected most evidently in our posting on the subject of sedition from March 29, 2003 after observing some of the inexcuable actions of the msm on the subject in question. To wit (after quoting from the old US Sedition Act of 1917):

Is the major media in this country guilty of sedition??? When major news networks give away coordinates of where our military is stationed, relays information such as "the troops in my company are down to one meal a day because supplies are tight", or relates information such as "the troops have had to cannibalize their equipment for parts because there are problems with out supply lines", does anyone want to claim that this is not aiding and abetting the enemy??? Other examples could be listed but these are adequate to make the case I believe. If such reports continue I believe the government will need to cut off not only Al Jazeera's news broadcast but also the American media. (Or at the very least limit the access of the media and give everyone the same story to report.) I am sick and tired of reporters who would sell the security of our troops for a "news scoop". How this is not a form of the world's oldest profession is a mystery to me. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 29, 2003)]

{4} Some of these sorts have angrily claimed that we referred to them as traitors when in fact we did not. There is a difference between sedition and treason whereas one gives the tools whereas the other acts it out.

{5} We are aware that Wikipedia can be edited by others; ergo our qualification as noted above.

{6} For example, the Vietnam War.

{7} On the Difference Between Objective Meaning and Subjective Intention (circa February 27, 2007)

Points to Ponder:
(On Legitimate Differences of Opinion)

The Catholic Church, of course, leaves many questions open to the discussion of theologians. She does this to the extent that matters are not absolutely certain. Far from jeopardizing the Church's unity, controversies, as a noted English author, John Henry Cardinal Newman, has remarked, can actually pave the way for its attainment. For discussion can lead to fuller and deeper understanding of religious truths; when one idea strikes against another, there may be a spark. [Pope John XXIII: Encyclical Letter Ad Petri Cathedram §71 (circa June 29, 1959)]

Miscellaneous Musings:

Briefly on each as time is short...

--I must give credit where credit is due to the Seattle Mariners who thus far have performed above expectations. I am aware that it is early and not even a quarter of the way through the season but five years of crappy ballplaying on their part has me optimistic that this year they will make the playoffs again. I hesitate to say more than that in light of how poor my sports prognosticating has historically been.{1}

--I must admit that the idea of Barry Bonds breaking Hank Aaron's record does not sit well with me for one reason: he is a fraud. Whatever excuses one wants to make for Hank Aaron and whatever one wants to say about how great Babe Ruth was{2}, the bottom line is, Aaron broke Ruth's alltime record. Furthermore, he did it with style and class and he did not have to cheat to do it. When Bonds passes Aaron, the record will be held by a fraud and a cheater and that will sully baseball. Anyway, those are my opinions on the matter and all I intend to say at this time.

--In light of how the Congress is trying to play politics by attaching a bunch of riders to the Iraq funding bill, it seems appropriate to remind readers of what your host set forth over three years ago in the area of a rider reform proposal. Look for that before Monday if we have time as it seems opportune to revisit that subject anew in lieu of current circumstances.

Notes:

{1} It is basically the converse of my geopolitical track record over the years. In fact, so bad is my sports picking trackrecord that when I went 2-1 in the NFL Playoffs earlier this year, in the semifinals, I was so shocked that I wrote a post on the subject and titled it "Signs of the Apocalypse." Later on, my fourth prediction panned also and it was 3-1 but I digress.

{2} Babe Ruth being unquestionably and by any reasonable measurement the greatest baseball player in history: something I will brook no dissent on whatsoever so do not even try.

Prayer Requests:

The following was sent to my email yesterday...

I would ask for prayers for the soul of 17 year-old Brittany Salzano and her family...she was hit by a car last weekend and killed instantly.

God rest the soul of Brittany Salzano and may she rest in peace with all the souls of the faithfully departed.

Please also pray for the driver who hit her. Thanks.

I will and hope that readers of this weblog will be so kind as to remember them in their prayers as well.

Guest Editorial Revisiting Catholic Apologetics and Cult-Style Deadagenting Tactics in the Twilight Zone:
(Written by Rod Serling)

For those who do not know, this is a followup to an earlier guest editorial sent to us which was posted on January 9, 2007. Without further ado...

#########

CATHOLIC APOLOGETICS IN THE TWILIGHT ZONE, REVISITED

By Rod Serling
Last time, we explored the relationship between Catholic apologist Mark Shea and free-lance writer Joseph D'Hippolito, who are at such loggerheads that they probably disagree vehemently about what time it is. Our exploration included comments from newspaper editor Victor Morton about Mr. Shea's obsessively stalking Mr. D'Hippolito on various Catholic blogs for about three years.

It now appears that Mr. D'Hippolito is not the only target of Mr. Shea's venal obsessiveness.

Submitted for your approval: This post from Mr. Shea's blog concerning another blog that specializes in criticizing Rod Dreher, a commentary editor for the Dallas Morning News. Mr. Dreher vehemently criticized the Catholic bishops' response to the sex-abuse scandal that broke in Boston in 2002. In the process, he received tremendous vitriol from a wide variety of Catholics. Mr. Dreher was so sickened by the bishops' lack of concern for the innocent that he converted from Catholicism to Eastern Orthodoxy.
Here's what Mr. Shea said about the anti-Dreher blog:

I never felt a need to found an entire blog simply and solely devoted to reiterating again and again and again why Crunchy Con thinking is all wrong, to enumerating Rod's faults, to gabbing with fellow Rod despisers about his latest faults, sins, gaffes, and whatnot, to plunging back into his site for fresh reasons to complain about him, and to regroup at my obsessostalker site for a new round of the Same Old Complaints, followed by gleeful speculations in the comboxes of this calibre...

Yessirree. All perfectly normal there. Nothing malicious and creepy about that sort of stuff. They're all about serious intellectual criticism.

The folks at (We Really, Really, Really Despise Rod Dreher).com made their point about the problems in Dreher's thinking in about the first three posts of their blog. Dreher has a tendency to let his passions rule his judgment at times. Crunchy Connery can sometimes be an unwarranted elevation of aesthetic choice to moral principle. Dreher is way too hard on the Catholic Church and his reasons for becoming Orthodox are not very coherent. Rod, unlike, say, Kathleen Reilly, can sometimes be tart in his replies to critics. Duly noted. I have noted such things myself when the occasion has warranted it.

But normal people *move on.* Would that the folks at WRRRDRD.com would do likewise. Surely there is *something* else to talk about than the latest way Rod Dreher has made a jackass of himself (as you all agree in your Combox Star Chamber) for failing to like a TV show you like or enjoying bread that you don't enjoy.

Get a life!
To review, here are Mr. Morton's comments about Mr. Shea:Let us stipulate that Joseph's comments about nuking Mecca et al are something less than orthodox (they are not insane or Satanic, because, as I once repeatedly and without answer pointed out to Mr. Shea, the Church does not condemn any possession of nuclear weapons as a sin, which means SOME uses of them have to be moral despite the unquestionable fact they kill civilians en masse). Joseph did not attempt to engage Mr. Shea, did not attempt to hijack his blog, did not refer to him. So it's rather unconvincing to hear "I've spent a great deal of time avoiding you. You're like a bad penny. ... I keep running into your obnoxious and abusive crap on blogs I regularly read." Everybody has some people they don't like, or can't imagine engaging even for the sake of collegial disagreement, someone at St. Blogs whose orthodoxy they question. Tough titty.

Mr. Shea's disagreement (he is not a bishop and has no real authority in these matters, so nothing he says can ever rise above that) is not an excuse to try to destroy somebody's reputation by repetitively injecting himself wherever Joseph may go, talking about whatever subject Joseph may, and calling him Osama bin Laden or a mass murder advocate. This was NOT disagreement with somebody, but an attempt to demonize a human being, to make him anathema as such, to pursue him like a stalking siren. And Joseph is right to protest it.

Please keep both sets of comments in mind when you read this response to Mr. Shea posted on the anti-Dreher blog by "Bubba" the blog moderator:
When on his own blog Shea highlights, in bold lettering and mid-space, a purposely innocuous exchange between myself and a commenter from our blog, and claims that in it we make dire analyses of his buddy Dreher --- well, let's just say that with friends like Shea, Dreher needs no contras. It's also clear that Shea pores over this blog with great care, since he venomously spits back random bits with what is becoming frightening regularity. Which can only be the point of his reading it -- to cultivate his own anger. (Unless, on some level he doesn't wish to acknowledge, he's, um "enjoying it").

Shea wishes to silence us, of course, by implying -- no, proclaiming -- that we're the crazies. He loves to call us "obsessostalkers" which is interesting, because it seems to me Shea has done a great deal of obsessing and stalking of us. Shea has even christened our blog with his very own nickname, and even given that nickname an acronym. cute!

I'm still amused that Mark Shea runs a blog called Catholic and Enjoying It. I guess he is catholic, and in some perverse way enjoying "it", but I can assure him that other catholics -- in particular those who value sanity -- don't enjoy it, and for myriad reasons. Has it dawned on him that other catholics don't appreciate his fondness for vitriol and flame-throwing? Or the fact that Shea indulgently cultivates his anger while he simultaneously sells his services as a professional catholic apologist? It's not really that great for catholicism when the catholic apologist on TV calls to mind Michael Douglas with a crewcut, horn-rims, and an automatic weapon.

...the suggestion to "get a life" is essentially to tell us to shut the hell up...

The comments, presented in sequence from the comments thread, poke even more holes in Mr. Shea's self-righteous facade (All references to Mr. Dreher will be edited out, since he is not the subject of our current study): The first is from a woman named Diane...
I could not agree more with the following:
the suggestion to "get a life" is essentially to tell us to shut the hell up
Exactly. What the Marks ... want is the power to censor opposing views out of their own comboxes (which is their prerogative, of course) PLUS the power to censor those same views in other venues. Who the hay-ell do such folks think they are? If they won't tolerate dissent in their own comboxes (which, again, is their preogative), fine. But they certainly cannot expect the folks they have silenced there to docilely shut up everywhere else. It's a free Internet. Freedom of expression is enjoyed equally by all of us. It is not the exclusive preserve of a self-anointed few. Not on the Internet, anyway.

Mark's efforts to silence dissent even on other people's blogs is so transparently control-freaky that we shouldn't even bother taking it seriously, methinks. The Internet is for everyone, not just for would-be thought police. And there ain't nuthin' the control freaks can do about it.

Diane continues in a separate box:
Apparently, one is not allowed to disagree with ... Mark anywhere--either on (his) blogs or anywhere else. If one is censored off their blogs and then has recourse to one's own venue, then one is accused of "hatred"--even if one is simply discussing the issues...
Here are more comments from another thread on the same subject on the anti-Dreher blog, again, in sequence:
The following is a comment I posted to Mr. Shea's blog as Thomas a'Becket. I did this because I did not want him to discount my views outright as he always has.

Mr. Shea:

Let us say we follow your advice and move on. Who holds Mr. Dreher and his colleagues in the MSM accountable for what they say or do? They are great about holding Bishop X or Cardinal Y accountable for their actions. Why cant they hold the same standard for themselves? For instance, last year CNN aired video of Iraqi Snipers killing American soldiers which they obtained from the Insurgents. Talk about an advertisement for Liberal media bias. Do you know what Mr. Dreher and his colleagues said about that? Nada! Also, why is it no one covered the ethical lapses in the Democratic congress? Examples would be John Murtha of Abscam or how William Jefferson of Louisiana was elected even with $90,000 in his freezer? Yes people get carried away on the blog. However, people would not have the need if some balanced coverage was applied to the media.
Thomas a' Becket
To which Mark Shea reportedly responded to Jonathan as follows:
Jonathan:
Your stupid fake names are a pain in the ass, as are you. Feel free to hold Dreher accountable all you like. But for cryin' out loud, use your real name and learn how to separate the wheat from the chaff. Also, try getting some perspective. You give me (and others) the creeps with your Dreher obsession.

Yes, this man sounds like a "Catholic and Enjoying It" doesn't he?
A woman named Kathleen chimed in with the following observations:
oh, that's a charming new thread on mark shea's blog, i see. still obsessing about us mark? obsessostalking in fact?

whatever beef you have with the quoted exchange between myself and demoslider is most certainly in the eye of the beholder. apparently, you too have some suspicions about dreher, or else you would wonder what the heck we are talking about. a soul as pure as the driven snow, clearly you are not.

talk about obsessostalkers getting "creepy".

To which Jonathan Carpenter responded as follows:
Kathleen:

It is not just smart women he does not like. It is more people who do not role in his same clique. It is like in High School if you are not with the "Cool Kids" (Mark, Rod, Dom B etc) you are a nobody.

Kathleen again, responding to Bubba, the blog's moderator:

Bubba, Shea displays a "tremendous amount of class"? tremendous? not quite. sorry, but i disagree. his tone and vitriol create the kind of atmosphere that egg-on sycophantic comboxers to make such threats in the first place. when it's a toss up whether or not Shea will approve of, tacitly approve of, or reject, such threats, then one has to put part of the blame on his blog-hosting.
Andy Nowicki enters the conversation and submits a link to a piece he wrote about Mr. Shea, to which one commentator said, everybody here should read Andy's great piece on his own "banishment"
Some excerpts:
Shea often reacts to intellectual challenges with prickly defensiveness. He is prone to what I have categorized elsewhere as the "How Dare You" approach to debate, wherein one starts from the premise that one's opponent can't be anything but evil or disingenuous. Thus his responses to defenders of torture, the war in Iraq, and other neocon staples often take on an ugly, smarmy tone, rife with question-begging evasions and snarky indulgences in ad hominem rhetoric.

Such was my assessment until recently. Now I realize I didn't know the half of it. I was little aware of the extent of Shea's smarm, snarkiness, and sanctimony until I (along with my identical friends, me and myself) was virtually arrested, and convicted, on the charge of being a member of a uniquely evil species, the "holocaust denier."

Of course, it wasn't and it isn't true. None of the separate identities jostling for control inside my head have ever doubted that Hitler and the Nazis murdered millions of Jews, among others. Nor do we, as adherents of the same Christian morality that (presumably) animates Shea, condone murder, much less mass murder. Yet Shea knows otherwise, because � like so many others burning to sniff out un-PC heretics and thus prove their own worth these days � he knows how to "read between the lines." ... If one pays attention to what I actually wrote, however, as opposed to what I was presumed to have "meant," no such conclusion could logically be drawn. But who needs logic when you're fired with hatred at those deemed to be "haters"?

Mark Shea's presumptuous arrogance and ungracious behavior, however, is hardly the most disheartening aspect of my experiences at his blogsite. Instead, it is the almost monolithic, sheeplike conformity of his "Catholic and Enjoying It!" fellow travelers. Of all the other posters on the board, only one brave and hardy soul, a man with the handle of "Seamus," questioned Shea's ham-fisted tactics and hinted, subtly, that some hypocrisy was on display:

Far be it from me to expose myself to accusations of defending the defenders of Holocaust deniers, but is it really the case that the man who quoted C.S. Lewis back in October on the subject of thinking your enemies as bad as possible (and being reluctant to entertain the possibility that they might not be as bad as initially thought) now holds that people can be banned, not just for questioning the Holocaust, but also for entertaining the possibility Holocaust deniers might merely be mistaken whackjobs (along the lines of those who believe the Apollo moon landings were all faked or that O.J. Simpson was innocent) rather than evil? And even conceding that Holocaust deniers are indeed evil rather than merely mistaken, must we now conclude that those who entertain a contrary view must themselves be evil rather than mistaken? If so, then we've certainly come a long way from October.

Shea never answered Seamus, of course. Why should he, when most of his readers appeared to be solidly in his corner?

Here are the comments from one of those who read it:
Whew. The Nowicki piece is indeed illuminating. Apparently reason and nuance count for nothing; one is condemned merely for suggesting that a whackjob may not be utterly evil, even if one does not personally share the whackjob's wacky views. Whew.

I will never understand people who hate, despise, insult, name-call, and take petty vengeance upon others in the name of opposing "hate." E.g., this lovely line: "Your stupid fake names are a pain in the ass, as are you." Gosh. I can just feel the love.
And a woman whom Shea insulted tries to reason with him:
But Mark, may I ask you one simple question? :

Can you honestly not see why someone might object to being called nasty names?

I repeat:

Can you honestly not see why someone might object to being called nasty names?

Please try to understand, Mark. You may feel like name-calling's justified, but I assure you it isn't. It is unChristian. When wielded against women, it is also ungentlemanly and unchivalrous. It is also potentially deeply hurtful (not everyone on the Internet is thick-skinned). And it is immature. It is the favorite tactic employed by playground bullies in middle school.

Why, why, why is this so hard to understand? Why do you also, lately, do nothing but accuse and vilify, refusing to acknowledge that perhaps Jonathan Carpenter is a human being and not merely a whipping-boy object of your insults and name-calling?

Why can you, Mark, and Rod not see what is so obvious to so many (and not just to some of the comboxers here): The name-calling is the issue.Mr. Shea never responded to the woman's question.

In summary, a man who claims to detest obsessive stalking engages in it when it suits his purposes. A man who claims to defend a religion based upon the teachings of Jesus Christ effectively rejects those teachings when it suits his purposes.

Such are the obtuse twists and turns of the mind of one hypocritical Catholic apologist in the Twilight Zone....

(du-du-du-du, du-du-du-du)

#########

Miscellaneous Musings:

I want to touch on two points briefly so here goes...

--Readers of this humble weblog may have noticed the labels on the bottom of the page of many of the blog posts. I have been in recent weeks taking a few minutes here and there and adding labels to various posts by subject. This is an arduous process but thankfully, I know some shortcuts that have enabled me to get a significant jump on it.{1} I should have that project done by summertime which means that the first weblog update of 2007 will not take place for quite a while. As it is, most of the posts for the past two years have at least one subject tag on them as of this writing -many of them more than one tag in fact. And there are some categories I have not even gotten to which will have a number of posts put into them when I get around to adding those categories. Suffice to say, this will take a while and when the project is completed, I will be able to significantly reduce the number of links in the side margin of my weblog and post there only the categories themselves whatever the total number of them ends up being.{2}

--I have not commented on the Virginia Tech incident because I did not find myself in the mood to. All I will say on it in passing is that anyone who used this tragedy to try and score cheap political points is a disgrace. I have in mind those who are going to try and shill for "gun control" as if somehow the criminal has no choice in the matter if not for the gun making him commit the crime. I suppose (to paraphrase Larry the cable Guy) I should blame my pens and pencils for causing me to misspell words. The latter is about as logical as those who blame guns for crime.

Notes:

{1} Such as certain words to search for in the archives on various subjects, certain phrases, etc.

{2} Right now there is twenty-nine of them and I have at least four more in mind at the moment which will be included as well -and will probably incorporate more than that when it is all said and done.

Points to Ponder:

"Catholics for a Free Choice" is no more a Catholic organization than Exxon is an environmentalist movement. [John M. Esparolini]

"Dogmatic Theology Five Cents, The Doctor is In" Dept.
(On General Norms of Theological Interpretation Revisited)

[Prefatory Note: This text was primarily thrown together about ten days ago and slightly expanded (and formatted into third person tense) for the present posting. -ISM]

It is really irritating when an experienced apologist such as Mark Shea makes the kinds of mistakes he does and on such a regular basis. We at Rerum Novarum will dispatch with these inanities briefly and in the process remind readers why a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Furthermore, Mark utilizes a classic argumentation fallacy{1} to try and confuse matters like an old parlour magician. Unfortunately for him, your host is not one to fall for such matters and after calling him on the matter, Mark responded as follows (his words in appropriately dark yellow font).

Shawn:

I was unaware that when a Council teaches that "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation" it is not the Church's teaching. I learn something new every day.

Mark of course makes a lot of presumptions in how he applies that passage. Furthermore, he also does not bother considering what Gaudium et Spes says about the theological qualifications of its own text.{2} If he did, he would not make such absurd statements.

I'm aware of the common game of "Simon says" which apologists for nuking civilians enjoy playing. The rules of the game are "If the Pope does not say "We declare, say, pronounce, and define that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of butchery and they should be pilgrimage sites where men can contemplate the self-destruction of mankind" why then it's just a "sneeze" and we can completely ignore them.

The fact that your host does not plan to discuss this issue again until it is relevant aside for a moment{3}, Mark makes the same presumptions that theologically radical so-called "traditionalist Catholics" do on their pet issues. Much as they take an elastic application of Pope Pius X's encyclical Pascendi and try to apply its condemnations wholesale to the Second Vatican Council and the subsequent popes, Mark does the same here with his own pet subjects.

Anyone even remotely familiar with general norms of theological interpretation{4} knows that condemnations are by their very nature very precise and are intended only in the sense intended, not every sense that a casual reader of a text applies to them. This is why none of the condemnations in Pascendi apply to Vatican II or to the popes since Pope Pius XII. A casual and careless reading of Pascendi or Pius XII's Humani Generis presents no small degree of problems. Those texts as indeed any text have to be read carefully and in accordance with general norms of theological interpretation if the reader is to avoid the kinds of misinterpretations which are sadly not uncommon. And whether Mark or anyone else likes it, there are no magisterial condemnations of the atomic bombings. Period, end of discussion, the rest is commentary. But then again, if Mark took time to look into these matters before opening his mouth on matters of which he knows so little, he would know this.

Furthermore, your host has never said that anything short of a dogmatic definition is up for grabs -indeed in years past he wrote more on the authority of the ordinary magisterium and the proper sense of magisterial infallibility than any Catholic in cyberspace. But he is not now nor will he ever ascribe more to a statement of the pope or a council authority-wise than it actually contains. That is not "minimalist" however much Mark may want to misrepresent it but instead is a proper recognition of where the Church has spoken and where she has not.

Only the absolute bare minimum daily adult requirement of teaching from the Church's shepherds need be heeded. Any attempt to pay attention to what they say beyond this is ultra-montanism.

Any attempt to ascribe to magisterial status things which are not makes Mark no different in principle than those nineteenth century neo-ultramontaines who ascribed infallibility to every sneeze of Pope Pius IX. Except in Mark's case it is every statement is a defacto magisterial judgment. Theology is not that simple however much Mark may wish it was.

I'm likewise familiar with the fact that you, like so many Torture Apologists,

Maybe we should start calling Mark an Al Queda Apologist. It would be far more accurate than applying Markmoud AhmadinaShea's label to your host. (Gee, namecalling is fun is it not???)

still labor under the impression that I never defined torture when, in fact, I defined it repeatedly, just never to the satisfaction of those who wanted to remain confused.

Mark referred to dictionary definitions which themselves are not precise. Your host asked him numerous times in private "what is torture Mark" and he were as silent as a whore in church in response.

I also pointed out that the teaching (not the "sneeze") of the Church does not stop with "Don't torture".

Again, if Mark does not define the term before he uses it, the present writer has no reason to take anything he says on the matter seriously. Nor for that matter does anyone else.

It also says that prisoners are to be treated humanely--not merely "not exactly precisely technically tortured".

We reprise anew what was asked of Mark in private and to which he never responded:

--Would any and all attempts to coerce someone to reveal information they may not want to reveal when dealing with captured prisoners of war in a time of war be categorized as "torture"???

The question should be answered by Mark if he wants anything he says on these matters to be given any review whatsoever.

All this seems to elude you as it eludes others, which is why I continue to think you major in minors, Shawn.

Again, if Mark does not define a term and give someone a workable template to assess every public utterance he make on these matters to assess his consistency (or lack thereof), then why should anyone take him seriously??? Far from being a "major[ing] in minors" definitions are essential for rational discourse. They are the tools of thought and those who refuse to provide them should never be taken seriously when they deign to pontificate on issues where there is a greater complexity than the conventional wisdom Readers Digest Condensed Books accounts often convey.

Thanks again for your valiant defense of American political realities against all the impositions of our shepherds.

Thanks for reminding us of why we need another Sedition Act in this country during a time of war Markmoud. Based on the way Mark has griped about matters such as these as well as his ahistorical approach to indefinite detainment of aliens during a time of war, perhaps "Al Sheada" is a more appropriate moniker for him.

Notes:

{1} To summarize this fallacy in a short blurb, the fallacy of red herring is one where a subject not relevant to the original issue being discussed is raised in order to divert attention away from the latter subject.

{2} This subject was covered in the following posting for those who are interested:

"Dogmatic Theology Five Cents, the Doctor Is In" Dept. (circa February 4, 2006)

{3} Which basically means not until the anniversaries of that event if we discuss them at all this year.

{4} Of which Mark would not recognize even if it was a twelve story general norm of interpretation with magnificent entrance hall, carpetting throughout, 24 hour portage, and an enormous sign on the roof saying "This Is A General Norm of Theological Interpretation." (The above analogy was shamelessly ripped off from the main character of your host's favourite show of all time and tweaked a bit to fit the current situation.)

As today would have been the 84th birthday of Albert King -a man who was one of the greatest innovators and influences in postwar electric blues, I want to recognize this event with posting a video from YouTube. In this video is Albert, his greatest disciple Stevie Ray Vaughan, and Paul Butterfield of the Paul Butterfield Blues Band fame playing an Elmore James classic The Sky is Crying.

The Sky is Crying

May all three of them rest in peace.