Ithaka

As you set out for Ithaka
hope your road is a long one,
full of adventure, full of discovery.
Laistrygonians, Cyclops,
angry Poseidon—don’t be afraid of them:
you’ll never find things like that on your way
as long as you keep your thoughts raised high,
as long as a rare excitement
stirs your spirit and your body.
Laistrygonians, Cyclops,
wild Poseidon—you won’t encounter them
unless you bring them along inside your soul,
unless your soul sets them up in front of you.

Hope your road is a long one.
May there be many summer mornings when,
with what pleasure, what joy,
you enter harbors you’re seeing for the first time;
may you stop at Phoenician trading stations
to buy fine things,
mother of pearl and coral, amber and ebony,
sensual perfume of every kind—
as many sensual perfumes as you can;
and may you visit many Egyptian cities
to learn and go on learning from their scholars.

Keep Ithaka always in your mind.
Arriving there is what you’re destined for.
But don’t hurry the journey at all.
Better if it lasts for years,
so you’re old by the time you reach the island,
wealthy with all you’ve gained on the way,
not expecting Ithaka to make you rich.

Ithaka gave you the marvelous journey.
Without her you wouldn't have set out.
She has nothing left to give you now.
And if you find her poor, Ithaka won’t have fooled you.
Wise as you will have become, so full of experience,
you’ll have understood by then what these Ithakas mean.
[CP Cavafy]

Points to Ponder:

[C]harity, as it is written, is not self-seeking (1 Cor 13:5) meaning that it places the common good before its own, not its own before the common good. So whenever you show greater concern for the common good than for your own, you may know that you are growing in charity. Thus, let the abiding virtue of charity prevail in all things that minister to the fleeting necessities of life. [From The Rule of St. Augustine (circa 400 AD)]

Twelve 2020 draft prospects I really like

As today was a rather dubious anniversary, I want to republish at this time an expository musing I wrote on the subjects of fundamental rights, common law principles, and abortion about thirteen years ago. Without further ado...

On Fundamental Rights, Common Law Principles, and Abortion (circa February 1, 2007)

Points to Ponder:

Christianity, and nothing else is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy...We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter. [Jürgen Habermas]

The Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous site has been updated for the first time in over a decade!

Today Was The 4th Annual Women’s March…Does It Still Matter?

Just a few bits...

Out front, a climate-themed phoenix showing animals rising from the ashes of a burning forest.

...

Pink-hatted women have parked a big cage with a doll wrapped in a space blanket behind the media riser.

...

Chilean feminist collective Las Tesis are going over the lyrics to A Rapist in Your Path, their viral anthem denouncing violence against women.

“The oppressive state is a macho rapist,” they sing.

In a nutshell, we need more mental hospitals for folks like this!

Points to Ponder:

So what if games-people turn away business. They add flavor. Chess and Go are assets to a coffeehouse. [Irv Cisski]

Considering trades, the Clowney inevitability & more

Briefly on the Newest Impeachment "Smoking Gun:

My view is summed up well in the following Twitter comment by Sean Davis...

Sean Davis
✔
@seanmdav

An undated note from a guy indicted on multiple federal charges of fraud and conspiracy who's already fabricated evidence in a desperate attempt to get an immunity deal from Schiff and Pelosi so he can avoid prison? That's the new smoking gun? LOL.

6:41 PM - Jan 14, 2020

Pelosi’s Blunder: How The House Destroyed Its Own Case For Impeachment

Warren Rejects Peace Pipe Offered By Sanders

Briefly...

As I take a brief detour from reviewing and revising the magisterium project, I have been perusing the drafts and notes folder from Facebook for materials either posted there or prepared for posting in the time period when this website was suspended. Some of those materials will be published here in the coming months at various intervals whenever I can be motivated to format them for doing so.

Points to Ponder:

[There was a] long, slow secularization of Western civilization, so that by the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, much had been drained away from the heart of the Christian life. Increasingly, this life consisted of a series of virtuous habits shored up not so much by interior conviction as by social expectations devoid of active spiritual judgment. Every period has its own problems; remember that I am talking here about pervasive cultural trends. A common approach to the spiritual life in those days has been famously captured in a stock question which really was often asked: "Just tell me what I need to do to get to purgatory." The first half of the twentieth century has been justly described as a period in which Catholicism tended to be lived "prescriptively", with little immersion in the mystery of God’s life within. [Fr. Joseph A. Komonchak (circa August 18, 2015)]

A Reiteration and Revision of My Correspondence Policy:

With the advent of social media and its increasing relevance, a reiteration and clarification of this site's correspondence policy is in order. Previous to involvement in social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, correspondence was limited to things like message boards, comments boxes at websites, and email. However, in the new environment, there are other potential mediums of communication to consider. So with that in mind, I first want to reiterate at this point the site correspondence policy as it was publicly posted to this website prior to the overhaul of the site template:

Any correspondence will be presumed eligible for blogging unless the sender otherwise specifies. This is referred to as the Welborn Protocol and is a policy that will be followed at Rerum Novarum. (Though name and email information will as a rule not be posted without explicit request to do so by the sender.) 

*Rerum Novarum is properly understood to be copyrighted in accordance with other writings of Shawn M. except with regards to Guest Editorials to the extent necessary for the authors of said pieces to thereby retain all rights to their work thereof. 

*My approval of a website, weblog, or essay is to be properly understood as approval of a macro nature and not necessarily a micro one and the macro approval pertains to the general theme so categorized not necessarily to micro elements not pertaining to said theme thereof.

While the precise formulation of the correspondence policy has undergone some additions, subtractions, and variations over the seventeen plus years since this website was first formed{1}; at the same time, the above parts were in some form or another in every iteration of the site's correspondence policy. So with a few tweaks, the above site policy will as of this posting be renewed as the current and future site policy here at Rerum Novarum in the following form:

Any correspondence will be presumed eligible for publication unless the sender otherwise specifies. This is referred to as the Welborn Protocol and is a policy that will be followed at Rerum Novarum. (Though name and email information will as a rule not be posted without explicit request to do so by the sender.) 

*Rerum Novarum is properly understood to be copyrighted in accordance with other writings of mine except with regards to Guest Editorials to the extent necessary for the authors of said pieces to thereby retain all rights to their work thereof. 

*My approval of a website, web link, essay, etc. from someone else is to be understood as only of a macro nature and not necessarily a micro one unless explicitly stated otherwise. 

I intend at this time to clarify for the record that the phrase any correspondence above includes correspondence on Facebook, Twitter, Instant Messenger, or any other social media format that I participate in with the exception of phone conversations or phone texting. So if you correspond with me in any of those mediums, the material could appear here at some point unless it is explicitly requested otherwise. That is not to say that it will appear here mind you, only that it could and this clarification is one made in perpetuity.

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Note:

{1} Including by the middle of the last decade being expanded into five rather ponderous paragraphs prior to later redactions.

Benedict and Sarah back Francis’s position on priestly celibacy. Media storm ensues

For the fifth time in recent months, I will post an update on the Democratic presidential field which has expanded as well as contracted since the last update of this nature. As of this writing, it is at 12 candidates.{1} Here is a brief list of those who have dropped in and dropped out so far:


In the Race -Listed By Declaration Date:

John Delaney (July 28, 2017)
Andrew Yang (November 6, 2017)
Tulsi Gabbard (January 11, 2019)
Elizabeth Warren (February 9, 2019)
Amy Klobuchar (February 10, 2019)
Bernie Sanders (February 19, 2019)
Pete Buttigieg (April 14, 2019)
Joe Biden (April 25, 2019)
Michael Bennett (May 2, 2019)
Tom Steyer (July 19, 2019)
Deval Patrick (November 14, 2019)
Michael Bloomberg (November 24, 2019)


Out of the Race -Listed By Suspension Date:

Richard Ojeda (January 25, 2019)
Eric Swalwell (July 8, 2019)
Mike Gravel (August 6, 2019)
John Hinckenlooper (August 15, 2019)
Jay Inslee (August 21, 2019)
Seth Moulton (August 23, 2019)
Kirsten Gillibrand (August 28, 2019)
Bill de Blasio (September 20, 2019)
Tim Ryan (October 24, 2019)
Beto O'Rourke (November 1, 2019)
Wayne Messam (November 19, 2019)
Joe Sestak (December 1, 2019)
Steve Bullock (December 2, 2019)
Kamala Harris (December 3, 2019)
Julian Castro (January 2, 2020)
Marianne Williamson (January 9, 2020)
Corey Booker (January 13, 2020)


Note:

{1} Well technically there are others but the above listed ones are the only ones with a snowballs chance in hell of being nominated.

"One From the Vault" Dept.

The following is a flashback to the archives of this website from 2004...

...When I exchange the sign, I envision those who have wronged me whom I struggle to forgive in my heart despite doing so in either words or in theory. (I also envision those I may have wronged.) The heart is deeper than we think and we can hold those grudges deep which we are supposed to rid ourselves of. Hence, at the apex of the mass, when the Lamb is to be consumed, we are to be pure of heart in order to be worthy of the Lamb who was slain before the foundation of the world (cf. Rev. xiii,8).

And this purity of intention can be symbolized in our exchanging of the sign with those around us -envisioning in them those who have wronged us or those we have perhaps wronged (either in reality or perhaps whom we believe this may apply to). Our Lord referred to this principle in the Gospels in the following words:

You have heard that it was said to the men of old, `You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, `You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire. So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. [Matthew v,21-24]

That is the value of the kiss of peace as I have come to see it: it enables me not to have to leave mass to reconcile with those who have wronged me (or whom I may have wronged) before partaking of the sacrifice. Instead, I am able to see in those around me proxies if you will for such people and respectfully "reconcile" through exchanging the sign before receiving the gift from the altar... [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 2, 2004)]

For the fourth time in recent months, I will post an update on the Democratic Presidential field which has expanded as well as contracted since the last update of this nature. As of this writing, it is at 13 candidates.{1} Here is a brief list of those who have dropped in and dropped out so far:


In the Race -Listed By Declaration Date:

John Delaney (July 28, 2017)
Andrew Yang (November 6, 2017)
Tulsi Gabbard (January 11, 2019)
Corey Booker (February 1, 2019)
Elizabeth Warren (February 9, 2019)
Amy Klobuchar (February 10, 2019)
Bernie Sanders (February 19, 2019)
Pete Buttigieg (April 14, 2019)
Joe Biden (April 25, 2019)
Michael Bennett (May 2, 2019)

Tom Steyer (July 19, 2019)

Deval Patrick (November 14, 2019)
Michael Bloomberg (November 24, 2019)


Out of the Race -Listed By Suspension Date:

Richard Ojeda (January 25, 2019)
Eric Swalwell (July 8, 2019)
Mike Gravel (August 6, 2019)
John Hinckenlooper (August 15, 2019)
Jay Inslee (August 21, 2019)
Seth Moulton (August 23, 2019)
Kirsten Gillibrand (August 28, 2019)
Bill de Blasio (September 20, 2019)
Tim Ryan (October 24, 2019)

Beto O'Rourke (November 1, 2019)

Wayne Messam (November 19, 2019)

Joe Sestak (December 1, 2019)

Steve Bullock (December 2, 2019)

Kamala Harris (December 3, 2019)

Julian Castro (January 2, 2020)
Marianne Williamson (January 9, 2020)

Note:

{1} Well technically there are others but the above listed ones are the only ones with a snowballs chance in hell of being nominated.

Points to Ponder:

[T]hose who have comments boxes are capable of manipulating the content there to suit their own agenda including banning people who raise strong enough arguments against the "prevailing orthodoxy" at a given weblog. You would be surprised at how often those who laud their "willingness to interact with others" will put censors on their comments boxes that would make the monitors at Pravda in the days of the old Soviet Union blush and as we do not believe in unnecessary censorship, that means we would inexorably leave out there potentially a variety of assertions that our lack of time to respond to would give the unintended perception of being "unanswerable" by us. Those are the main reasons for our refusal to use comments boxes in a nutshell. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 1, 2008)]

There's a place in the world for the angry young man
With his working class ties and his radical plans
He refuses to bend, he refuses to crawl
He's always at home with his back to the wall
And he's proud of his scars and the battles he's lost
And he struggles and bleeds as he hangs on the cross
And he likes to be known as the angry young man

Give a moment or two to the angry young man
With his foot in his mouth and his heart in his hand
He's been stabbed in the back, he's been misunderstood
It's a comfort to know his intentions are good
And he sits in a room with a lock on the door
With his maps and his medals laid out on the floor
And he likes to be known as the angry young man

I believe I've passed the age of consciousness and righteous rage
I found that just surviving was a noble fight
I once believed in causes too
I had my pointless point of view
And life went on no matter who was wrong or right

And there's always a place for the angry young man
With his fist in the air and his head in the sand
And he's never been able to learn from mistakes
So he can't understand why his heart always breaks
But his honor is pure and his courage as well
And he's fair and he's true and he's boring as hell
And he'll go to the grave as an angry old man
[Billy Joel]

Points to Ponder:

It is probably not possible to filter out all elements of gonzoism from one's work but the idea of falsifying facts and events is not ethical as far as I am concerned. Unfortunately, such things are common among journalists these days. Another annoyance is the common approach these days of before asking a question prefacing it with a mini-editorial of sorts which is presented as if it is the truth when in reality it is often just a showcase of the journalist's own biases. [Circa October 17, 2008]

The following is a posting to Pete Vere's Patheos website Orthodoxy In Communion With Rome and my response to it circa April of 2018. Some material that was in the process of either pre-publication revision at the time,{1} projects in composition at the time{2}, or was an idea only for a future project at most are in retrospect inferred in my words below.{3} Nonetheless...

Time for a New Catholic Apologetics Movement? Four Ideas for Renewal

We discussed this very subject a while back ago if memory serves and much of what you write above looks familiar. Though dropping terms like "Protestant" and "Protestants" was not specifically discussed, I nonetheless agree with what you wrote on this. (Its also why I think as a rule all generalized terminology should be avoided.)

One important idea to add to your list of four is addressing a serious defect of no small magnitude in almost all apologetics circles I have observed over the years; namely, the actual study and conscious inculcation of the principles outlined in the Catholic spiritual tradition. I concluded a long time ago that if Catholic spirituality principles were studied prior to anything else, it would fix so much of what is wrong with not only the apologetics movement but with general online communication as well. (Not to mention the adversarial predisposition towards conflict so inherent in almost all who involve themselves to any degree in apologetics would be significantly reduced!)

Notes:

{1} I have in mind here the three threads pertaining to the so-called Correctio Filialis.

{2} I have in mind here among other things the thread on the infallibility of the canonization of saints.

{3} Around the time I penned those words, I had a project in mind that will be published in about eight weeks time. It was I believe around the time of June of 2018 when drafting my inaugural piece for the aborted WherePeterIs collaboration when I first mentioned privately intending to write on the subjects of dialogue and on the magisterium. The aforementioned inaugural piece was published to WPI on June 16, 2018 and can be read HERE.

Briefly on Vigano:

My words are in regular font.

nowhere does Fr. Angel point out what Vigano says is not true

That is a pretty loaded statement since Vigano has said a lot of things. The goal of Fr. Angel's posting would seem to be not to go through the scroll of various things that Vigano said but to instead point out a common theme to Vigano's entire approach that underscores its lack of authenticity. I can understand how those for whom Vigano seems to be the sun around which their world rotates would find that sort of stuff sticking in their craw but that is neither here nor there.

Fact of the matter is, whatever flaws Abp Vigano has, what he says about Pope Francis is true

This was dealt with back in 2018 when the grave defect of Vigano's original "testimony" was pointed out by yours truly. Also revealed not long thereafter were his true motivations.{1} Furthermore, they were revealed in his own words verbatim but conveniently ignored by the cultists circulating his manifestos.

But as we saw then and likely will continue to now, those engaging in #Viganolatry have shown themselves to be as impervious to reason and logic where he is concerned as any conspiracy theorist and for many of the same fundamental reasons. Also worth noting is the #Viganolators parallel to the dyspeptic AlSheadas of the world and revealing the same spiritual defects.

and that is what really grates on his defenders

Actually, the ones that really seem to have a burr in their saddle that really grates them are the #Viganolators who have sought to defend every utterance of Vigano as if it is inspired and have sought to move the goalposts regularly when certain statements of Vigano were shown to be either false or otherwise misleading. It is too bad because these antics sully any possible valid points he may have raised but I digress.

Note:

{1} For example, many of those pushing Vigano think he was speaking up courageously about the sexual abuse stuff and its coverup but Vigano himself admitted that his real motivations were anything but.

Why the Seahawks’ Jadeveon Clowney and Ezekiel Ansah duo could be a nightmare in the playoffs

Thanks For Asking I Appreciate It

Kenneth Arthur's tenure as lead writer for Field Gulls is coming to an end because of that stupid California law AB5 that takes effect this year.

Briefly...

For those discussing current national budgetary issues, there were trillion dollar deficits under the system pre-Trump. (How do you think the debt doubled under Obama much as it doubled under Bush?) Cutting taxes changes investment behavior in beneficial ways that raise more revenue over time. The real problem is we have no mechanism in place to kneecap government from just spending the excess and then some.

We need mandatory sequestration that cuts 5-10% from every budget item every year until there is balance to within the rate of inflation. Pick a percent and apply it to everything, no sacred cows spared. Until that happens, its all Kabuki theater and deficits and debt will continue to grow.

Points to Ponder:

Time passes so fast. Make time to be still. [Lailah Gifty Akita]

On Magisterial Interpretation:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

One common mistake made in the area of magisterial interpretation is the presumption that a condemnation is broadly based rather than narrowly construed. From this operative presupposition, no shortage of uncharitable bile has been thrown about by "the unlearned and unstable" (cf. 2 Peter iii,16) in whom "the sin of rash judgments is a spiritual jaundice, which makes everything look amiss" (cf. St. Francis de Sales). As so much of this problem outside the spiritual realm comes down to interpretation, it seems appropriate to treat on the latter in brief as a supplement to (and presupposition to) the topic that the forthcoming project will examine in no small detail.

For interpreting the texts of the magisterium, there are parallels in principle to be found in the approach taken to canon law. There has been a longstanding understanding in canonical interpretation going back many centuries that laws establishing penalties, restricting the exercise of rights, or containing exceptions are to be interpreted strictly.{1} In like manner, odious laws are to be interpreted in a sense that will not extend them to cases not covered strictly by the words of the law while favourable laws are to be interpreted more benignly{2} in keeping with the traditional canons of charity.{3}

Transposing these principles to magisterial interpretation by corollary extension, it would mean interpreting condemnations or corrections by the magisterium strictly and not engaging in rash judgment. There can for example be variations of a concept which are similar but one is condemned while the other is not. It would be contrary to longstanding axioms of canonical interpretation{4} as well as fundamental charity{5} to presume in such an example that the condemnation of the one would automatically mean the condemnation of the other.{6} Instead, care should be taken with any reading of a potential magisterial text because they are usually worded pretty precisely and thus, every word matters.{7}

There are sadly too many folks who seem to go out of their way to find something wrong in others in various and sundry ways. This can be either in how they interpret a text, infer nefarious intent without recourse to objective manifestation of criteria, or a variety of other less than honourable means. Hopefully this brief treatment on the subject of interpretation can be of assistance for recognizing this adversarial presupposition in those who have it so they can better combat these harmful tendencies. (Both for their good and for the good of those they come in contact with in general.)

Notes:

{1} "Laws that establish penalties, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception to the law must be interpreted strictly (c. 18) It is long-standing canonical tradition that restrictive laws must be narrowly applied." [James A. Coriden: Excerpt from An Introduction to Canon Law pg. 202 (circa 1991)]

{2} "Two of the ancient rules of law (Regulae Iuris, compiled in the year 1298) state that 'adverse laws are to be restricted, favorable ones amplified,' and 'penalties are to be interpreted benignly.' Strict interpretation means that the sense of the words of the canon and the scope of its application are limited as much as reasonably possible." [James A. Coriden: Excerpt from An Introduction to Canon Law pgs. 202-3 (circa 1991)]

{3} See the Rerum Novarum Posting Spiritual Instruction on Charity (circa January 24, 2004) for a good brief treatment on this very important subject.

{4} "It has always been an axiom of interpretation of Canon Law that odious laws are to be explained in such a sense as not to unduly extend them to cases not strictly covered by the words of the law, while in favorable laws a more benign interpretation is allowed." [Stanislaus Woywod: Excerpt from The New Canon Law pg. 6 (circa 1918)]

{5} See footnote three.

{6} To note one example, I wrote an essay nearly two decades ago in response to an article by Fr. Chad Ripperger where he was confusing two similar concepts of theological immanence. (Namely, relative immanence as articulated by Maurice Blondel and absolute or vital immanence which was condemned by Pope Pius X in his encyclical letter Pascendi Dominici Gregis.)

{7} This is a point I went over in some detail nearly two decades ago when conducting an essay examination of the Syllabus of Errors and addressing the claims made by not a few supposed "traditionalists" that there were contradictions of a doctrinal nature between the Syllabus and either teachings of the Second Vatican Council and/or the popes subsequent to the Council who sought to implement its teachings.

For the third time in recent months, I will post an update on the Democratic Presidential field which has expanded as well as contracted since the last update of this nature. As of this writing, it is at 14 candidates.{1} Here is a brief list of those who have dropped in and dropped out so far:


In the Race -Listed By Declaration Date:

John Delaney (July 28, 2017)
Andrew Yang (November 6, 2017)
Tulsi Gabbard (January 11, 2019)
Marianne Williamson (January 28, 2019)
Corey Booker (February 1, 2019)
Elizabeth Warren (February 9, 2019)
Amy Klobuchar (February 10, 2019)
Bernie Sanders (February 19, 2019)
Pete Buttigieg (April 14, 2019)
Joe Biden (April 25, 2019)
Michael Bennett (May 2, 2019)

Tom Steyer (July 19, 2019)

Deval Patrick (November 14, 2019)
Michael Bloomberg (November 24, 2019)


Out of the Race -Listed By Suspension Date:

Richard Ojeda (January 25, 2019)
Eric Swalwell (July 8, 2019)
Mike Gravel (August 6, 2019)
John Hinckenlooper (August 15, 2019)
Jay Inslee (August 21, 2019)
Seth Moulton (August 23, 2019)
Kirsten Gillibrand (August 28, 2019)
Bill de Blasio (September 20, 2019)
Tim Ryan (October 24, 2019)

Beto O'Rourke (November 1, 2019)

Wayne Messam (November 19, 2019)

Joe Sestak (December 1, 2019)

Steve Bullock (December 2, 2019)

Kamala Harris (December 3, 2019)

Julian Castro (January 2, 2020)


Note:

{1} Well technically there are others but the above listed ones are the only ones with a snowballs chance in hell of being nominated.

I have periodically mentioned a project on the Church's Magisterium that I have been working on that will be published early in 2020. Though long pondered, my first outline sketch was made in early November though the final product will be in some respects different than what is in the published outline.{1}

As the various text parts have been revised{2} or undergoing review for potential revisions{3} or otherwise extracted due to project length and made into other standalone writings{4}, I am as of this moment still ahead of my original projections and expect the full magisterium project to be published in final form in eight weeks as of yesterday. However, a thought of one important facet that was overlooked in the larger project came to my mind the other day. As I do not want to make any significant structural or content additions to the magisterium project as it currently is, I will be publishing within the coming days a short stand alone piece to supplement the larger project that will treat on this missing facet; namely, the subject of interpretation. I suppose its fitting that the 3500th addition to this site should be something of weight; ergo, that piece will be published on Saturday around 7am or thereabouts.


Notes:

{1} I also anticipated initially that the project would not be ready for publication until sometime in the spring of 2020 but for a variety of reasons, the work has come together much quicker than I originally presumed.

{2} As of this short note, this applies to parts i and ii of the project which are (barring unforeseen circumstances) completed as of this writing.

{3} As of this short note, this applies to parts iii and iv of the project which are still in second draft form.

{4} Basically, there was more material produced than I anticipated when sketching the outline so for the sake of economy of prose and a more focused product, some originally drafted project material was excised from the text and will be published prior to the project. (Though they will be used as source links within said project.)

Francis: Evangelize by Example, not Pushing Your Faith on Others

"Auld Lang Syne" Dept.
(For 2020)

Should auld acquaintance be forgot
And never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot
And days of auld lang syne?

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne
We'll tak a cup o' kindness yet
For auld lang syne.

And surely ye'll be your pint stoop
And surely I'll be mine
And we'll tak a cup o' kindness yet
For auld lang syne.

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak' a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.

We twa hae run about the braes
And pou'd the gowans fine
But we've wander'd mony a weary foot
Sin' auld lang syne.

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak' a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.

We twa hae paidl'd i' the burn
Frae mornin' sun till dine
But seas between us braid hae roared
Sin' auld lang syne.

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak' a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.

And here's a hand, my trusty fiere
And gi'e's a hand o' thine
And we'll tak a right good willy waught
For auld lang syne. [Attr. Robert Burns]

Briefly On Faulty Apologetical Arguments:

This posting was written as a result of some things I have seen in social media feeds over the years and in particular, one that I saw earlier today. Basically, I see a number of well meaning folks who treat apologetics arguments as if they are by themselves conclusive. This is a common problem with the apologetics mindset but rather than go into that general subject, let us treat at this time of a common apologetics argument used by Christians. These folks often whip out arguments like Pascal's Wager or CS Lewis' Lord, Liar, Lunatic purported trilemma and use them with a certain smugness as if they contain some magical checkmate to thereby trap others like a spider traps a fly in their web. In reality however, neither of these arguments is as foolproof as the users of them so often presume. I will now briefly dispatch with both to prove my point.

Pascal's Wager

The main outline of this argument is one that attempts to shoehorn the person its presented to with the idea that either God exists or he does not and therefore you only have a few options. Going off of memory{1} the analogy is something akin to this:

• God exists, you believe, therefore you are rewarded

• God exists, you do not believe, therefore you are tormented

• God does not exist, you believe, you lose nothing

• God does not exist, you do not believe, you lose nothing

The gist of the argument is it is better to wager on God's existence should you have any doubt as to whether he exists or not. The flaws in the wager are many but the most significant one is as follows:

It presents false dichotomies to the person it is given to. 

To start with, there is the rhetorical "what if you are wrong?" which of course implicates the person giving the wager because they admit implicitly that they could well be wrong too. However, they never approach this subject with that presupposition in reality while they expect those they interact with to. There are other problems as well including the idea that all potential religions, deities, afterlife scenarios, etc are not for consideration but instead, only the Christian one or some variation of a Christian one. Why should the reader logically do that?

If you consider the various permutations of potential religious possibilities, the Christian conception{2} is merely one of a long list and unless presupposed to be deserving of special consideration is logically no more deserving of it than any other religious claim out there. And that is presuming you can logically narrow it down to one particular variation of the various sometimes contradictory Christian formulations rather than merely presupposing whichever formulation you are particularly partial to (if any). This fact alone dilutes the wager and makes it basically worthless as a genuinely persuasive argument for anyone who does not live in a time or under the assumption that the only religion possibility is the Christian one.{3}


Lord, Liar, Lunatic

In a certain sense, this argument is even weaker while it is probably appealed to with a greater frequency than the wager one.{4} It purports to force the reader into a trilemma of sorts where only one possibility makes logical sense; namely, that Jesus is Lord. If he is not Lord, than the only other possibilities according to the hypothesis is that he is a Liar or a Lunatic. The fundamental weakness to this argument is the claim that Jesus said he was God. Nowhere in the Synoptics does Jesus make such a claim so the only Gospel source where the claim can be somewhat substantiated is the Gospel of John. But herein lies a problem with that source: most Christian theologians who study the Bible claim that the Gospel of John is a more mystical gospel than the others. Also, in all the gospels, Jesus speaks in parables and uses metaphors a lot.

So one could say on the one hand that Jesus need not be a lunatic or liar when he was said to call himself God but could instead be an honest man who made a mistake{5} and that one additional example alone falsifies the presumptive trilemma. But beyond that, one would have to prove in the example where Jesus is said to refer to himself as God that he was to be taken literally in that passage rather than merely assuming he was. Jesus said many things about himself including that he was a vine and the apostles were the branches, he was a door, he was the sheepsgate, he was a shepherd and the followers were sheep, etc. You cannot ignore the numerous ways that Jesus spoke metaphorically and in parables and then state with definitiveness from the text itself that any claims to divinity he was purported to have made were to be taken literally. You have to presuppose the claim you would be trying to prove and that is circular reasoning and thereby is illogical.

As I know what postings like this can do, I will put in a footnote my actual view on this matter so I am not misunderstood.{6} The bottom line to this posting is this: there is no argument one can make rationally for religious belief that does not involve some aspect of acceptance on faith. The degree of acceptance of faith may vary by the given argument except at perhaps the most fundamental level{7} but beyond that, there should be a lot more humility on these matters than many pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists often manifest when interacting with others.

Notes:

{1} I am sketching it out in vague form above from memory so if the formulation is not precise, I apologize in advance.

{2} To the extent that there is or could be a single Christian conception of course.

{3} See footnote two.

{4} Probably in part because more Christians these days are familiar with CS Lewis than they are Blaise Pascal.

{5} Remember, an honest man who makes a mistake is no less an honest man because of it.

{6} To be clear, I am not saying I think this way.

{7} For example, Aquinas' Five Ways which while successful in its intention only purport to prove the existence of God through reason and does not presume to argue for a specific religious formulation of God.

Point to Ponder:

The story of every human life begins with birth and ends with death. In the person of Christ, however, it was his death that was first and his life that was last. . . . It was not so much that his birth cast a shadow on his life and thus led to his death; it was rather that the cross was first, and cast its shadow back to his birth. [Bishop Fulton J. Sheen]

Points to Ponder:

The Sacred Scriptures and Fathers teach us that sometimes the human will is so weakened by the possession of the habit of sin, that the only thing left is for the (enfeebled but called) person to respond to grace and cry out to Jesus Christ for deliverance. We are assured He never fails those who so cry to Him from their hearts. So never, ever, despair. [Stephen Hand]

Beast Mode is back! Seahawks Seahawks sign running back Marshawn Lynch

Pope writes Apostolic Letter on the significance of the Christmas crèche

Keeping the "CH" in Channukkah

The Outrage Continues: Mark Hamill Apologizes for Liking Harry Potter Author’s Tweet Claiming ‘Sex is Real’ – ‘Ignorance is No Excuse’

The Stupid is Strong with folks like old Skywalker!

Points to Ponder:

"If I say that I am a Catholic, I go to Mass every Sunday but then I don't talk to my parents, I don't assist my grandparents, I don't assist the poor, I don't go to see the sick, so it's not a testimony, it's no use...

So one is no other than Christian parrot, words, words, words, who knows if you will remember that song. Christian witness is done with three things: the word, the heart, the hands." [Pope Francis (circa January 16, 2017)]

I found it interesting that on the anniversary of one of my personal favourites from the old web essay writing days{1} is an article that treats to a certain extent on the same subject that work went over; namely, the subject of authentic dialogue. Without further ado...

Pope Francis wants the world to know about his Jesuit spiritual director

Here is just a taste to whet the appetite a bit...

"...He said he first came to know Father Fiorito in 1961 after returning from his Juniorate in Chile. At that time, he was a professor of metaphysics at the Colegio Massimo, the Jesuit house of formation on the outskirts of Buenos Aires, but he gradually began to dedicate himself totally to spirituality and the giving of the Spiritual Exercises.

'From then on, I began to confide in him, he became my spiritual director,' Francis stated. He described Fiorito as 'a man who spoke little, but had a great capacity for listening, a listening [that is] capable of discernment, which is one of the pillars of dialogue.'..."
Note:

{1} I refer to the essay titled On the Intricacies of Dialogue -A Commentary published sixteen years ago today.

Points to Ponder:
(On Bad Priests)

"[It] is my intention that they be held in due reverence, not for what they are in themselves, but for my sake, because of the authority I have given them. Therefore the virtuous must not lessen their reverence, even should these ministers fall short in virtue. And, as far as the virtues of my ministers are concerned, I have described them for you by setting them before you as stewards of... my Son's body and blood and of the other sacraments. This dignity belongs to all who are appointed as such stewards, to the bad as well as to the good.

...[Because] of their virtue and because of their sacramental dignity you ought to love them. And you ought to hate the sins of those who live evil lives. But you may not for all that set ourselves up as their judges; this is not my will because they are my Christ's, and you ought to love and reverence the authority I have given them.

You know well enough that if someone filthy or poorly dressed were to offer you a great treasure that would give you life, you would not disdain the bearer for love of the treasure, and the lord who had sent it, even though the bearer was ragged and filthy... You ought to despise and hate the ministers' sins and try to dress them in the clothes of charity and holy prayer and wash away their filth with your tears.

Indeed, I have appointed them and given them to you to be angels on earth and suns, as I have told you. When they are less than that you ought to pray for them. But you are not to judge them. Leave the judging to me, and I, because of your prayers and my own desire, will be merciful to them." [Catherine of Siena: From The Dialogue (circa 1378) translated by Suzanne Noffke, O.P., New York: Paulist Press, 1980, pp. 229-231]

Boris Johnson Cracked The Code For A Reagan Coalition In Great Britain

Here is just a taste...

"...For those who have no idea about the electoral map of the United Kingdom, the entire Midlands and North of England are traditional working-class Labour voters since Margaret Thatcher broke the back of trade unionism in the 1980s. These people were taught in their households, in no uncertain terms, that voting for posh urban southern Conservatives is a cardinal sin and they have more in common with the Scots north of the border than their fellow Englishmen down south.

This guy, however, said that he would vote for Conservative Boris Johnson, reluctantly: 'What’s the point of a vote, if the results are not even honored? We voted for Brexit as a country, even when I voted for Remain. Chin up and move on.' It was then I knew Labour was toast. If a traditional Anglican working-class bloke from NewCastle can vote Conservative, even in anger or apathy, then we are living in a very different world.

The election results are still coming in as I write, and the Conservatives are on course to get a bigger majority than Thatcher’s. No word can adequately express the result. A rout, a massacre, a thumping—nothing explains the political earthquake that just happened..."

Points to Ponder:

Like zeal which has many counterfeits which masquerade under its name, there are more counterfeits than authentic coinage in the dialogual currency. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 9, 2006)]

"One From the Vault" Dept.

The following is a flashback to the archives of this website from 2006...

The reason your host almost always refers to people anonymously in posting such threads (when they are posted at all which is not often) is because the purpose of dialogue is not to seek in it our own advantages. This is one of the points made clear by Paul VI in Ecclesiam Suam and which was covered by Us in a commentary on dialogue and its intricacies written a few years ago.[...] Those who wonder why your host has as a rule[...] not referred to individuals in his writings over the years and why that practice will remain intact in the future will now know the reason for that. In a sentence: to mention names generally distracts from the issues of discussion and introduces personalities into the mix. Once the latter happens, it is very difficult if not impossible to have an authentic dialogue if one of those parties is a grandstander or otherwise tries to draw attention to themselves.

Another way of saying it is this: the focus belongs not on the persons but instead on the arguments. That is the only way to try and check egos from coming into the equation and we all know what happens to any semblence of a decent discussion once that happens so no more needs to be said on that point. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 9, 2006)]

USS Utah: The Forgotten (Drone) Battleship Sunk at Pearl Harbor

Points to Ponder:

"I want to emphasize that I do not like the terms pre- or post-conciliar." [Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger]

The Exquisite Intuition of Being

5 Qs, 5 As with Turf Show Times

Briefly...

The following is a review that I wrote for the Sancho Panza Intro Sampler earlier in the year:


Highly Recommended
Apr 05, 2019

I discovered the Double Maduro Escudero to my delight years ago and it was a regular of mine for quite some time. Upon moving from the west coast to the east coast, I could not find them anywhere but finally, after running across this sampler, I have been reunited with the Double Maduro and made some new friends too. The Double Maduro Lancero of this pack is exactly like the Escudero, just a couple inches shorter and is my favourite of the pack. The Triple Anejo is possibly my second favourite of the group though at times the very potent Extra Fuerte swaps spots with it. And the Glorioso? I am not usually a fan of claros but the Glorioso is also a solid stick. I have ordered this sampler twice so far and will continue to.

Briefly...

I was content to involve myself however distantly in an alliance of sorts recently until one of the participants engaged in brazen lying and deliberate obtuseness as well as defamation of character of yours truly. It obviously still irks this person that they got dressed down in public years ago when their ignorance on some non-boiler plate apologetics issues was exposed. They have continued to misrepresent the historical record ever since. I even bent over backwards in 2013 to form a rapproachment at the request of a few mutual friends despite my misgivings about such things{1} only to have my time and effort insulted by them.

Despite all of that, I was content to participate in the recent alliance recognizing there was a bigger issue at stake. However, they decided to restart their propaganda instead. Even aside from their obvious objective lies{2} about me, they seemed giddy over the current issues giving them web hits as if that is what is important. They are evidently in it for the money like a lady of the night. As far as I am concerned, they can take their simple minded fundamentalist apologetics and shove them up their ass. Only prayer and fasting will drive out the demons that infect their Mt. Athos sized ego. I will pray for them but that is as far as it goes now.

Notes:

{1} Despite this website being indefinitely suspended at the time, I made the point to review various postings surrounding the issue, reviewing them carefully, and consider undertaking prudent revisions to them if warranted. The following note was appended to four postings where after prayer and reflection it was deemed appropriate to revise them except for the adjustments in brackets which were made specifically for this posting:

Update: It was recently pointed out to me by a few people that the tonality of this posting detracted from the substance of the points I was making. I do not deny that I was positively livid when I drafted it and my anger was hardly unjustified. However, that does not mean that the manner whereby I responded is automatically appropriate or without deficiency in prudence. So with that in mind, I decided to revisit this posting from [year omitted] where invective so suffused the arguments I made as to render them far less persuasive to casual readers than they otherwise could have been.

To potentially render this enterprise more fruitful, I asked someone to act as a third party editor of sorts to review the postings and make suggestions of areas to be revised and others to be removed. (This person had no part whatsoever in the original controversy and to my knowledge is on good terms with all parties involved.) They agreed to review this post and made a number of suggested corrections. In all but one instance, I promptly made revisions where suggested and removed material that was recommended to be removed and resubmitted the proposed adjustments to them for follow-up critique, etc. This process continued until areas originally found problematical were adjusted to their satisfaction at which time I made the adjustments to the posting itself and republished it.

The revised posting before you is far more focused on my original arguments and hopefully provides much more light than heat unlike what was written previously. And though I stand by the substance of my original critiques, I do nonetheless profoundly regret letting my anger get the better of me in how I originally responded to [Name Redacted] in this post and extend to [them] through this effort as well as in words a most sincere apology. -SM 10/2/13

{2} I explained the distinction here in years past.

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

For the second time in recent months, I will post an update on the Democratic Presidential field which has expanded as well as contracted since the last update of this nature. As of this writing, it is at 16 candidates. Here is a brief list of those who have dropped in{1} and dropped out so far:

In:

Tom Steyer (July 19, 2019)

Deval Patrick (November 14, 2019)
Michael Bloomberg (November 24, 2019)

Out:
Richard Ojeda (January 25, 2019)
Eric Swalwell (July 8, 2019)
Mike Gravel (August 6, 2019)
John Hinckenlooper (August 15, 2019)
Jay Inslee (August 21, 2019)
Seth Moulton (August 23, 2019)
Kirsten Gillibrand (August 28, 2019)
Bill de Blasio (September 20, 2019)
Tim Ryan (October 24, 2019)

Beto O'Rourke (November 1, 2019)

Wayne Messam (November 19, 2019)

Joe Sestak (December 1, 2019)

Steve Bullock (December 2, 2019)

Kamala Harris (December 3, 2019)

Note:

{1} I forgot to include this feature in the prior posting of this kind.

On the Controversy of Amoris Laetitia Amongst The More Faithful Than Thou Crowd:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

Of all the controversies surrounding Pope Francis, none has been as controversial as the publication of his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia. I continue to see in social media feeds calls for a papal response to the Dubia of the Four Cardinals as if this is either necessary or wise.{1} There has also been on occasion mention of the supposed Correctio{2} or the Open Letter to the Bishops{3} published earlier this year by many of the same folks involved in the Correctio with the same motivations in mind. 

I have explained in no small detail and on a few different occasions{4} how to reconcile the teaching of Amoris Laetitia within the broader stream of Catholic traditional theological and spiritual principles. Most of those who struggle with this matter however are not as well informed of the intricacies involved as they think they are.{5} As a result, some take the easy route of presuming papal nefariousness{6} rather than being humble and presuming that there could be something being taught of value even if they do not fully comprehend it. Perhaps this kind of approach could spur them to greater humility when it comes to the realm of the theological sciences. It is not hard to proscribe these matters with greater severity.{7} But perhaps what is to be preferred here is "the balm of mercy to the arm of severity" (cf. Pope St. John XXIII: Second Vatican Council Opening Speech). The purpose of the present note is to provide that at this time.

To begin with, it is a longstanding principle of traditional spiritual instruction that spiritual reformation is not easy. Pope Gregory the Great outlined some of the earliest explicit formulations of this principle in a letter advising a brother bishop on how to prudently go about evangelizing a pagan culture and how to acculturate their symbols.{8} The principles for the latter obviously apply to a certain extent to the subject of overall formation as well. There are various writers in the Catholic spiritual tradition who over time and with greater reflection probed this subject with even greater depth and precision. St. John of the Cross for example wrote about the concept of gradual detachment in his spiritual works such as The Dark Night of the Soul. This has also been the focus of other spiritual writings in the greater Catholic tradition. Here is one example of many which could be noted (all emphasis is mine):

In every home there grows some thorn, something, in other words, that needs correction; for the best soil is seldom without its noxious weed. Imprudent zeal, by seeking awkwardly to pluck out the thorn, often succeeds only in plunging it farther in, thus rendering the wound deeper and more painful. In such a case it is essential to act with reflection and great prudence. There is a time to speak and a time to be silent, says the Holy Spirit. (Ecclesiastes III., 7.) Prudent zeal is silent when it realizes that to be so is less hurtful than to speak.{9}

This is a serious problem that infects no small number of folks who consider themselves faithful Catholics. For they think in the name of being faithful and traditional that zeal for the Catholic faith requires them to act presumptuously towards others. "Zeal for the salvation of souls is a sublime virtue, yet how many errors and sins are committed daily in its name!"{10} For "[e]vil is never done more effectually and with greater security, says St. Francis de Sales, than when one does it believing he is working for the glory of God."{11}

One of the problems that permeates "the diseased and rebellious mindset of not a few of the so-called 'traditionalist' wing of the Church"{12} is their general bitterness. This is one of several indications that their zeal is not genuine. True zeal and charity are intertwined{13} and the habitual failure of some of these folks to manifest even the most rudimentary characteristics of charity{14} presents a strong probability that they are in the words of St. Paul "as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal."{15} The core problems of these supposedly "traditionalist" folks have now been identified using sources within the Catholic spiritual tradition: sources that a true Traditionalist worthy of the name{16} would be both familiar with as well as put into actual practice.{17} The question now remains: what remedies can we recommend?

It would seem appropriate to look for the answers in some of the material long recommended by the Church where these matters are concerned. The sources to consider for this are twofold. The first is from the official guide issued to confessors by the Vatican which is known as the Vademecum. The second is the guidance of the Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Ligouri who in writing on moral theology set forth some principles surrounding the Sacrament of Penance that are well worth considering. Let us treat on these sources now and do so in reverse order.

St. Alphonsus Ligouri is widely considered one of the pre-eminent writers in the Church on matters of moral theology. He lived in a time when Jansenism was rampant and he directed his efforts against it. Jansenism was a heresy which involved an excessive rigorist approach. St. Alphonsus Ligouri's approach to combatting Jansenist tendencies in moral theology were widely approved by many notable church leaders for their salutory effects amongst the faithful. He died in 1787, was beatified by Pope Pius VII in 1816, and was canonized by Pope Gregory XVI in 1839. Pope Pius IX then declared him a Doctor of the Church in 1871. Finally, Pope Pius XII proclaimed him the patron of confessors and moral theologians in 1950. So considering the latter factors, this should give his methodology a certain degree of credibility amongst those who would claim to be more Traditional in their approach to these matters.{18}

In his writings on matters pertaining to the Sacrament of Penance, St. Alphonsus Ligouri said some things that could well be quite shocking to modern-day neo-Jansenist sorts. For example, consider this instruction he gives to confessors on how to handle certain confessional difficulties:

The confessor is also obliged to instruct the penitent if he is culpably ignorant of any point of natural or positive law. If he is inculpably ignorant, it depends. If he is inculpably ignorant of something necessary for salvation, then the confessor is obliged to instruct him. If he is inculpably ignorant of some other matter (of which he can be ignorant) – even something of the divine law, the confessor should prudently decide whether the instruction will be profitable for the penitent. If it will not be profitable, he should not make the correction, but rather leave him in good faith.{19}

In other words, the confessor is at times instructed by St. Alphonsus Ligouri not to correct the penitent if the confessor judges them as inculpably ignorant. Instead, the confessor is to leave the penitent to their error in good faith and absolve them. That methodology is strangely similar to a presumptively controversial part of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia! Moving onto the Vademecum, we find these instructions given to confessors by the Vatican's Pontifical Council on the Family in a collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Apostolic Penitentiary:

The principle according to which it is preferable to let penitents remain in good faith in cases of error due to subjectively invincible ignorance, is certainly to be considered always valid, even in matters of conjugal chastity. And this applies whenever it is foreseen that the penitent, although oriented towards living within the bounds of a life of faith, would not be prepared to change his own conduct, but rather would begin formally to sin.{20}

The Vatican has made this principle of St. Alphonsus Ligouri one that it instructs its confessors to use. Confessors are to leave penitents in good faith and absolve them even if the confessor foresees that the penitent is likely not prepared to change their conduct. (Despite being generally oriented towards a life of faith.) This does not change the objective gravity of the sin of course. What it does however is recognize that at times a persons subjective ignorance is preferred to putting them in a state where their material sin becomes a formal one. This goes hand in hand with a principle quoted earlier in this paper from the Catholic spiritual tradition; namely that "by seeking awkwardly to pluck out the thorn [it] often succeeds only in plunging it farther in, thus rendering the wound deeper and more painful. In such a case it is essential to act with reflection and great prudence."{21}

The same Vademecum also makes it clear with one such example that it cites that frequent relapses into one sin considered objectively grave{22} does not in itself constitute a motive for denying absolution.{23} This principle therefore would apply logically to other sins considered objectively grave or mortal. Hopefully, those who up to now have continued to complain about the perceived errors of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia in this area now realize that AL was not really saying anything novel in this area. What was new however was AL took a long established principle used by confessors and applied it in a more general sense. Or as I explained in one of the threads on the Correctio subject:

The idea that “[t]he Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations” (AL 301) is not new.[...] A consistent application of that data to all situations where grave matter is present however has long been lacking where the subject of marriage is concerned.[...] Pope Francis is putting an end to the double standard where this issue is concerned and saying it will henceforth be discerned in the same manner as any other is.{24}

There is I suppose an argument that could be raised about whether this a prudent course of action of course. However, as I explained when going over the Malta dioceses guidelines subject, the binding and loosing authority on these matters in Catholic teaching is the Pope:

Pope Francis possesses the authority to make decisions pertaining to Church discipline as “the pope, whom Christ placed over the entire Church to judge concerning the necessity of change for various reasons of circumstance” (Pope Gregory XVI: Enc. Let. Quo Gravior §6)...Pope Francis is well within his right on these matters having “received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See” (Vatican I: Dogm. Const. Pastor Aeternus §2)... 

Pope Francis can at his discretion allow persons who are guilty of objective mortal sin to receive holy Communion as long as judging by their own conscience and with the guidance of their confessor or pastor they are not in a state of unrepentant actual mortal sin. The minimum requirement for reception of Communion is baptism and to not be conscious of unrepentant actual  mortal sin.{25}

When we consider all facets of this equation, the objections of the presumptively More Faithful Than Thou folks are without merit. They would be advised to approach these matters less like Pharisees{26} but instead with a humbler recognition of their own flaws. For they would be disqualified from receiving Holy Communion if their own standards{27} were applied with consistency.{28}

It is my hope that reflection on these matters from the perspective outlined in this thread will help those who have struggled in good faith{29} to cease "kicking against the goad" (cf. Acts xxvi,14) and accept this teaching of the pope's authentic magisterium{30} with the proper disposition of an authentically faithful Catholic. This is ultimately determined not by the opinions of others but instead by the Church's Magisterium itself.{31} Pope Pius XII once said "our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church" (Humani Generis §21). It would do well for those who consider themselves More Faithful Than Thou to remember this exhortation and seek to put it into practice themselves for it is only by "due reverend and submission" (cf. Humani Generis §42) thereby "[professed] toward the Teaching Authority of the Church" (cf. Humani Generis §42) that we know the authenticity (or lack thereof) of their claims to faithfulness.

"Modernists try in every way to diminish and weaken the authority of the ecclesiastical magisterium itself." [Pope St. Pius X: Encyclical Letter Pascendi Dominici Gregis §42]

Notes:

{1} And it is neither as the Dubia of the Four Cardinals is not difficult to answer. See these threads for details:

Very Briefly on the Dubia Subject (circa April 9, 2017)

More on the Controversial Dubia Subject (circa April 10, 2017)

{2} See these threads for details:

To Address the So-Called "Fraternal Correction" and its Signatories (circa April 14, 2019)

On the Malta Dioceses Application of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (circa April 16, 2019)

On Correcting the So-Called "Correctio Filialis", Addressing Its Accusations, Etc. (circa April 18, 2019)

{3} See this thread for details:

On Correcting the Pretentious "Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church", Addressing its Accusations, Etc. (circa May 14, 2019)

{4} See footnotes one, two, and three for details.

{5} See footnote four.

{6} See footnote four. I should note as well that this is an area not well understood by virtually all pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists out there either -be they Catholic or not.

{7} See footnotes one, two, and three as well as the following material:

"[St. Robert Cardinal] Bellarmine went further than most and believed not only that a pope could not teach heresy but that it was pious and probable to believe that he could not even be a secret or internal heretic. The first of his beliefs (that a pope could not teach heresy) is what was known in his treatise on the subject of the Roman Pontiff as the fourth opinion. Bishop Gasser explained it in his Relatio as follows:

As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma. For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls pious and probable, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy. To say nothing of the other points, let me say that this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine, both in the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself who, in book 4, chapter VI, pronounces on the opinion of Pighius in the following words: 'It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith.' From this, it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion.[...]

To be clear, what Gasser was saying was not merely that it was pious and probable to hold that a Pontiff could not err in matters of faith but that one could go further and believe piously and probably the pope could not even be heretical as a particular person or in his person whatsoever. Bishop Gasser made it clear that Pastor Aeternus was correctly interpreted as teaching what Bellarmine outlined in his fourth opinion or the one Bellarmine himself called the most common and certain opinion. And from the moment the First Vatican Council made Bellarmine's fourth opinion their own, the issue of whether a pope could or could not be a heretic or teach heresy was dogmatically settled as a matter of doctrine in the negative by an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church." [Excerpt from the Note To Address the So-Called "Fraternal Correction" and its Signatories (circa April 14, 2019)]

{8} "[S]urely it is impossible to efface all at once everything from their strong minds, just as, when one wishes to reach the top of a mountain, he must climb by stages and step by step, not by leaps and bounds." [Pope Gregory the Great: Letter to Abbot Mellitus, Epsitola 76, PL 77: 1215-1216 (circa 601) as Quoted in the Note On the Malta Dioceses Application of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (circa April 16, 2019)]

{9} Fr. R.P. Quadrupani: Light and Peace - Instructions for Devout Souls to Dispel Their Doubts and Allay Their Fears pgs. 153-154 (c. 1795)

{10} Fr. R.P. Quadrupani: Light and Peace - Instructions for Devout Souls to Dispel Their Doubts and Allay Their Fears pg. 153 (c. 1795)

{11} Fr. R.P. Quadrupani: Light and Peace - Instructions for Devout Souls to Dispel Their Doubts and Allay Their Fears pg. 153 (c. 1795)

{12} See the Note On the Malta Dioceses Application of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia for details.

{13} "'If your zeal is bitter', says St. James, 'it is not wisdom descending from on high, but earthly, sensual, diabolical'. (James III, 14-15.) These words of an Apostle should furnish matter of reflection for those persons who, whilst making profession of piety, are so prone to irritability, so harsh and rude in their manner and language, that they might be taken for angels in church and for demons elsewhere.

The value and utility of zeal are in proportion to its tolerance and amiability. True zeal is the offspring of charity; it should then, resemble its mother and show itself like to her in all things. 'Charity', says St. Paul, 'is patient, is kind, is not ambitious, and seeks not her own.' (1 Cor. XIII, 4-5.)" [Fr. R.P. Quadrupani: Light and Peace - Instructions for Devout Souls to Dispel Their Doubts and Allay Their Fears pg. 158 (c. 1795)]

{14} "Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely, is not puffed up, Is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil." [1 Cor xiii,4-5]

{15} 1 Cor. xiii,1

{16} To the degree that such terms should even be used to begin with that is:

It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself. [Pope Benedict XV: Encyclical Letter Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum §24 (circa November 1, 1914)]

{17} "Truth or truthfulness is the virtue which consists in showing oneself true in deeds and truthful in words, and guarding against duplicity, dissimulation, and hypocrisy." [Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article III, Section II, In Brief §2505 (circa October 11, 1992)]

{18} It would be an odd thing indeed for any of them to accuse these pre-Second Vatican Council popes of being less than fully Traditional after all!

{19} St. Alphonsus Ligouri: Excerpt from Guide For Confessors, pg. 14 (circa 1755)

{20} Pontifical Council for the Family: Excerpt from Vademecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life §3,8 (circa February 12, 1997)

{21} See footnote twelve.

{22} Namely, contraception.

{23} Pontifical Council for the Family: Excerpt from Vademecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life §3,11 (circa February 12, 1997)

{24} Excerpt from the Note On the Malta Dioceses Application of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (circa April 16, 2019)

{25} Excerpt from the Note On the Malta Dioceses Application of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (circa April 16, 2019)

{26} See the quoted material in footnote seven.

{27} See this for details:

On the Subject of Conscience and Sacramental Reception (circa April 4, 2019)

{28} "According to biblical principles, as judgment is without mercy to him that hath showed no mercy (James ii,13), it only makes sense that with the judgment one pronounces they will likewise be judged (cf. Matt vii,2). In light of their rigourous approach to how all of those who are in irregular marital situations should be treated, the Gospel is clear that what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you (Mark iv,24). Therefore, we cannot presume any subjective inculpability for these folks but must presume their objectively grave mortal sin is automatically a subjective (or actual) mortal sin as well." [Excerpt from the Note To Address the So-Called "Fraternal Correction" and its Signatories (circa April 14, 2019)]

{29} I have long sought to presume the good faith in folks a priori unless by their actions and statements they show a habitual pattern of not returning the favour unto others. When that sort of thing happens, then the reference in footnote twenty-eight applies.

{30} By including the similarly-outlined Buenos Aires guidelines and Pope Francis' letter to the Bishops of Buenos Aires in the Acta Apostolicae Sanctis (AAS), it was made clear by Pope Francis how he intends the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia on the points in question. This was further buttressed by a papal rescript included in the AAS by Cardinal Pietro Parolin the Vatican Secretary of State indicating the manifest mind, will, and intention of the Supreme Pontiff. Cardinal Francisco Coccopalmerio of the Pontifical Commission For Legislative Texts confirmed Cardinal Parolin's rescript position as did Bishop Juan Ignatio Arrieta, secretary of the pontifical council and prelate to the Apostolic Penitentiary. See this link for more details.

These are matters which are frequently not well grasped by most folks including various pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists who think they know more than they do. For this reason, I will be addressing in expository format the subject of the magisterium, all its pertinent intricacies, as well as what it is not. This is a project that will be published early in the coming year.

{31} See footnote thirty and also recall this passage from the Second Vatican Council (all emphasis is mine):

[R]eligious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. [Second Vatican Council: Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium §25 (circa November 21, 1964)]

Enemy Reaction 2019: Minnesota Vikings

Briefly...

I mentioned on a couple occasions in the prior month that I was working on a project I have long had in mind to do on the subject of the Church's Magisterium. I posted a rudimentary outline sketch of what I was undertaking in early November and late last month posted an update on where things were. Since that time, the project has been completely revised once and is about 40% of the way through a second revision of a mostly more grammatical nature. I am not sure at the moment when I will finish the second revision but what is finished is another piece I started work on in September and after weeks of wheel spinning on direction and uncertainty how to finish it was completed in a chunk of time back on All Souls Day. Since its original draft was completed, it was revised three times and is scheduled for publication at 5am tomorrow.

Briefly...

I posted earlier in the month an outline I sketched for a project on the Magisterium. It it not a method I have used generally speaking when deciding to write on a subject but the latter has been in my mind for a couple of years to do. The original idea in embryonic form goes back at least as far as late 2017 when I was composing the three expository notes in response to the so-called Correctio which were eventually published earlier this year. The outline was done on the tail end of completing another expository note{1} and intended to both give me an idea for a direction for the piece as well as some prompting to actually complete it.{2} Well, the goal of both intentions worked as the piece has been finished in a first draft form albeit it looks a bit different than the original outline. Revisions will be undertaken as needed throughout December and the piece is slated for a February 26, 2020 publication.

Notes:

{1} This one is yet to be published but if I have the time and motivation to give it a couple reviews, it could be ready for publication next week.

{2} Time and motivation for undertaking larger projects has been lacking in recent months.

November 22, 1963 - The Onion