"Carthago Delenda Est" — What about Now?
(Guest Editorial by Charles M. de Nunzio)

Readers of this humble weblog are not unaware that your host likes to post some of the better email material he interacts with. (If not for lack of time, this feature would be used more readily than it is as I get good emails overall from the readers.) The posting of any reader material is usually done in a dialogue format; however it sometimes takes the form of post you are about to read. As there has not been an editorial of this sort for a while, it would be good to briefly re-explain the purpose of this weblog feature for the benefit of any new readers out there.

The Guest Editorial format is used rarer by your host's own admission -usually when a subject text would (in his judgment) not be done its best justice by using the dialogual format. For those the Guest Editorial format works well because your blog host can comment prior to and after the text while leaving the piece itself (posted between two rows of ### markers) alone. But enough on the format and onto what brought about the editorial you are about to read.

Back in May of this year, an American by the name of Nick Berg was beheaded by certain members of "the religion of peace." This was not the first such beheading of this nature -indeed two and a half plus years earlier another American named Daniel Pearl was murdered in this manner. However, I was not blogging at that time and indeed was on sabbatical from all cyberspace activity for reasons too numerous to note in brief here. By the time I finally began seeing flashes of my old capabilities around mid 2002, the story was old news. However, that was not to be the case with the Nick Berg incident from May of 2004.

I am never one to avoid expressing an opinion (and usually a well-informed one at that) on virtually any subject that I happen to find and interest in -though as a rule any critical postings tend to have a more irenic tone to them. But the murder of Nick Berg possessed this writer to pen a commentary on this weblog which admittedly was written when possessed of a degree of lividness that rarely affects me in my older years anymore. I was surprised to see that all the responses to that post were positive - for I was sure that the tonality would have offended beyond all limits even the least-sensitive of the readers here. And though I responded to most of those who emailed me, time as always did not allow for responses to everyone unfortunately.

I did intend to find the time to write a response to the email you will now read in the editorial. However, various and sundry circumstances prevented this from being done so I requested about two months ago from the sender permission to post it in this format. That permission was received along with the unexpected clearance to reveal the person's identity in past dialogues of ours posted confidentially to Rerum Novarum -something which I finally did HERE. But enough background and now onto the editorial itself.

I post it with only very minor adjustments to what was received in email on May 13, 2004. (The author of the piece can reveal what he chose to add to the letter before its publishing here if he is so inclined.) It is also important to note that what Charles notes in the text below can apply to subsequent events as well --the beheadings of Paul Johnson and others since that time including a Mr. Jack Hensley just last week along with 3 Kurdish hostages (may they all rest in peace). In other words, the letter below covers a very contemporary subject and for some time (i.e. as long as this war continues) it will remain so. Without further ado, let us get on with it.


#######

Dear Mr. McElhinney:

I write in affirmation of the sentiments previously expressed in Rerum Novarum on the heinous murder of Mr. Berg, the subhuman quality thereof being particularly accentuated by the killers' documentary film of their crime, presented to the world, along with the image of the deceased's head, as a trophy of their orc-like barbarity.

You obviously recognize that there are times in world history when the threat from those who, while ontologically human, think and act so as to deserve the pejorative "subhuman," is so elemental that nothing less than their extermination will relieve the threat. The Romans of the Republican era so understood the Carthaginians, and from your readings of the Church Fathers and Doctors, you could certainly attest as to whether or not any of these considered the Carthaginian genocide a crime or an act of self-defense. (Somehow I suspect that, if they ever said anything about it, it was not to condemn what Rome did. Your readers might find it useful if you turn up writings of the Fathers and Doctors in support of the liquidation of Carthage.)

Like yourself, I fear that we now face an enemy for which"delenda est" is really the only long-term option that will remove their threat to our survival. We have the weapons to do it. But, as you know too well, the cultural will is not there at all. Merely two generations ago, our society believed in, and fought, a total war. (Yes, I suspect that we went over the line with Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, but I don't pretend to be the last word on that.) The internal perversion (in all dimensions of the word, not just the sexual) of our society since 1945 has not only robbed us of the will to face the present enemy the way it needs to be faced, but it is the very inspiration for this enemy to emerge and present its threat in the first place!

On the very day of the 11th of September 2001, when I first learned of the attacks on NY and DC that morning, one of my first thoughts was that whether we liked it or not, whether we wanted to recognize it for what it was or not, we had been drawn by force into a holy war against Islam, and from that very day, I did not — and given what's happened since, all the more I now do not! — like our prospects in this war. For the simple fact is: the Muslims called "extremists" by the American Right are none other than those who actually take their religion seriously, whereas the "moderates" of their number are just so much self-compromising milquetoast, in the same way that this can also be said of not a few Catholics.

For while there weren't any "Crusades" prior to the XIth Century, the spirit undergirding them can be found in all the Martyrs back to St. Stephen ... and that is the spirit now lacking in a culture that, while inherited from the Crusaders, has disowned them and everything they represented. Whether is is from stupidity or disingeniousness, Islamic propaganda continues to refer to us in the West as "crusaders," as if their present campaigns are nothing more than a resumption of the business interrupted in 1683. If only we in fact were Crusaders, I'd like our chances a hell of a lot better!...

For all the viscerality of the hatred of the pro-abortion marchers in DC last April, theirs is a discombobulated religion which, despite its enthronement of the Deity of the Self, contains also a complete disregard for any human instinct regarding the survival and continuity of civilization (starting, of course, with liberalism's denial of the natural essentiality of society to human existence), which therefore, in fact, endangers all the very conveniences and such that allow them their self-deifying illusions!

What this means, therefore: those who endanger our civilization do so on the basis of holy war, whereas we categorically reject the notion of "holy war" in our reponse to them. Oh, I know that Dr. John Rao and others contend that Iraq is but just another theater of a "holy war" of our own, the one to impose Pluralism and Democracy all over the world, and I do agree with him for the most part ... but interwoven into this cultural paradigm is a suicidal pacifism and softness that vitiates our response to enemies such as Mr. Berg's murderers.

Indeed, the strategy and propaganda of the Bush Administration leading up to, and in conduct of, the Iraq campaign has accommodated this "humanitarian" sensibility to such an extent (and any concession to this was already too much) that this is, to my eyes, the obvious reason why the occupation of that country is not going well, and far from diminishing the threat from our civilization's external enemies, has only augmented it. I have wondered before if this accommodation was on account of the President's concerns about his re-election, or something in his own personality, or both; clearly, there are here shades of the same spinelessness that characterizes his response to our internal enemies in what your friend, Mr. Shea, rightly calls the "Evil Party."

Yet now, a third explanation comes to my mind: the limitations imposed upon the President's options by a divided populace, and indeed, a strongly seditious element driving and intensifying that division. You can imagine too easily that should Mr. Bush initiate aggressive countermeasures in retaliation for such barbarism, the seditionists masquerading as "peace protestors" and their complicit media allies would bombard us all with condemnations of him for "escalating the cycle of violence," "putting our troops at even further risk," yada, yada, yada.

In point of fact, I would dare say that these murderous thugs indulge their subhuman inclinations and gloat over their deeds with a sense of impunity precisely because of their awareness of the subversive "peacenik" element in the Western countries, knowing full well that its vociferous presence ties Mr. Bush's hands and pressures the more linguini-spined European governments to comply with their extortions!

We are indeed accursed, if our only "choices" are indeed "more of the same" (Bush) or "even worse yet" (J. F'ing "Heinz" Kerry, a.k.a. "Sen. Sacrilege")! And that is why I say I don't much like our chances, even if, to be more precise, I think that internal forces will actually be what brings this civilization down, with our Islamist enemies playing the role of the barbarian tribes that pillaged and sacked the Roman Empire, i.e., adding insult to injury.

Submitted respectfully, Charles M. de Nunzio.

#######

It should be noted in an epilogue that people such as Charles and myself (who are referred to as "conservatives" in the common political lexicon of today) are not alone in our viewing of this cause as we do. (While not completely agreeing with him, our views have substantial convergence.) Indeed, at this weblog since August I have posted more than once this article from the liberal Esquire columnist Tom Junod. For those who still cannot understand why Charles and I feel as strongly as we do on this (or why Mr. Junod is so uneasy about what his conscience tells him viz. this subject), maybe pictures of Nick Berg's beheading will do the trick. I only advise that you click on the above link with caution and that it is not for viewing by children.

Briefly on the Vatican Diplomatic Corps and the War in Iraq:
(Aka "Where have you gone Santayana" Dept.)

It is probable that the article located HERE{1} is as good an article as you will find on explaining the Vatican's worldview viz. the war on terror in general and the war in Iraq in particular. Those who are naive enough to think that Vatican diplomats are a reliable barometer for this particular subject apparently are not aware of numerous historical examples where the diplomatic corps blundered as seriously as they are right now with the entire Iraq situation.

To save on making a lengthy list (as I do not have the time) it suffices to point out that in the 1920's and 1930's, virtually the entire Vatican diplomatic corps with one notable exception{2} fell for the schemes of the Duce Benito Mussolini in Italy.{3} Unfortunately, history is clearly repeating itself here for those with eyes to see. Hopefully our friends who are buying into it will realize this before it is again too late to do anything about it without seriously losing face but I digress.

Notes:

{1} Thanks are in order to Isabel at St. Blogs' Parish Hall for bringing it to my attention.

{2} That exception was a certain monsignor in the Curia - a Fr. Giovanni Battista Montini (the future Pope Paul VI) who was one of the lone voices from the early 1920's on who kept telling his superiors that Mussolini was hoodwinking them. It was not until much later on that anyone actually bothered to listen to him on this -and by then it was too late to change course without some loss of face.

{3} Among those who fell for Mussolini's deceptions was a veritable "who's who" of the Vatican diplomatic corps at the time including Pope Pius XI, his Secretary of States --Cardinals Pietro Gasparri and Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli: the latter who was to succeed Pius XI as pope-- as well numerous lesser lights in the Vatican diplomatic corps.

The Fundamental Rights of Man Revisited:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

This is a necessary companion if you will to the post located HERE. Please read that short post before perusing the text of this one so that the full picture which I endeavour to provide with the two posts can best be ascertained.

One of the three fundamental rights of man that I constantly make reference to is the right to life. With regards to Terri Schiavo, I have made it clear on many occasions that what is needed and needed badly is not just a rally for the preservation of Terri's life. No, what is needed at the same time is a consistent line of argumentation on these issues if we are to triumph in the long run on them. That means that we cannot focus only on the issue of life as if the other fundamental rights are not interconnected with them -as prolifers have been so often prone to do down through the years. Life is the first of these fundamental rights to be sure; however the others are based directly on it and cannot be separated from it without dire consequences resulting. As Claude Frederic Bastiat astutely noted over a hundred and fifty years ago:

Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? [Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850)]

This is why I have noted on not a few occasions (most recently HERE) that the myopic nature of most pro-lifers is counterproductive. You cannot stand up for life and then allow for faculties and production (each of which are extensions of life) to be compromised. Our faculties are an extension of our life and they must be safeguarded if life is not to be undermined.{1} This is why when an example contemporary to Terri's situation cropped up last year (referring to fellow Catholic blogger Jeff Culbreath's business rights being undermined), I set forth on this very weblog a carefully written defense of his right to property which was being denied by those who sought to make him conform to their whims against the dictates of his conscience.

That post{2} and its followup{3} were important because they were defenses of a fundamental right that was being overlooked in the entire Terri Schiavo situation by those who (however noble their intentions) could not see the forest for the trees. And frankly, I am still not convinced that they can in all honesty. That is a shame certainly but it is not beyond correction if the supporters of various single-issue movements actually wake up and start paying attention. Unfortunately, Santayana's dictum about history indicates that they most likely will not -except perhaps for a noble few who might take the ball and run with it. However, even at that point I am left asking myself if these are seeds which will actually take root and produce fruit or if instead they will have initial reactions of a positive nature only to die out because of a lack of proper rooting ala the Bible parable of the sower and the seeds.

This is not an easy prescription by any stretch my friends. Instead, it takes time to learn the concepts and then effort to apply the tools of logic and reason consistently to see the underlying framework of it all. However, the end result is a consistent approach to all social and economic issues of the sort that the various groups out there who agitate for changes in these areas (for good or ill) do not possess. And those of us who do possess them are significantly in the minority -often lone voices crying out in the wilderness to use another biblical parallel.

To put it bluntly, I am beyond tired of seeing movements with good intentions to them go awry because of their constituents' generally myopic tunnel vision and intrinsic inconsistencies. (Which along with a kind of issue zenophobic approach inevitably results in them being incapable of looking past the present and into the future on events.) Terri was in the process of having a fundamental right of hers denied last year -of this I do not doubt. But where was a similar concern on the part of the St. Blogs' contingent for the plight of Jeff Culbreath??? I am hardly going to argue that Terri's is higher on the "hierarchy of truths." Nonetheless, to allow Jeff's fundamental rights (faculties and production) to be undermined is to likewise undermine Terri's situation. And the converse of this likewise applies.

For those who would defend Jeff's fundamental rights and ignore Terri's (read: "Libertarians" and "Capitalists" respectively here) would undermine not only Terri's rights but also Jeff's rights.{4} This is why Libertarianism is so patently self-defeating and why Capitalism separated from morality also contains the seeds of its own destruction.{5} However, this is also why the prolife movement is itself self-refuting: each focuses on one fundamental right and ignores the others which require as stout a defense as the one (or ones) that each particular group places their special focus on.

Part of the reason I recently set forth a defense of the Catholic Answers voting issues without recourse to theological argumentation was to point out the important matrix through which all of those issues must be viewed if a consistent principle of argumentation is to be achieved. However, these principles are not limited only to life issues and those which are proximate to life issues. They also apply to those rights which are grounded in the right to life -indeed by logical extension this must be the case.{6} I am left wondering how much longer this will continue to glide past the radars of those who are zealous for the defense of one particular fundamental right while ignoring the other rights from which the right they focus on cannot logically be separated.{7} I have a strange feeling that this post will also fall on mostly deaf ears which is unfortunate -particularly if Terri ends up dying because her supporters continue to fail in accurately focusing their lenses to see how they impugn her cause. They do this by not defending with equal fervour the other fundamental rights that all people received from God -and for which laws were developed by man initially to protect.

Notes:

{1} This happens to be as solid an argument against cloning as you are going to find in case you are unaware of it: the right of the clone to its faculties and not to be deprived of them. The same principle applies to the case for euthanasia against those who have diminished faculties: yes it is a taking of life but the latter is justified by an appeal to diminished capabilities in a utilitarian manner. Therefore, defense of the person's faculties (however diminished they are) is an important subtext to defending them as people.

In fact, it is possible that the best defense against euthanasia is to address it from the standpoint of faculties. There are two approaches here: one is that the person with diminished faculties has a right nonetheless to them. The second is that because their faculties are diminished they require assistance for survival -this ties into the subprinciple of society's common good.

Obviously we do what we can to protect ourselves against the ravages of aging but the latter nonetheless is a fact of life that catches up to everyone at some point or another. A society that does not look out for the common good of its people is a society that is doomed. And there is no way that euthanasia can do this unless somehow it can be argued that depriving people of their fundamental rights can somehow benefit society: a self-defeating proposition if ever there was one but I digress.

{2} "Traditional Moral Principles" Dept.
(With Additional Musings From Claude Frederic Bastiat, Walter Williams, and Rerum Novarum on the Rights that Precede Man Made Laws)

{3} Miscellaneous Mutterings and Clarifications

{4} I did not explicitly have the Terri Schiavo situation in mind; however note if you will that the defense of Jeff with altering a few particulars also functions as a defense of Terri. The latter was serendipitous by my own admission but a grounded logic on these matters is easily adaptable to other situations where fundamental rights are violated. In Jeff's case, the fundamental right was to property or production. With Terri Schiavo, the fundamental right was the right to life.

This is why I have focused in the past year on fundamental rights and grounding them in a consistent rationale. If we are to turn the tide on the culture wars, it will be by a strong and consistent rationale as well as the kind of heroic front line stances taken by those in the Shiavo and Culbreath situations. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa October 26, 2003]

{5} A given culture reveals its overall understanding of life through the choices it makes in production and consumption. It is here that the phenomenon of consumerism arises. In singling out new needs and new means to meet them, one must be guided by a comprehensive picture of man which respects all the dimensions of his being and which subordinates his material and instinctive dimensions to his interior and spiritual ones. If, on the contrary, a direct appeal is made to his instincts — while ignoring in various ways the reality of the person as intelligent and free — then consumer attitudes and life-styles can be created which are objectively improper and often damaging to his physical and spiritual health. Of itself, an economic system does not possess criteria for correctly distinguishing new and higher forms of satisfying human needs from artificial new needs which hinder the formation of a mature personality. Thus a great deal of educational and cultural work is urgently needed, including the education of consumers in the responsible use of their power of choice, the formation of a strong sense of responsibility among producers and among people in the mass media in particular, as well as the necessary intervention by public authorities. [Pope John Paul II: Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus Section 36 (c. May 1, 1991)]

{6} Hopefully my readers will now realize that all three fundamental rights of man must be defended as a unit or else they all fall. And hopefully my explicit exhortations in developing a consistent philosophical ethic to combat these evils over the past year -and implicit in the year plus preceding it- will finally start gaining some traction in the blogosphere.

All of the hair-pulling, all of the ranting about violations in these areas have to be addressed systematically my friends and from the same core premises. This will require learning a new hermeneutic of argumentation to some extent but if we want to actually win this culture war -and not merely receive constant "stays of execution"- it is something that all of us who care about these issues must learn to do. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa October 30, 2003]

{7} With prolifers and so-called "social conservatives" it is usually the right to life which is the focus of their tunnel vision. With libertarians and capitalists it is the rights to faculties generally speaking while with capitalists it is the right to production -though the latter two oftentimes selectively apply the rights of the other to the extent that it helps them of course. The same is the case with those who promote increases of federal spending as the "solution" to society's problems, it is a violation of faculties and production -though most of them also support abortion which is a violation of life.

"Culture of Life and Fundamental Rights" Dept.

I received the following email this morning marked "urgent." The text is reproduced in full for reasons which I hope will be obvious.

Kangaroo Courts Are Killer Posts

Shawn,

Our fight to defend Terri Schiavo and her brothers and sisters targeted by the Culture of Death must redouble in the face of Thursday’s judicial infamy.

I ask you to please bring CURE’s statement in the wake of this outrage to your readers’ attention and to consider adding a permanent link to CURE’s blog Life Matters!

Pray and act for Terri! Let us not join those abandoning her by our indifference.

Gratefully yours for Life,

Earl

The text below the email read as follows:

Caring When Care Is Critical

Earl Edwin Appleby, Jr.
Director Citizens United Resisting Euthanasia
303 Truman Street
Berkeley Springs, WV 25411

Email for Life Matters
Life Matters
tel: 304-258-LIFE/258-5433

Certainly I will not refuse any request to help uphold a fundamental right that all people possess. However, there is a connection here that most pro lifers do not realize and which I refuse to let go unnoted whenever this subject comes to the forefront here at Rerum Novarum. For that reason, an adherence to this request will occasion (of course) a necessary followup post on my part to explain why the pro life movement (in its monolithic approach to the issue of fundamental rights) is tacitly undermining not only other rights that are by logical extension inseparable from the right to life issue but also the right to life issue itself.

Until I see major promoters of pro life recognize this and take the necessary measures to insure that there is a consistent foundation of argument for all fundamental rights -with proper delineation of what is a real right versus a merely perceived one- the pro life movement will continue to lose traction as a result of its internal contradictory approach to societal matters at large. Nonetheless, to do my part in rallying support for Terri Schiavo I have added the weblog to my Ecumenical Jihad list of sites and blogs as requested where it will remain in perpetuity. (All things to the contrary notwithstanding.)

Minor Weblog Adjustments:

It is the custom of this writer to cloak in anonymity responses to emails from readers of this weblog (if they are blogged) in three main situations. To note them briefly, (i) there is not an established pattern of dialogue interactions between them and this present writer in the public sphere{1} and (ii) if your host elects for the sake of the discussion to keep individual names from the mix to keep it focused more on issues.{2} And of course (iii) those who request anonymity for a particular post or thread almost always get what they request. Your host will not say that he always follows these patterns;{3} but as a rule they are faithfully followed.

However, this writer would have to request the reader to take his
word for this since if the assertion was demonstrated publicly (which could easily be done) then We at Rerum Novarum would not be true to the rule We endeavour whenever reasonably possible to follow. Anyway, those are the main reasons names are not posted for some dialogues and yet for others they are.

Up to this point in the history of Rerum Novarum your weblog host had never reversed a single decision on this matter viz. the posts that have been put on this humble weblog: the parties were or were not identified in various posts remaining as they were initially posted whenever that happened to be. But that will change today friends because there is a situation that is unusual here: a person who previously requested anonymity who later changes their mind and releases Us from a previous promise made if you will.

This happened about a week ago when Charles de Nunzio notified your weblog host in private correspondence that he could reveal the former's identity on past dialogues or references where We had cloaked his identity. The changes have been made to the respective posts that We were aware of where confidentiality was kept. For the benefit of the readers, those posts are the following ones from the archives:

Notification of Four Upcoming Weblog Responses (c. April 8, 2004)

Charles was the "unidentified 'traditionalist'" referred to in that post.

A Brief Digression on the "Scylla/Charbydis" Conundrum of American Political Parties, Etc. (c. May 24, 2004)

This post preceded to some extent the one at the link that follows. As in the previous link, it was decided to use the strike feature to line out the original text and replace it with Charles' name to preserve as much as possible the integrity of the original text.

On Marriage, the Supreme Court, Law in General, Etc. (c. June 2, 2004)

This was the post referred to in the April 8th and May 24th posts. We are not about to change the indirect references in this post for lack of time; however Charles' name was added the address of his weblog was linked to it for those who want to contact him about Our usage of his words for whatever reason. It also seems appropriate to note that We at Rerum Novarum remember making a cloaked reference in later posts or audioblogs or but which ones they were it is not possible for Us to recall at this moment.{4} Nonetheless, of those which We are aware of, the identity has now been revealed.

In closing, We realize that those who continue to have a wrong impression of this writer's sense of decorum and fairplay will probably not be swayed by this but so be it. If not for Charles releasing Us from Our previous promises of confidentiality, this post would not be written and that is all that doubters on this score have to know on the matter.

Notes:

{1} The distinction here is important because there have been many more dialogues conducted behind the scenes if you will which never make this weblog for various and sundry reasons -most of which are noted above.

{2} This is usually in situations where the author feels that the arguments themselves on both sides could be affected adversely if you will by bringing personalities into the mix.

{3} For example those who conduct themselves in a rude manner privately are not about to be given the courtesy of anonymity when We deign to make examples of them publicly. The one exception is when it appears that they want their identity known if you will: then it is not Our tendency give them the satisfaction but treat them instead as a generic caricature rather than a real person.

{4} As your weblog host is at work typing this, he cannot check the mp3's to figure it out. Those posts as they are found will be linked to in updates to this post; however Our searching will be more casual than thorough -though if Charles knows where they are, he can send the links to Us if he is so inclined to do so. (Upon which they will be noted in an update to this post.)

Miscellaneous Notes on Notable Anniversaries:

I am currently reading a book on Rocky Marciano -my late father's favourite boxer. The book is a biography of Marciano in large part; however, it goes beyond this aim and situates Marciano within his time and discusses various differences between the period that Rocky fought (1948-1956) and today. It of course makes sense in a biography such as this to discuss how boxing today is not what it was then. (And in most cases how the fighters themselves are not what fighters once were.) But the book also deals with (i) the manner whereby the media covered people who were in the public eye as well as (ii) the kinds of role models that were looked at and promoted in that time period (and even in some respects were manufactured from whole cloth). Finally, (iii) it deals with several aspects of how that time period was a kind of "deceptively simple" period if you will. There are many fine ancillary features to this book and I may well review it for Amazon.com at some point; however I wanted to touch on it in brief to set up the purpose of this post.

September 23, 1952 is the fifty-second anniversary of the first fight between Rocky Marciano and Jersey Joe Walcott. This fight is arguably the greatest heavyweight fight in boxing history. It seems appropriate therefore to post a couple links to commemorate the event which is what I will do now:

LINK 1

LINK 2

I have noted before the quality of men of previous eras when things which are easier now were much harder then. I will not say that such men of stature are not present today of course; however to say that there are nearly as many of them now as there were then...well...I cannot say I believe that for the most part unfortunately.

In summary, I can think of few who embody the kind of courage that we need in the war on terror than past titans like the great Rocky Marciano. (Or for that matter, his opponent Jersey Joe Walcott who turned in the finest performance of his career on this night fifty-two years ago in a losing effort.) May their souls rest in peace along with the souls of the many men they fought in their careers -virtually all of whom are dead now and who stand as a testament to the kind of toughness that we need to cultivate (or recover) in ourselves as a nation if we want to achieve victory in the war on terror.

[Update: I forgot to mention the second anniversary which took place on this date: Vice President Richard M. Nixon's famous "Checkers" speech which gave his political career an additional life if you will. - ISM 9/24/04 11:08 am]

Miscellaneous Reflections on the Most Recent Beheadings and the War on Terror --Part II

Miscellaneous Reflections on the Most Recent Beheadings and the War on Terror --Part I

Notification of an Upcoming Weblog Thread:

In posting a thread recently on the nature and grace subject, after your humble servant explained the proper sense of a particular passage of Humani Generis which is frequently misunderstood, it was then posited what this writer believes (based on what he has read) was the actual position of Fr. Henri de Lubac SJ compared to what the neo-scholastics said was his position. In doing this, your weblog host noted at the time that I will send this link to a couple theologians more familiar with de Lubac's work than I am for confirmation on this. The purpose of this notification is to inform you readers that those your host contacted on this matter -two theologians who happen to be participants in the blogosphere interestingly enough- responded to the inquiries by email the other day.

The subject of the interaction of nature and grace is complex and one can easily make shipwreck doctrinally if they are not careful on this subject. We at Rerum Novarum are certainly confident in Our abilities; however when We feel that there are others better informed on a matter of this complexity than We are -particularly in the accurate summation of a renowned theologian who was previously misunderstood to an egregious degree by others who were not cautious in their attempts to understand his theology- for those reasons it is not beneath Us to solicit the opinions of those better informed than We are to best keep you the reader properly informed.

Thus, the aforementioned emails will be posted to this weblog within a few days to clarify the points where your host sought assistance as well as the views of those theologians on certain other points which were dealt with in that post as well.

Miscellaneous Morning Musings on Rathergate

Miscellaneous Musings on War and Disarmarment --Part II

Miscellaneous Musings on War and Disarmarment --Part I

The Iraq - Al Queda Connection:
(And a Bit on WMD's in General)

To start with, I find it so amusing that certain partisans seem to think that a definitive verdict has been rendered at this time on the existence or lack thereof of WMD's in Iraq. (Based on headlines from newspapers or statements from groups of dubious repute.) Because so many of the antiwar partisans are ignorant of Santayana's dictum about history, I want to return to it briefly to remind the readers of this weblog that it took longer to find weapons of this sort in countries where there has been greater cooperation than the time thus far spent in Iraq. Until those who parrot the "no WMD's in Iraq" line take these facts of reality seriously -not to mention certain other factors that they also conveniently overlook,{1} I fail to see why anyone should give their statements on this subject (whomever they happen to be){2} the time of day.

Having noted that in brief, it is now time for what will probably be a series the next six or so weeks on the Iraq-Al Queda connections. Though it has been noted a number of times at this weblog{3} about the often-not-acknowledged connections between Iraq and Al Queda, as FOXNews will be running a series on this subject -and as they are by far the most credible mainstream American news network- this weblog will be carrying that series as each installment is made public. The first part of it can be read HERE. Others will be posted as they come along -possibly by themselves with only a headline or possibly with additional commentary as in the installment linked to in this post. (It will all depend on how much time I have to post it, my mood at the time in general, and other factors I shant go into at this time.)

Notes:

{1} For example, there is the long proposed (and well supported evidentially) theory that Iraq smuggled weapons and materials into Syria. This is a theory that has rarely been given due play in the obviously anti-Bush media apparatus. This theory is hardly a new one. Indeed, there is a lot to this story and other related ones that have gone unreported for some time by certain apparently blind partisans on this subject whom I shall neglect to name at this time. All I will say on that point presently is that it is manifestly absurd that those who mindlessly parrot catchphrases about "no WMD's" do not dig a little deeper and actually see the forest for the trees but I digress.

{2} I will follow this post up with an audio post dealing with a historical example of the kind of naivety that seems to permeate the weltanschauung of these kinds of people.

{3} Among other places this link where twenty plus pieces of evidence of varying degrees of probability are noted.

Miscellaneous Evening Musings on CBS, the Alternative Media, Church History and Tim Enloe, Etc.

A Weblog Post Clarification:

For those who may have questions about my stance on Iraq and "just war theory" applications -as outlined in my recent dialogue with SAM{1}, please see the link below for clarification on the matter.

Note:

{1} I refer to the part of the above post where I explain that my stance on the war in Iraq is "more practical than theoretical" - a stance I have held for about two years now - even before I finally came to my current position on the war in February of 2003. The thread where I clarify this point can be read HERE.

"Engrave the Tombstone" Dept.
(On the Mainstream Media and Liberal Inbreeding)

Shawn:

In one of your recent posts, you said that the mainstream media has been in decline for the last fifteen years. The clear decline of the mainstream media began in 1968 when the "most trusted man in America" Walter Cankersore (aka Cronkite) reported that the Tet offensive was a major victory for the Viet Cong when in fact it was the exact opposite, a fact that even the left leaning History Channel now acknowledges. In fact, it actually wiped out the VC. From then on, the NVA was pretty much our sole military opponent.

I am not so sure that this was the start of the decline or if it instead was more of a precursor of what was to come. Of course it is also possible that we are defining the term "decline" differently. When I say the mainstream media has been "in decline for about fifteen years", I refer to their dominance in shaping public opinion. You would appear to be referring to their propagandistic attempts to create impressions of "truth" rather than merely report on it. I am sure we could find examples of this predating 1968 if we looked for them; ergo I am not sure this is the start of decline in your view unless you are referring to the "Emperor has no clothes" part of it viz. Cronkite showing himself to be a seditionist rather than a reliable news source at that time. But that is neither here nor there.

As my use of the term "decline" differs from what yours seems to be, perhaps I should quantify it a bit more. Prior to the late 1980's there was virtually no other outlets except for the alphabet channels and major newspapers for news and views.{1} The first significant challenges to the major media hegemony in terms of influence was the proliferation of cable in the mid to late 1980's; however this was a challenge merely to the monopoly on news and the like, not a credible political/social alternative. The latter would only take place with the simultaneous rise of talk radio from the dead so to speak - something to which Rush Limbaugh had a signal role in with the launching of his national show in 1989.{2} Since then, it has been a steady downward spiral for the major media viz. their influence over public opinion -the past four or five years that spiral has been particularly swift. Here is an example of what I mean by the difference in influence if you will.

Back around 1989-1991 (I cannot remember exactly when) Dan Rather and CBS ran a series on Vietnam veterans which was one giant propaganda broadcast. They had people who claimed to be veterans but not a single one of them was except for a supply clerk who claimed he was a navy assassin. CBS and Dan Rather got away with that forgery back then because there was no alternative media to challenge it except for a few shows like Limbaughs but talk radio was not influential enough at that time to have an impact.

With the two signal events of the past two months (swiftboat vets and the CBS forgeries), the situation could not be more reversed. The major media twelve years ago would have buried the swift vets story without a trace; however, today the alternative media outlets (i.e. talk radio, Drudge, NewsMax, WorldNetDaily, National Review Online, the blogosphere, etc) forced the major media to keep that story afloat a lot longer than they wanted to -and to Kerry's detriment. Because though the major media covered it, they quite clearly wanted to see it discredited. However, with very few sad exceptions (i.e. Bill O'Reilly) the alternative media outlined the swift vets story and demonstrated the overall credibility of the swift vets by fisking all attempts of the major media to conjure up "errors" or "contradictions" in the stories of the vets involved. That is one significant difference from years back -possibly in retrospect it it will be seen as the watershed issue for alternative media because it set the table for what came next with CBS and Dan Rather.

If this had happened back in, say 1994, about the only play it would have gotten would have been on talk radio but that would not have been enough to humiliate CBS and Rather. Today though, the alternative media (led by the Internet and the blogosphere) seized on this story and it spread to talk radio and other alternative outlets like a wildfire. Within 48 hours of breaking, there was enough blood in the water that even the rest of the major media came on board in the feeding frenzy against CBS. The rest is history as they say.


Have you read either of Bernard Goldberg's books on liberal bias, Bias and Arrogance?

No, I have not. (They are on a list of about a hundred odd books I want to read at some point though.)

If you haven't I would strongly suggest that you do. Although you will find much of it will be preaching to the choir, he does give great insights into the pysche behind the leftward slant in the major newsrooms across America. According to Mr. Goldberg, they, because they only associate with likeminded people, honestly believe that their liberal beliefs are MAINSTREAM, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Heck, I could have told you that!!! The major media is a lot like America's bluebloods: too much interbreeding is the problem. The lessons of nature include the phenomenon of physical interbreeding within too close of familial ties creating a weaker organism. If this is carried too far, then the offspring are literally incapable of reproduction. The same is the case with intellectual cultivation.

Conservative-minded people do not have a choice in that much of what they interact with is liberal nonsense; thus they are used to having their views challenged -even if this is usually not by much. (And of course conservatives usually have at least a few liberal friends.) By contrast, liberal-minded people frequently do not hang out with anyone except those who think as they do. They therefore do not receive the intellectual depth of cultivation that comes with interaction with other viewpoints. As a result of this kind of "intellectual inbreeding", it creates a weaker organism cerebrally and a marked propensity towards a worldview that is steeped in solipsism.{3} But I digress.


For example, in '72 when Nixon defeated McGovern in a major landslide, they were genuinely shocked.

They were also shocked in 1980 when Reagan did the same thing as well as in 1984 which was one of the most lopsided presidential contests in history. Likewise, W's dad won pretty comfortably in 1988.

He remembers many of these reporters saying, "How did he win? Nobody I know voted for Nixon."

I will say it again: it is intellectual and political inbreeding.

This is what we are up against and this is what going to sink their ship if they don't get their heads out of...

I think cutting it off there suffices to get the view across just fine. But the problem with solipsists is that they are in some respects constitutionally incapable of doing what you say they need to do. The reason for this is adequately noted in brief at one of the previous links in this post. I will repost it HERE as the concluding point to this post.


Notes:

{1} I know you can point to Firing Line, National Review, and the like but those were fringe sources in the sense that their circulation was miniscule compared to the major media outlets.

{2} Limbaugh's show originated four or five years earlier in Sacramento on a single radio station before it was launched nationally on fifty-six stations in 1989. Since then, he has gone onto be over six hundred stations (including Armed Forces Radio) and accumulate an audience of twenty odd million a week. And with Limbaugh's success came a new format for conservative voices which many others (i.e. Ken Hamblin, Michael Reagan, Michael Savage, Michael Medved, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, etc) were to join making this the first significant challenge to major media.

{3} I have noted elsewhere that this secular scenario has a theological parallel in what is called vital immanence. See the post located HERE for details on that.

Election Ecumenical Jihad and Voting Principles for Restoring Our Society:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

It has been over two weeks since your host at Rerum Novarum first manifested the intention to weigh in on the subject of the USCCB/Catholic Answers voting guides issue.{1} There was also a rather serendipitous response to an antiwar loon where the person/group I fisked in a previous weblog post on "Bush's war"{2} tried to respond with a kind of "all issues are equal weight" followup which of course served as an "appetizer" if you will for the response you are about to read. Indeed I encourage you to read that rather short post before you peruse the text below because that will enable me to avoid having to duplicate subjects covered in that thread within this one. That post can be read HERE.

Having gotten the subjects in that post out of the way in advance, we are better able to move onto this intended study of a few key voting issues in the upcoming election. I must note in advance though that I have long admitted publicly on occasion that there are some fundamental disagreements between myself and Catholic Answers viz. the approach taken on religious, political, or cultural issues.{3} However, with the election coming up, it seems appropriate to join in solidarity with them on a salutary aim of theirs in this election: the education of voters.

I also confess to having a far more ambitious approach towards contributing to the consistent moulding of thought patterns amongst those who consider themselves "conservatives" primarily{4} than do groups like Catholic Answers.{5} However, I am not naive enough to think that the systematical approach I take to issues will bear nearly the fruit in the short term that would be ideal.{6} For to fruitfully apply a prescription such as I have been outlining at sundry times and in divers manners at this weblog from virtually day one of its existence requires a couple of things to be tended too. For example, it involves at the very least not only (i) informing the electorate but (ii) persuading them to elect a solid core of leaders who will be open to these kinds of ideas.{7} And of course any legitimate idea in my view must conform to certain criterion to be considered viable. That brings us to the Catholic Answers (CA) voters guide but first a few brief notes on the USCCB and their discouragement of the distribution of the CA voters guide.

The ever-handy EWTN has noted recently that Citing papal and Vatican documents, "Voter's Guide" identifies five issues it calls "non-negotiable": abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research, human cloning, and homosexual "marriage." Supporting any of these issues, according to the guide, would disqualify a candidate as a viable option for a faithful Catholic. By stark contrast, the USCCB guidelines for voting shows an amazing degree of homogenization of subject matter. A classic example of this is abortion.

The position that abortion has in the CA voting guide is unequivocal. But the USCCB guide appears to treat abortion as if it is on equal footing as other issues such as the death penalty and its application, social justice issues of various sorts, or "global solidarity." I am not about to demean any of these subjects of course; however there is a "hierarchy of truths" here as there is elsewhere. And abortion being the death of life that it is cannot be put on par with prudential regulations of the death penalty usage or appeals to "global solidarity" -which are themselves somewhat nebulously understood in the manner whereby their promoters often utilize the terms.

Now lest some readers see in statements such as this an attempt to bash the USCCB, I can only appeal to my trackrecord at this weblog and on message boards and other media forms over the years. Those who are familiar with my postings there know that I am not one of those who trashes the USCCB the way a lot of people do.{8} However, it is true that at times I do make criticisms of some of their policies -albeit in a more measured manner. Having noted that, I confess to an inability to see how the USCCB guidelines on this subject can be considered "helpful" to voters in the manner that the more focused CA voting booklet is.

For when they are going into the voting booth --and in the absense of a clearly defined weltanschauung ala what this weblog seeks to provide for its readers-- what most voters need are snapshots of the myriad of issues and their relation to the hierarchy of basic truths. Another way of saying it is that voters in those circumstances do not need loquacious texts. I therefore have to come to the support of CA on this matter because my very clearly delineated view of things happens to concur with the particular issues that CA focuses on. The rest of this post will be to set them out in a manner that goes beyond Catholic circles.

After all, it is not enough to approach this from a Catholic standpoint when these issues affect the whole of society and bear careful consideration by all people of good will. For that reason, I will situate each of the five issues within the general framework of my operative point of view to point out why it makes sense (apart from religious purposes) to vote in accordance with CA's guidelines on these matters. The most basic framework we can work off of is the classical theory of mankind having three fundamental interrelated rights. Those rights, as defined by Claude Frederic Bastiat are as follows: life, faculties, and production. And furthermore, these rights are deemed "fundamental" because they are given not by man-made laws but by the Creator. To quote Bastiat himself on these matters:

Life, faculties, production--in other words, individuality, liberty, property -- this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850)]

In other words, these rights do not depend on legislation nor can legislation be the grantor or revoker of these rights. Instead, these rights are given to us by God and they therefore precede all manmade laws. In the matter of application, I have woven into the matrix two concepts of the Christian tradition which are in varying degrees implied in Bastiat's work -two concepts which are limiting factors on the above rights in a society. Before I touch on them again, it is important to show how Bastiat frames the entire subject of what constitutes law.

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.[Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850)]

One of the limiting factors that I add to the three fundamental rights of man is that of what has traditionally been called the common good. It is clear in his definition of the law that Bastiat was operating under this same presupposition; otherwise, his definition of law as the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense would have a degree of internal contradiction to it. And in his understanding of the concept of "legal plunder" --a concept that politicians of virtually all stripes are tone-deaf to these days-- the common good principle stands out in bold relief:

Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.

But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.

Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain -- and since labor is pain in itself -- it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.

When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.

It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.

But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.

This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.[Claude Frederic Bastiat: Excerpt from The Law (c. 1850)]

Now I know for a fact (and have long lamented) that the Republicans fail in varying degrees (sometimes miserably) in conforming themselves to the limits of the law as outlined by Bastiat above. That is not the point of this post to outline except to note it briefly and also that the Democrats are generally much worse still. I will get to that point in a moment but first, notice the common good thread that permeates Bastiat's outlook. It therefore makes sense that the three fundamental rights of man must be checked by the common good or (in other words) the assertions of "rights" by one party cannot be recognized if they contain an intrinsic undermining of the common good of the society as a whole. That is one check if you will.

However, because there can be diverging interpretations of what constitutes the common good -particularly in a pluralistic society- another check or balance is needed. That principle is the principle of "public order" -one that has been explicitly manifested in Catholic doctrine since 1965{9} and one which provides an objective verificator if you will for the criteria of common good. And from a logical standpoint, this limitation makes sense because without it, there is a risk of applications of the common good which would be subjective in nature.

Now that the three fundamental rights and their two logically limiting factors have been taken into account, let us consider the guidelines within the CA booklet. According to EWTN, abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research, human cloning, and homosexual "marriage" are the main issues of focus. Consider where they fit into the matrix of the points covered in this post.

Abortion and euthanasia are violations of the fundamental right to life. Human cloning -particularly since the main motivation for cloning is to often provide "spare parts" for other human beings- is if not a direct violation of the right to life{10} of the cloned person then at the very least it is proximate to the right to life to fall under that classification.{11} Fetal stem cell research -because often stem cell research is conducted on cells from aborted fetuses- can be said to be proximate to the right to life and disqualified for that reason alone as well.{12}

Besides the connexion to the fundamental right to life, the principles of common good and public order can also be said to be violated by fetal stem cell research and human cloning. And homosexual so-called "marriages" are blatant violations of the common good of society but also just public order insomuch as marriage is the root and matrix of all societies. As marriage goes, so society goes; ergo there are reasons both logically as well as anthropologically for opposing without compromise on this issue as well.

In summary, there are reasons adequately noted above for supporting CA's guidelines on avoiding politicians who support these issues which go beyond Catholic religious reasons. Hopefully if you are not Catholic and want to contribute to restoring our society, you will whenever possible vote against politicians who support these issues. Otherwise, you are only contributing to the problem and not to the solution whether you realize it or not.

Notes:

{1} Though in an audio post of miscellaneous notes and notifications this intention was reiterated with more detail.

{2} A September 11th Confutation of Extremist Liberal Canards Viz. the War on Terror

{3} This is a potential series of posts in and of itself.

{4} Though "libertarians" and maybe some "liberals" may find this approach to be of interest as well.

{5} In fairness though, it must be noted that this weblog is not nearly as limited subject-wise as Catholic Answers is -since I can basically muse on whatever I want to and that includes non-apologetics subject matter. (The latter of which is the bulk of what is posted here at Rerum Novarum.)

{6} The readership at this humble weblog is nowhere near what Catholic Answers readership is. However, I have noted before and on more than one occasion my belief (based on the email I receive) that our reading audience is among the finest and most intelligent out there.

{7} These are ideas that are not only radical but also common-sensical; ergo they have the potential to transform political and social philosophies from within by providing a systemization to issues that in virtually all cases is sorely lacking - even among the most intelligent and well informed of people. That is what we want to help in promoting above all else.

{8} My handling of the whole Reflections situation should have made this eminently clear to those who were following the earliest threads at this weblog. (See the archives of this weblog for details if interested.)

{9} In the past, there were persecutions of people even in Catholic states because the criteria of the "common good" was not recognized to be limited by what is properly called "just public order."...In order to be consistent in one's approach, they must be emphasized together. Otherwise, dire consequences can result.

The Catholic Church since the promulgation of the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae has recognized the connexion between these two factors. However, I do not defend the notion of public order in the matrix of a just societal government because of DH...

As a Catholic, I accept it of course as pertaining to divine revelation. (As this is what the Declaration quite clearly taught on the matter.) However, when discussing the subject with non-Catholics, I appeal to the principle only as a logically sound principle. (Because it is.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 16, 2004)]

{10} Obviously if the clone is used for "spare parts" then there is a violation of the right to life.

{11} These kinds of positions proximate to life are those which while they can arguably be said to not be direct violations of life nonetheless are so intrinsic to it that to allow for them is to undermine by logical extension the fundamental right to life. Furthermore, the clone also has the right to life and of course stripping it of parts is a violation of its right to faculties: the second of the three fundamental rights.

{12} I. Shawn McElhinney: Pre-Rerum Novarum Stem Cell Commentary (circa August 20, 2001)

Briefly on the False Notion of "Equal Weight" Catholic Voting Issues:
(A Rerum Novarum Clarification Post)

Though We at Rerum Novarum have indicated an intention on more than one occasion to weigh in on the elections issue viz. the Catholic Answers and USCCB voters guides, what you are reading here is not that planned post. The latter text is at this time slated for release tomorrow. Instead, this is a followup response to a person or group who refer to themselves as VOTEINFORMED.

Upon sending them the link to my September 11th confutation of one of their idiotic peacenik tracts, they responded with an email containing four separate links in it and no accompanying text. As all four links are Catholic related -and attempt to argue for Catholics voting for John F-word Kerry and other Catholic Democrats, these issues will be touched on as a kind of preface to the planned commentary. Here is the text of my email -their subject title will be in black font.

Subject: RE: Fwd: 1000 DIE IN BUSH'S WAR

I suppose in sending these links you are under the assumption that these links cannot be fisked in the same manner as your tract was. I am not impressed with this kind of fallacious appeal to authority -indeed no one who values sound logic is. The fact that you ignored my criticisms of your article and responded with more links only validates my categorization of you as being infected with the intellectual malady of solipsism. Thank you for validating that point.

Now to briefly deal with these links:

LINK 1

Apparently you figured out that Rerum Novarum is authored by a Catholic. Brilliant sleuthing there - the Sherlock Holmes medal is surely yours for uncovering that well concealed fact.

Having noted that, apparently you think that a 50% score by Catholic politicians on the issues in the USCCB's guide is commendable. I have news for you: not all issues are of equal weight and those you mentioned fail in the areas of greatest doctrinal weight. (While the issues where they "pass" if you will are ones where there is latitude for private prudential judgment as recognized by the Catholic Church.) This will be dealt with in my upcoming election guide analysis of the voters guides as pro offered by USCCB and also Catholic Answers.

LINK 2

Ditto to my previous comments. You are under the illusion that all issues in the USCCB guide are of equal weight. That is not remotely accurate but again - I will be dealing at least indirectly with this subject when I post a non theological defense of the five key issues from the Catholic Answers voters guide: all of which have greater weight by far (as well as significantly less latitude for prudential judgment) than "global solidarity", "social justice", or applications of the death penalty (among other issues in the USCCB guide.

LINK 3

This also retreads the previous two link topics. I must admit that the giant icon with a link to the Unfit for Command book (contra Kerry) is certainly interesting. The article blurs the distinctions because "gun control" is not a Catholic teaching by any stretch nor is minimum wage legislation. (The latter falls into the subject of social teaching but there are differences of opinion in how this is applied.) All this does is vindicate my long-held media dictum but before you continue to make my case for me by demonstration, there is the final link of the four you sent:

LINK 4

Need I remind you (again) that the issue of the death penalty is one involving a prudential judgment??? Pope John Paul II in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (which has far more authority than any USCCB document) recognizes this fact explicitly. I have gone over the death penalty issue many times and frankly, while I would probably not agree with Bush's usage of it when he was governor, at the same time, this is an ancillary issue and is trumped by far with Bush's adherence to the issues surrounding human life which are not open to debate amongst faithful Catholics.

In summary, nice try with the links but I am not fooled for an instant. Now then, do you care to respond to my fisking of your original tract or are you simply going to send links [in response] and not interact with the arguments of others???

Jeff Miller's Microsoft Forger Software

Miscellaneous Notes:

I updated the thread of links posted on September 11th from various weblogs. The additions made included a new thread (Charles de Nunzio's September 11, 2004 weblog post) but also an old one (Fr. Reginald Martin OP's Homily of September 11, 2002). This was done in the custom of "bringing forth things both new and old" (cf. Matthew xiii,52).