On Torture and General Norms of Theological Interpretation Contra Certain "Apologist" Fundamentalist Hermeneutics -Part II of III:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

To read part one of this thread, go HERE.

Before we delve into certain key factors that bear examination, we need to direct the readers to several very good threads in Christopher Blosser's second combox thread posted by some fellow named Jeff. Having done that, let us start the meat of this thread by revisiting something we noted last month on the matter:

With secret tribunals this means the torture issue is going to come up and hopefully certain Catholic...sorts --whom your host has in mind along with others who are non-Catholic-- who want to whine and complain about these issues will have the common decency to define the word torture this time around. Because if they are gonna whine and gripe about it, if they are going to throw around a word that is not going to be defined and that's/there is a serious disingenuous element there and hopefully this time around, these people will approach the issue equitably in a proper and ethical way. [Excerpt from a Rerum Novarum Audiopost Transcript (circa September 30, 2006)]

For readers who are not aware, your host had a few persons in mind with the above thread mainly Mark Shea whom we have noted before and on more than one occasion{5}, does not represent this issue accurately. The following recent bit from his own combox highlights some of the problems he has on this matter:

[A]s Eve Tushnet points out, far worse abuses have been, quite legally, perpetrated by the CIA and our President has declared that "we do not torture and have never tortured". Such abuses have include waterboarding and cold cells. Bush says these do not constitute torture (though he also backed down on waterboarding, sort of). If these are not torture, then what you saw from Abu Ghraib was not torture either. Just a "frat hazing" as Rush Limbaugh assures us. [LINK]

Frankly, Fr. Brian Harrison's response to Mark's Crisis article on torture (which Mark titled "Toying With Evil") is on the whole quite good. He gives the impression of fudging a bit on the whole issue of post Vatican II stuff but he is right in principle in what he wrote. Here is the crux of his position:

[T]he development of Catholic doctrine over time is supposed to flow harmoniously from what was taught "always, everywhere, and by all," according to the classic criterion laid down by Vincent of Lérins. The Church is not supposed to be able to invent new doctrines out of whole cloth. Indeed, Vatican I specifically rejected the idea that the Holy Spirit was promised to Peter's successors for the purpose of revealing novam doctrinam (Denzinger-Schönmetzer 3070). And if we rightly denounce activist American judges for "discovering" in federal or state constitutions such hitherto unheard of implications as the "right" to abortion and the "right" to "gay marriage," then how do we defend Popes Paul VI and John Paul II from the charge of an analogous doctrinal activism in claiming to discover, nearly two millennia after our Christian constitution was definitively laid down in Scripture and Apostolic Tradition, that the infliction of severe bodily pain is "intrinsically evil"? [Fr. Brian W. Harrison: Excerpt from the Crisis Magazine's Letters to the Editor section (circa September 12, 2005)]

Your host would certainly take issue with the idea that Paul VI or John Paul II have "spoken definitively" on this matter as Mark seems to imply in some of his statements on this matter. Fr. Harrison's assessment in the above paragraph summary is on the whole accurate. We raise the issue of Fr. Harrison's letter to deal with one element that he does not and that is where he notes that "few if any orthodox theologians would regard the conditions for infallible teaching as being verified in the texts cited by Mr. Shea (Gaudium et Spes 27 and Veritatis Splendor 80)." We have to say based on our knowledge of this subject matter that Fr. Harrison is correct in his assessment. But rather than merely say this, we will now set forth our reasons for this viewpoint in the form of a hypothesis. To begin with, let us now consider Mark Shea's quotes from Gaudium et Spes (GS) and Veritatis Splendour (VS):

Furthermore...whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as...torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself...all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator.

Here is the full quote with the omitted parts underlined (and the preceding paragraph which contextualizes it):

In our times a special obligation binds us to make ourselves the neighbor of every person without exception. and of actively helping him when he comes across our path, whether he be an old person abandoned by all, a foreign laborer unjustly looked down upon, a refugee, a child born of an unlawful union and wrongly suffering for a sin he did not commit, or a hungry person who disturbs our conscience by recalling the voice of the Lord, "As long as you did it for one of these the least of my brethren, you did it for me" (Matt. 25:40).

Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator. [Second Vatican Ecumenical Council: Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes §27 (circa December 7, 1965)]

This is the foundation text from which Mark and others operate from and for that reason, we must start our inquiry here. And as we have written on general norms of interpretation before as they pertain to Gaudium et Spes, it seems appropriate to recall part of that briefly before moving onto an examination of that text in greater detail:

With general norms, one has to tread carefully and this is a subject not often understood even by many who are considered "experts" in these matters. This is part of the reason why your host rolls his eyes when those with partisan agendas quote too freely from certain portions of Gaudium et Spes or from any source without taking into account certain factors which mitigate against a false interpretation (and thus misrepresentation of) those sources. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 4, 2006)]

Essentially folks, GS is supposed to be interpreted according to general norms of interpretation as any document is. The diverse elements on GS make this obligation even more important -so much so that the document itself in its first footnote specifically says this explicitly (all emphasis is ours):

The Pastoral Constitution "De Ecclesia in Mundo Huius Temporis" is made up of two parts; yet it constitutes an organic unity. By way of explanation: the constitution is called "pastoral" because, while resting on doctrinal principles, it seeks to express the relation of the Church to the world and modern mankind. The result is that, on the one hand, a pastoral slant is present in the first part, and, on the other hand, a doctrinal slant is present in the second part. In the first part, the Church develops her teaching on man, on the world which is the enveloping context of man's existence, and on man's relations to his fellow men. In part two, the Church gives closer consideration to various aspects of modern life and human society; special consideration is given to those questions and problems which, in this general area, seem to have a greater urgency in our day. As a result in part two the subject matter which is viewed in the light of doctrinal principles is made up of diverse elements. Some elements have a permanent value; others, only a transitory one. Consequently, the constitution must be interpreted according to the general norms of theological interpretation. Interpreters must bear in mind-especially in part two-the changeable circumstances which the subject matter, by its very nature, involves. [Second Vatican Ecumenical Council: Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes Preface Footnote (circa December 7, 1965)]

If the Constitution in its prefatory footnote (which must be considered when seeking to interpret the proper sense of the council text) says that the first part of the text is presenting "a pastoral slant" in the first part of the text, then it is what it is. Neither Mark nor anyone else can change that unless we seek to ascribe to words meanings they do not have.

Another really elementary constituent to general norms of theological interpretation is this: one sentence from a Pastoral Constitution doth not a definitive statement make. Period. On that point alone, Mark's analysis is erroneous to no small degree. When one considers the times and circumstances as well, they would realize that one of the goals of the Second Vatican Council was to deal with the menace of communism but do so indirectly. This is why a lot of things were lumped together without distinction in GS: in large part because a lot of what was noted was happening in communist countries -though a lot of what was noted was to some extent universal in its scope. Again, the factors were not distinguished from one another but instead lumped together indiscriminately. On the issue in question, we are not talking about subjecting a sworn enemy of the state who is undermining the social order to coercion for the sake of protecting the public order and common good of society. No, with the communists it was anyone who was opposed to the government or who held out for freedom who was subject to inhumane treatment. There was no discrimination in their use of means of coercion in other words.

Now the council could not give the appearance of favouring one side over the other if (i) there was any hope of indirectly persuading the communists and (ii) if they were to avoid giving the appearance of giving the excesses in non-communist nations a free pass. For these reasons, the council did not name names and mentioned a host of things without proper distinctions made. That is acceptable when dealing with a pastoral constitution but it also is why the council itself included the interpretive hermeneutic with GS which applies to all magisterial texts. With the diverse elements contained within GS, it made noting these factors particularly germane; ergo you have the large prefatory note above.

This kind of overvaluing of scant statements is what happens when one approaches magisterial texts with the same lack of discernment that fundamentalists do the Bible and radical self-styled "traditionalists" or "progressivists" do with magisterial texts. There are two dangers inherent in the latter and they are opposite: "trads" pretending magisterial obedience requirements ended prior to or within the vicinity of Vatican II and "progressivist" sorts pretending that Vatican II is some break from the past and justifying every radical departure as being of equal merit or somehow authoritative. Both play into what Pope Benedict XVI called last year the "hermeneutics of discontinuity" and both are to be summarily rejected. This stance is hardly a novel one either as Pope John Paul II often said that it was a profound error to interpret the council apart from the whole of the tradition. This is why the attitude taken by people such as Mark towards those who have sought to follow the injunctions of the last two popes on these matters is inappropriate and frankly he should recognize this and adjust his attitudes accordingly. But enough on the first source and now onto the second which is Veritatis Splendour. The quote Mark referenced was this one from the text:

Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature "incapable of being ordered" to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church's moral tradition, have been termed "intrinsically evil" ( intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that "there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object". 131 The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: "Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator". 132 [Pope John Paul II: Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendour §80 (circa August 6, 1993)]

Now this quote from Veritatis Splendor appears to support Mark's reading. But one of the general norms of proper theological interpretation is to consider the words in their original context and meaning. Two references to GS in VS cannot make those statements more authoritative than they already were -particularly if there is no manifested intention in the text to do so. That raises the question of what the intention of the Pope in issuing VS was and from there we turn to the encyclical itself for the requisite evidence to be had -all emphasis is ours except the italics in the text and all footnotes not relevant to the question removed:

At all times, but particularly in the last two centuries, the Popes, whether individually or together with the College of Bishops, have developed and proposed a moral teaching regarding the many different spheres of human life. In Christ's name and with his authority they have exhorted, passed judgment and explained. In their efforts on behalf of humanity, in fidelity to their mission, they have confirmed, supported and consoled. With the guarantee of assistance from the Spirit of truth they have contributed to a better understanding of moral demands in the areas of human sexuality, the family, and social, economic and political life. In the tradition of the Church and in the history of humanity, their teaching represents a constant deepening of knowledge with regard to morality.

Today, however, it seems necessary to reflect on the whole of the Church's moral teaching, with the precise goal of recalling certain fundamental truths of Catholic doctrine which, in the present circumstances, risk being distorted or denied. In fact, a new situation has come about within the Christian community itself, which has experienced the spread of numerous doubts and objections of a human and psychological, social and cultural, religious and even properly theological nature, with regard to the Church's moral teachings. It is no longer a matter of limited and occasional dissent, but of an overall and systematic calling into question of traditional moral doctrine, on the basis of certain anthropological and ethical presuppositions. At the root of these presuppositions is the more or less obvious influence of currents of thought which end by detaching human freedom from its essential and constitutive relationship to truth. Thus the traditional doctrine regarding the natural law, and the universality and the permanent validity of its precepts, is rejected; certain of the Church's moral teachings are found simply unacceptable; and the Magisterium itself is considered capable of intervening in matters of morality only in order to "exhort consciences" and to "propose values", in the light of which each individual will independently make his or her decisions and life choices.

In particular, note should be taken of the lack of harmony between the traditional response of the Church and certain theological positions, encountered even in Seminaries and in Faculties of Theology, with regard to questions of the greatest importance for the Church and for the life of faith of Christians, as well as for the life of society itself. In particular, the question is asked: do the commandments of God, which are written on the human heart and are part of the Covenant, really have the capacity to clarify the daily decisions of individuals and entire societies? Is it possible to obey God and thus love God and neighbour, without respecting these commandments in all circumstances? Also, an opinion is frequently heard which questions the intrinsic and unbreakable bond between faith and morality, as if membership in the Church and her internal unity were to be decided on the basis of faith alone, while in the sphere of morality a pluralism of opinions and of kinds of behaviour could be tolerated, these being left to the judgment of the individual subjective conscience or to the diversity of social and cultural contexts.

Given these circumstances, which still exist, I came to the decision — as I announced in my Apostolic Letter Spiritus Domini, issued on 1 August 1987 on the second centenary of the death of Saint Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori — to write an Encyclical with the aim of treating "more fully and more deeply the issues regarding the very foundations of moral theology",9 foundations which are being undermined by certain present day tendencies. [Pope John Paul II: Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendour §4-5 (circa August 6, 1993)]

Notice the pope making reference to the lack of harmony between the traditional response of the Church and certain theological positions"??? This makes it clear that the intention of the encyclical is to be in continuity with the past and show proper harmony. The reference in footnote 131 (quoting Pope Paul VI) makes this even clearer:

"Far be it from Christians to be led to embrace another opinion, as if the Council taught that nowadays some things are permitted which the Church had previously declared intrinsically evil. Who does not see in this the rise of a depraved moral relativism, one that clearly endangers the Church's entire doctrinal heritage?" [Pope Paul VI, Address to Members of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, (September 1967): AAS 59 (1967), 962 noted as a paraphrased reference in VS footnote 131]

That principle has two sides to the coin: not only what was once declared intrinsically evil cannot be recogized as licit later on if the doctrinal heritage of the Church is to be upheld but likewise, what was held as licit before cannot later be declared intrinsically evil. For these reasons, any interpretations which posit a disharmony are ipso facto to be rejected. For that reason, the interpretation Mark and his allies give to VS with regards to torture can be considered thrown out of court without any hesitation.

To be Continued...

Note:

{1} Mark Shea has likewise showed some key misunderstandings on his part to...the subjects of economics, torture[...], and just war. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 5, 2006)]

The removed text footnote went to a quoting of the material in footnote one of this posting and a previous admission that one of those in mind when the material was originally written in December of 2005 was Mark Shea.

On Torture and General Norms of Theological Interpretation Contra Certain "Apologist" Fundamentalist Hermeneutics -Part I of III:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Update: For easier reading, this post was divided into three parts and the posting from 10/14 was moved to 10/17. (The subtitle of the original was dropped as it would have been complicated to use it with a post series unlike with a single posting.) The other two threads were posted in sequence, linked throughout (as is our wont with longer threads for easier reading) and backdated to the date of the original posting. -ISM 10/17/06 12:29pm]

To start with, the notion of defining the terms that someone uses is so elementary that we are frankly embarrassed that it needs to even be mentioned. But experience has shown that the best way to deal with pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists of various stripes is to insist on this principle at all times. This is why we have insisted with greater frequency over the years{1} that those who want to be taken seriously define their terms much as we always have done. The willingness or lack thereof of anyone to conform to this fundamental principle of rational thought has always served as a kind of acid test by your host in ascertaining the integrity or lack thereof of a positional adversary.

So with that in mind, on the subject of torture we are asking those who have seized on this as a major agenda item of theirs to give the rest of us the most basic of courtesies and explain themselves. Define for us what in a workable sense constitutes "torture" and what does not. Notice we are not asking for an abstract manualist definition of the term but one which can be applied to real life situations with reasonable assurance that it provides a point of reference on the subject in question. Technically, until this is done, there is no need to take those who prattle on about this issue with even the most remote of seriousness; however we intend in the post or series to follow to touch on some of the more pertinent issues pertaining to the subject in question.

To start with, Christopher Blosser deserves to be given some credit for his handling of the issue in question in two recent postings to his weblog. Here they are in sequential order by the date they were posted:

On Torture, "Aggressive Interrogation" and The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (circa October 2, 2006)

"The Torture Debate" - Part II (circa October 8, 2006)

Those threads have combox threads and indeed we intend to touch on some of the comments made before getting to the meat of this posting. Before doing that though, it should be noted that all the combox threads pertain to the first of Christopher's postings unless otherwise noted.

Having noted that, your host pinpointed some time ago{2} a key problem with this whole issue which was recently noted by "Trubador" on Christopher Blosser's combox threads on the subject at hand:

It seems to me that way too many people are tossing the word "torture" round like the way too many people toss about the word "tolerance" or "racists" or "bigot" (and just about any other convenient word or phrase to slap a label on someone or something to avoid having to think, use reason, and be reasonable). [Trubador | Homepage | 10.02.06 - 3:02 pm]

That is the problem with people who do not define their terms: it results in very sloppy reasoning. Victor Morton contributed to that thread with some key points in a blog posting of his own over at Coalition For Fog responding to the aforementioned reflections as blogged by Christopher Blosser in the first of his two postings. While we do not have time to quote as much of that posting as would be desired, it suffices to touch on the root of the matter which is the following bits from his posting:

To the principle point of contention, and the one which I'd like to pursue, is one that Chris labels But didn't the Church use Torture? and then saying the Catechism adequately rebuts the charge...

"[H]ow can something become an intrinsic evil when the church has affirmatively and authoritatively mandated it." Every word in that sentence is relevant, and brushes away the easiest objections. [Victor Morton: Excerpt from Coalition For Fog (circa October 2, 2006)]

More could be noted from that posting -indeed the fact that various popes not only decreed that torture was to be used but indeed those civil leaders who refused would be excommunicated- but we do not want to get ahead of ourselves with so much left to go over on this subject.

"Torquemada05" from the Coalition For Fog noted additional pointers your host raised some time back in private conversations and which will be developed in this posting or (if doing so proves to be too lengthy) in followup postings constituting a post series of sorts:

Essentially the main problem that I have in the torture debate...is that [a certain person] conducts it in such a manner that is more or less divorced from both history and the Magisterium in the sense of what it actually teaches...

If all attempts to coerce the will are intrisically evil, then there can be no room for domestic law enforcement as it is currently understood. Since the Church clearly doesn't teach this, then either [that person's] reading of the document is inaccurate or the Church is in error, thus raising issues indefectability. [Torquemada05: Excerpt from Coalition For Fog (circa October 3, 2006)]

Another reason why this should be a serious issue for Catholics is the pertinence of the matter to the whole notion of what is called "indefectibility." Such a doctrine would be falsified if the Church ever at one point in time taught that something was intrinsically evil that was previously taught as acceptable. But in time we will deal with this more in detail and back to the summary of points raised by others starting with Greg Mockeridge.

Greg noted a key factor here which is not realized by those who argue for the so-called "intrinsic evil of torture" -namely that somehow it is licit at times to execute people (the obvious opinion of Pope John Paul II that this is not a preferred approach to take notwithstanding) but somehow, a lesser infliction such as torture cannot be licit.{3} This line of "reasoning" is internally contradictory and therefore cannot be admitted as a viable hypothesis where these questions are considered. Logically, if the death penalty in some instances is legitimate, so too must torture be. But that point aside for a moment, we need to get to the meat of this posting with greater haste so we will summarize the other points raised by others in two paragraphs at this time starting with Christopher Fotos.

Essentially, Christopher noted the problems inherent with those who call names and otherwise disparage those who honestly have sought to engage these issues rather than tipping the biretta, bowing three times, and incensing uncritically the opinions of some "apologist" no matter how well known they are. Rich Leonardi also made reference to the root of the issue here and why a lack of reasonable precision on this matter only muddles the issue futher and does not aid in coming to any kind of workable resolution on the matter. Donald R. McClarey pointed out another reason why this issue needs to be clarified and by logical extension that means the terms utilized need to be given workable definitions.{4} TShaw points out in a different way a key element that your host had previously noted in a phone conversation on these issues with Greg Mockeridge and which Greg noted in the same thread earlier on: that if there is a commandment against killing and yet there is just war principles, there is a serious problem logically with the idea that torture (a lesser malady than death) is somehow never permissible.

There is also a thread from "Doubting Thomas" where he supplies a helpful list of some of the techniques used at Gitmo for seeking to extract information from detainees. "Doubting Thomas" also noted the supreme irony of how according to the UN's own definition of the term, the guards at Gitmo are being tortured by the prisoners!!! We trust that anyone who respects logic and reason can see why it is important to define the terms one uses -or as Mike Mentzer once so astutely said definitions are the tools of thought- and furthermore, why those who ridicule the notion of such requests being made should be held in disregard.

To be Continued...

Notes:

{1} Here are two examples that readily come to mind which are by no means the earliest ones we could note from our archives:

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

{2} See footnote one.

{3} Greg's comments were of course responded to non-sequiturially by a few others and we will not entertain such absurdities since they detract from the subject at hand.

{4} Mr. McClarey also noted his own disagreement with waterboarding -a view your host does not share but we would never hold anyone in poor regard simply because they did not agree with us.

Points to Ponder:

He who makes shoes is sure of his income -he who writes books has no such assurance. [Roger Sherman: Signer of The Declaration of Independence and a Key Contributor to Both The Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution]

I realize this weblog has been silent for a while -I trust that readers will consider what was noted in the two of the three postings from last week{1} as a large part of the reason for this.

Obviously such long absences as we are prone to take at times (for various reasons) does not help with the "site hits" but we trust that (i) most readers of some blog reading tenure at this humble weblog realize that your host does not write on anything with the idea of generating more "site hits" and (ii) there are a lot more important things in life than blogging. Or as we noted in a blog posting of musings about blogging over three years ago:

Speaking only for myself, I do not feel a sense of guilt if I go for a day or two (or three or whatever length) without blogging. Initially I did but then it dawned on me (and fortunately this happened *very* early in the life of this blog) that the moment I worry about that is the moment any edge I have (if I even have one) is blunted...

I do not know what subjects elicit the most readership and which do not and frankly, I have no interest in finding out. For the moment I do that is the moment my impulse to blog my mind becomes to some extent compromised...

Blogging is an activity that can give people a sense of exaggerated self-importance. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa February 3, 2003)]

Another reason for the aforementioned silence as of late is that your host has been working for a while on a couple posts on issues either not commonly dealt with{2} or on an issue recently discussed{3} but approaching it from a somewhat different angle than many others are approaching it at least in a macro sense.{4} At least one of them (and we know which one it is) may well generate some interest but we are not writing on the subject for that reason but because it has been on our mind to delve into it for some time and the time for doing so is now at hand.

Notes:

{1} The other posting which reissues a previously issued challenge to critics of mythical so-called "neo cons" to define their terms is also to some extent involved as the two threads mentioned in the body of this posting apply the same principle to the subjects that they intend to address today (time permitting) and later in the week (again, time permitting) respectively.

{2} Or at the very least not dealt with in the manner in which we intend to deal with them.

{3} This would be the subject of torture.

{4} We have been made aware through following threads on this matter that different people have mentioned different elements pertaining to what we intend to cover as a systematic whole in proposing a hypothesis on the matter for further consideration and review. (Many of which your host had previously noted in private conversations with friends and associates in recent months.) But enough on that for now.

More on Cecilia Flynn:
(And Another Recent Passing of Note)

I posted a thread the other day on my great Aunt Cecilia Flynn, God rest her soul. Some stuff I found out about her recently (from her obituary) include that she was a navy captain in WWII, she landed in Normandy and helped set up the first hospital there, and was attached to Patton's Third Army in the sweep across Europe. I never knew any of this because she never talked about it. (She met her husband the late Edward Flynn in a Vancouver VA hospital in 1945 after he was messed up in the European fighting. They were married in 1949, had two kids, and a successful marriage of 55 years up to Uncle Ed's passing in January of 2004.) All of this reminds me of the acid test I always use to distinguish true heroes from false ones.

I always viewed John Kerry as a phony in 2004 and the primary reason was not his flip flopping though that was also one of the reasons. To me the giveaway was the way he dealt with his military service. True veterans that I have known throughout my life do not do that and indeed do not talk about their awards or those subjects unless someone asks them about it. And (when asked) they never speak of it as arrogantly as Kerry did. But enough on that for now.

Please also remember my longtime good friend Tim Tull's cousin who died in an accident about nine days ago. (God rest his soul.) He left three children and a wife, a business that was failing, and because of a preexisting heart condition, no life insurance. (They would not give it to him.) The family is in deep kim chee financially and I hope to get an address where people can send them donations in the coming days should they want to make a genuine difference with contributions. In the meantime, prayers for him and his family would be most appreciated.

Prayer Requests:

Basically, the death toll the past six years amongst family and friends is now up to 24 (the second this year and the fourth since last Thanksgiving). This time though it was an expected death of sorts which while easier to deal with nonetheless still has its problems. Therefore, any prayers for my late great aunt Cecilia Flynn and her family would be most appreciated. She was 94.

Those who recognize the name Flynn from past prayer requests would have excellent recollections indeed as her husband Ed Flynn passed away in January of 2004. I noted that at the time and in the midst of a situation where some insular sorts thought I should have been more focused on their little public pissing matches rather than on the two family deaths (and funerals) I dealt with in that month -one of which I knew was coming early in that month. (Admittedly Ed Flynn's death was surprising not cause of his age but cause of what we were dealing with viz. Uncle Mel at the time.) But lest I digress further on that factor --of which I still have some residual lividness admittedly-- this post will be wrapped up with a note that I will be back to normal blogging hopefully in a day or so.

The sad thing is, this Friday will be my fourteenth seventeenth funeral in six years -I basically have no emotion about this kind of stuff anymore even with an aunt such as Ceil who I quite liked. If nothing else, I have become pretty good at counseling others how to deal with the grief, financial factors viz. estate issues, etc. Maybe though I need to ask for additional prayers for myself that I regain the ability to have emotions about these things.

[Lord, please] remember Cecilia Flynn, whom you have called from this life. In baptism she died with Christ: may she also share in his resurrection. [Roman Missal Eucharistic Prayer 2: From Masses for the Dead]

"Tracking the Ever-Elusive So-Called 'Neo-Con'" Dept.
(A Rerum Novarum Challenge Revisitation/Reiussuance Thread)

[Prefatory Note" What this is essentially is an indirect resumption of a series that has lain defunct since your host dispatched with the logical inconsistencies in the approach to this subject taken by one Dale Vree in March of this year. With the election just around the corner, it seems apropo to reissue this challenge; ergo your host has done that at this time. -ISM]

As it has been a longtime since this series has been added to and as your host is not about to go looking for people to answer this challenge -preferring that people respond to him on the matter instead- it seems appropriate to outline the challenge we issued last year which thus far has not been answered by those of the weltanschauung who froth at the mouth about these so-called "neo-cons." The following revisits that challenge from the archives with only the most minor of tweaking to the original text itself:

Readers of this humble weblog are asked to consider what the Loch Ness Monster, Sasquatch, and the existence of aliens have in common. In all three cases, there are those who are in varying degrees obsessed with proving the existence of those creatures but thus far, there has been no incontrovertible proof brought forward. However, despite that and the way some of those zealots can react when their hobby or (perhaps in some cases, livelihood) is challenged, at the very least they have brought forward some evidences (whatever else you want to say about them) to attempt to substantiate the claims made. The same cannot be said for zealots of another type and with a different agenda...the latter being the subject of this thread posting you are currently reading.

There are after all certain individuals who similarly have a kind of fetish with the term "neo con" and like to use the expression (usually in a derogatory fashion) in application to a lot of different people. This attitude is of course similar to a kind of cultic deadagenting whereby the cult member seeks a pre-emptory assassination attempt of the character of a critic rather than have the common decency to consider the criticisms made on their merits or lack thereof. Your host cannot be the only one who believes that if the zealots who love to throw around the term "neo con" in a blanket and derisive fashion were to meet us all at least as far as the apologists for Nessie, Sasquatch, and space aliens have that the aforementioned people could be taken at least somewhat seriously. However, that has thus far not happened. With that in mind, our intention with this series (and any additions to it) is to assist the aforementioned ideologues in establishing what could be called motives of credibility[...] for their claims.

The readers are reminded before we begin this thread (and potentially add to it over time) that your host has sought to point out the inappropriateness of this kind of labelling on many occasions...the core problem is the same even if there are varying frames of reference if you will. And with the case of certain personages who love to use this term who have thus far shirked in true chickensh*t fashion from taking responsibility for their own past and present statements, it seemed appropriate to your host to issue a very simple challenge to such people to identify the characteristics of what a so-called "neo con" is, what their underlying philosophies are, what are signature issues where they have readily identifiable positions, etc.

This is surely not a difficult thing to do; however, the manner in which the perpetrators have fled like vampires from a crucifix from the aforementioned challenge has been for us very telling to say the least. Certainly we understand why they want to avoid that one so it seemed appropriate to issue the second and much easier challenge: produce evidences to argue for the existence of these so-called "neo cons." We at Rerum Novarum first noted this idea publicly in late October of 2005 in an audioposting[...] and followed it up a bit later with a brief revisiting of the subject with Christopher Blosser. In other words, it has not been for want of trying on the part of some people to challenge these kinds of people to put up or...well...you know the rest.

The aforementioned unsavoury sorts (to put it nicely) have ignored such simple requests for accountability and have continued to prattle on about these so-called "neo cons" including labelling certain parties as such when they have not bothered to explain what their criteria is for doing this. Your host must confess as a result of these circumstances that he has greater faith in the existence of Nessie, Sasquatch, space aliens, etc. than he does for those carping critics actually proving either (i) the existence of their fabled "neo cons" or (ii) that they even have a spine themselves and are not invertebrates. That is all that we can conclude based on what has happened to date which is why it seems appropriate to establish a series where this issue can be dealt with intermittently.

The idea for this series came about unexpectedly when your host found in his email a note from a reader who had responded to the previously noted audiopost challenge and sent in some proposed critieria. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 4, 2005)]

The footnote excised from the text above read as follows:

What is meant by motives of credibility are criteria that themselves contribute to substantiating the potential veracity of what is being asserted. Thus, for those who propagate and widely apply the term "neo con" who do not bother to provide said motives of credibility for their usage and application of that term, there is no reason to presume that they have any credibility on the matter in question. [Ibid.]

It also seems apropo to note the genesis of this challenge as we conceived of it last October; ergo the following transcript from an audiposting at that time will clarify these matters so readers know what we are looking for in issuing this challenge:

Geopolitics is a complex...labrinyth if you will and it is frequently misunderstood, mischaracterized by overly simplistic people....Now, one of your host's intellectual mentors Mike Mentzer used to be fond of saying that definitions are the tools of thought. Now, since definitions are the tools of thought -and we challenge anybody to argue otherwise- then the lack of definitions on the part of those critical of the so-called "neo cons" is basically all we need to know about the quality of their thought. However, your host wants to help these people out. He requests from anyone listening to send to your host...lets see...various points if you will, characteristics, identifying marks of what is a "neo-con." Can someone be a "neo-con" based on one issue??? Or must/is there a panorama of issues if you will that all kinda coalesce and create the/what one might call the "neo-con weltanschauung."...

What constitutes a "neo con"??? Are there certain issues of more weight than others??? Are there certain issues that are dispensible or in other words a "neo-con" may or may not think this??? And are there certain issues that are absolutely indispensible as in "a 'neo-con' definitely thinks this way and anybody who thinks this way has to be a 'neo-con"??? Something, some pointers, a list if you will of identifying marks so that we can at least know who these so-called "neo cons" really are. Your host would be very interested in that so anyone who can help out in that area, drop us a line. [Excerpt from a Rerum Novarum Audio Transcript (circa October 27, 2005)]

That is the essence of the challenge we have advanced and we reiterate it anew at this time to anyone who has frequent recourse to utilizing this term "neo con" or labelling certain people or issues as such indiscriminately. Kindly define your terms. Because until you do, this writer will continue to resolutely deny the existence of these so-called "neo cons" and look on those who kvetch about them as having less credibility than those who claim the existence of Sasquatch, aliens, the Loch Ness Monster, a huge Jewish conspiracy, or whatever. For at least those sorts bring forth evidences we can examine and subject to fundamental rules of logic and reason. And until those who decry these so-called "neo cons" act likewise, they cannot be expected to be taken seriously by anyone with a normal intact functioning brain who respects the importance of logic and reason for analyzing abstract ideas which are set forth as probable descriptions of reality.

Miscellaneous Notes on *The* Election Issue of 2006

[Note: The subject in this audio was originally recorded three times -at 3:55pm on Thursday afternoon, at 4:01pm on Thursday afternoon, and then again on Friday morning at approximately 12:10am. Originally we recorded it twice and intended to keep the better recording (mainly cause we got a phone call when in the middle of the first recording) but when checking the blog, neither one came through in a timely fashion as is the norm with audioblogger. We therefore decided to record it a third time and it also did not come through at the time recorded. However, two of the three recordings made it to the blog and we decided to use the second of the three recordings in the above posting. -ISM]

Points to Ponder:

Since Vietnam, the citizen, thinking that war must fit nicely into a formula that excludes death, disorder, and imperfect execution, commits nothing in return. The old adage that a "plan never survives contact with the enemy" (Von Moltke) has been replaced by the new motto of a spoiled culture: "support never survives contact with the enemy." ["Aslan" (circa December 2005)]

Points to Ponder:
(On Errors in One's Reasoning and Use of Logic)

It does no good to focus on anything but the root and matrix of a person's work. If they have committed errors -and often things are claimed to be "errors" which are nothing more than a writer misrepresenting the work of another person- this needs to be verified by objective criteria. For errors in a work often are the result of faulty methodology -the former is merely a symptom whereas the latter is the cause. [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa September 25, 2006)]

"U Thant Touch This" Dept.

I wanted to note here briefly that the posting from September 9th has been updated in light of two more recent developments. For those who are interested in the whole Sungenis saga, I refer you to that subject here where some of the subsequent developments can be noted. For those who do not find these subjects of interest, consider the other threads posted earlier today and what will follow this one.

Those who do find this subject of interest, I hope they approach it with the regret that such episodes should entail as watching a mental meltdown is not (and should never) be treated as something to be celebrated.{1} It is quite disturbing to see the sorts of illogic and outright contradictions which agenda provocateurs of an apologetics mindset will go through to avoid admitting when they have bitten off more than they can chew. Noted in that update is a public statement by Bob Sungenis which originally looked promising and I hold out the hope that it is genuine though and that what we are seeing is the slow agonizing process of Bob seeking to revise a previously revised worldview. However, now -in light of Jacob Michael's solid logic and reasoning- that public statement is one that can unfortunately be called into question.

Note:

{1} I only use the post title I do as a kind of playful jab at Jacob as it was a rhetorical device used by this writer in the past when the waters between us were a lot colder (metaphorically speaking). In light of the seriousness of what is involved here, a little levity somewhere is in order even if it is (admittedly) somewhat half-baked.

On Another Example of Mainstream Media Lack of Basic Ethics and Other Tidbits:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

In light of what was noted on this humble weblog yesterday viz. basic ethics, it is interesting that the Democrats who leaked part of a recent National Intelligence Estimate report engaged in precisely the same kind of unethical behaviour that we noted in that audioposting. They released out of context snippets of the report in the interest of furthering an agenda.{1} The Bush Administration responded by releasing the full report pointing out that the doctored snippets of the Democrats stop short of certain other points in the piece that they did not want to reveal to the public. This kind of manipulation of the words of a person or source is unfortunately common in some circles and those who act in this fashion --be they self-styled "apologist" sorts or mainstream media sorts-- deserve to be called on it for what they are. Consistency requires this if nothing else does.

Furthermore, it seems that certain media sorts with a short memory are crowing about President Bush saying one thing and pointing to the National Intelligence Estimate report saying the opposite and using this to disparage President Bush. There is tremendous irony in this because these critics of the president have done nothing but take issue with the findings of a previous National Intelligence Estimate report on a continual basis. What makes the present report's findings so sacrosanct??? Obviously, it contains material that can be twisted from context to appear to benefit the Democrat partisans, that is why. Your host frankly is not going to uncritically accept any report of this sort but he does expect those who want to refer to such things to represent them fairly. Let us consider what has not been represented fairly in this report before we deal with the nature of this kind of report itself. First the misrepresentation (via FamilyMatters):

National Intelligence Estimate Concludes Iraq Victory a Victory in Overall War

Read that headline again folks!!! Is that how the Democratic agenda pundits have represented this report in the media in recent days??? Of course not. Moving on...

September 27, 2006

So the declassified NIE is out for the entire world to see. In it, the intelligence community concludes that the Iraq conflict has become a "cause celebre" (perhaps best translated from French into English--in this case--as a rallying cry) for jihadists.

I don't think there is any surprise there.

Of course, the jihadists are going to use any excuse to promote their evil agenda. They've use/used the Israel-Palestinian conflict, U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, Islam's eviction from southern Spain in the Middle Ages, the Crusades and a whole host of other reasons to advance their deadly cause.

But even more striking was the sentence that followed the now celebrated "cause celebre" sentence in the NIE document: "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."

So, basically, the NIE is saying that victory in Iraq would be a victory in the fight against extremism. A pretty important judgment...[Excerpt from National Intelligence Estimate Concludes Iraq Victory a Victory in Overall War by Peter Brookes (circa September 27, 2006)]

Essentially, we at Rerum Novarum are only interested in this report being represented properly which means without disingenuous prooftexting of the text to manufacture "positions" that the report itself does not take.{2} As far as the weight of this report, let us consider that at the present time by referencing a Council on Foreign Relations{3} thread which discusses the nature of this kind of report:

A National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) is the U.S. intelligence community's most authoritative, top-of-the-line written judgment on a specific national security issue. Representatives from keyU.S. intelligence agencies participate in writing an estimate, which is then submitted to the president and other policy-makers. In September 2002, members of Congress requested an NIEassessing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs. The Senate Select Intelligence Committee, in a 511-page report released July 9, found that "most of the major key judgments" in the 2002 Iraq NIE--which were cited by President Bush and other policy-makers in their case for war--"either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting." [Excerpt from the CFR Article INTELLIGENCE: National Intelligence Estimates (circa July 15, 2004)]

Consistency would require that those who would so berate a previous NIE report as these agenda provocateurs have done for four years now{4} be consistent and do not treat the present report as sacrosanct. This means recognizing President Bush as as much of a right to diverge from the findings of the current NIE report as they did with the report in 2002. This writer does not expect that these people will suddenly act honourably on these matters but it is noted here nonetheless for the readers consideration.

Notes:

{1} In this case, seeking to better themselves politically in the upcoming election.

{2} If what [someone is] doing is very obviously tearing snippets out of context in order to create a caricature, then that person needs not be taken seriously. They need to be pointed out and denounced for the unethical person that they are...In another area, how accurately they quote sources in making an argument. Of course there is also the issue of if you are going to attempt to oppose a person, a position or whatever, make actual arguments. Don't engage in argumentation fallacies. Those who...engage in fallacies -even if they spill a bunch of type trying to claim that a square is really a circle...- again, consider what they say in accordance with the objective criteria involved. [Excerpts from a Rerum Novarum Audiopost Transcript (circa September 26, 2006)]

{3} We are aware that in light of our past as conspiracy theoriests (circa the early 1990's) that there is a degree of irony in us citing something from the CFR so please do not bother emailing us with this "observation" as if it is something we are somehow unaware of.

{4} Now is not the time to go into the whole WMD subject again except to note (since certain agenda provocateurs seem to never remember) that this writer never took his position on the war in Iraq in early 2003 -a position as solidly based now as it was then- on the basis of WMD's or their lack thereof.

On Justification Revisited:
(Dialogue With Tim Enloe)

This is a continuation of the thread posted last week though the original email itself was drafted back on August 9th and sent to Tim on August 20th. Once again, Tim's words will be in blue font.

Shawn,

Hi Tim:

Sorry for the delay in responding...been busy with being insulted by my presumed "brother Catholics" and wanted to get another response in the can (one on integrity in general) written for posting tomorrow before I finished this response to you.

Thanks, that's a good start on what I was looking for. I'm sick to death of Reformed caricatures of Catholicism--I no longer even give the time of day to about 80% of what Reformed theologians and apologists say about "Catholic doctrine."

Rev. Pahls is a good one. I gave high marks to his essay "Reversing Babylon" a couple of years ago. From a Reformed standpoint it is excellent and I wish more Reformed theologians approached these matters as he did.

A lot of the trouble appears to be simplistically reading Reformed categories into Catholicism without an ounce of critical thought about where those Reformed categories came from and / or whether they can even adequately grapple with a very different framework.

True. We had a lot of similar problems in the two centuries or so prior to the Second Vatican Council with the attempt by many Catholic prelates to impose one kind of theological method onto everyone. They basically christened their brand of "neo-scholasticism" as THE Scholastic method and acted as if anything that did not conform to that method was to be viewed as suspect.

I have written before (and on more than one occasion) how untraditional and unfaithful to "the methods and principles by which the old scholastic doctors cultivated theology" (cf. Syllabus of Errors Prop. #13) neo-scholasticism actually was. But like the Reformed sorts you refer to, a lot of the neo-scholastic proponents simply acted as if their categories were handed down from Sinai on golden tablets rather than consider that POSSIBLY their method may not be either the only viable one or even the best of the bunch. Fortunately the Catholic Church as a whole (with the exception of [certain integrist sorts]) have moved on from those presumptions. Some have gone to what we would not (in Catholic circles) consider acceptable extremes but that is another subject altogether.

And of course a lot of it is simply bigoted reactionary sloganeering--just repeating what others have been saying rather than doing any serious work for oneself.

That is the mentality of a lot of people. Did you by chance read the blog post I put up [not long ago] on the problems with the apologetics mentality???{1} I aimed it primarily at Catholics (including noting some Catholic apologists who have serious problems in some of their rational and spiritual approaches to non-doctrinal issues) but the core principle involved (if not all the precise applications) transcends any one category of people.

I suppose a big thing I want to clarify is to what extent it is true that some form of "sola fide" is compatible with Catholicism. I have seen that idea stated many times over the last few years by various Catholic sources (can't recall who), and it intrigues me.

I have been one of those who said it. To my knowledge, Dr. Art Sippo and Jimmy Akin have also said it as well.{2} I would trust the latter two to know better than I do as this subject is among their strongest suits unlike with me.{3}

It seems to me like the crux might be on the idea that faith has to be formed by love or it is not real faith.

Correct. The Scholastics utilized an understanding of faith along the pattern set down by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians xiii when he refers to "faith, hope, and charity" and the Catholic Church has traditionally referred to these as the "three theological virtues" because they are the ones which touch most centrally on theological understanding. By that understanding, faith was the cerebral aspect of the puzzle, hope to some extent is the part of the puzzle that combined with faith moves one towards concrete expression of belief and charity is that very concrete aspect of the puzzle. Understood in that light, you can see how Trent would condemn certain expressions of sola fide such as this one:

If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification...let him be anathema. [Trent Session VI: From Canons on Justification (circa 1547)]

Most Reformeds and other Protestants focus on the first part of the sentence when the contextualizing part of it is the part in bolded font. (The second part basically addresses Luther's idea that there is no such thing as free will: I deleted it cause it is not germane to this discussion.)

Given a faith that *is* formed by love, is it possible for a Catholic to be orthodox and say that justification is by "faith alone"?

I would say so, yes if by "faith alone" your understanding of faith included hope and charity.

If so, then it would appear that much of the brouhaha over "sola fide" is a matter of different terminology performing a similar function within different theological frameworks, since no Reformed person would assert that faith can be separated from works and still justify.

Trent's intention was to confirm the traditional understanding of faith within the triad of faith, hope, and charity (cf. 1 Cor. xiii). The manner in which Luther and company appeared to use the term was a novel one by those standards and certainly the writings of the reformers gave every indication of that from what I have been able to discern. However (and this is the key in the modern context), there does not seem to be a consensus of any sort amongst most Protestants today for the notion of faith as abstract and intellectual in the manner Trent condemned in its decrees and canons on justification.

That is why Pope Benedict XVI acting in the late pontiffs name{4} clarified that most of the anathemas from Trent session six did not apply to the Lutherans and other Protestant bodies today.{5} Whatever the exact situation in the sixteenth century was in reality,{6} it was determined through authentic dialogue{7} that different meanings are attached to different terms today.

Hopefully that is of some assistance, let me know if you want anymore on the subject. Nice to hear from you again my friend.

Notes:

{1} That is not the only thread posted at the time but most of the email to Tim was written before this dialogue with Apolonio on the apologetics methodology subject was formatted for the blog and posted.

{2} I asked Art in a private note if I represented him correctly and this was his response (my question in blue font):

[Tim] found the email quite helpful. We have moved onto the subject of whether sola fide can be understood in a Catholic context or not. I have held that it can be as has (I believe) Jimmy Akin and Art. (Would I be representing you correctly in saying that Art???)

Yes. This was St. Thomas' position as well as many of the Fathers. The "saving faith" includes the three elements of fides, fiducia, and fidelius. [Dr. Art Sippo: Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa August 10, 2006)]

{3} Though I am hardly a wallflower on the matter of course.

{4} When he was CDF prefect or chief doctrinal enforcer for Pope John Paul II.

{5} When hammering out the final wrinkles in the Joint Declaration on Justification between the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church which was signed by representatives of both parties on October 31, 1999. (The United Methodists signed onto the consensus in that declaration in July of this year incidentally enough.)

{6} I am hesitant to accept uncritically any one interpretation of the situation as a concrete reality since counterreformation sources have no small shortage of polemics to them on all sides.

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

Miscellaneous Musings on Dialogue--An Audio Post (circa October 6, 2005)

Miscellaneous Musings on Basic Ethics Both Public and Private

Yesterday was the anniversary of one of the greatest heavyweight title fights in boxing history. As I did not have time to go into it then (and do not currently either), it seems appropriate to dig up a few threads from the archives where this fight was discussed in past years. Without further ado, here they are:

Miscellaneous Notes on Notable Anniversaries (circa September 23, 2004)

Musings on the Fight Game (circa December 27, 2004)

May the souls of those great fighters rest in peace.

Miscellaneous Musings on Rights (Real or Perceived), the Problems a Lot of Non-Theistic Evolutionist Proponents Have With Logical Consistency in Claiming Certain "Rights", Briefly on Bastiat's "Three Fundamental Rights" Theory, Etc.

Notes on Some Upcoming Projects:

As time is short, some quick jottings on a few of the many items on the back burner to be worked on in the next blogging month...

---There is in the works a new installment of the "tracking the elusive so-called 'neo-con'" series -the last of which was blogged in March of this year.

---A revisiting of the theory of the three fundamental rights of man prior to this election updated to account for current circumstances. The latter theory is one that though few discuss it nonetheless does not get enough play even on this weblog where we have written about seventy-odd threads on it in the past three plus years. (Most of which were written between June of 2003 and March of 2005.){1}

---Another "miscellaneous threads" installment is due soon -indeed we started work on it recently.

---Some poetry from the Rerum Novarum Poet Lauriete{2} will be blogged in the next blogging month along with possibly a few haikus from yours truly{3} thrown into the mix.

---Some additional installments in the "points to ponder" series which have been in draft form or which have been intended to be blogged for some time. (More stuff from Herbert Butterfield, possibly Allan Bloom, Sun Tzu, and Mike Mentzer too.)

---The reinstituting of a series started in early 2005 but mothballed not long after it was started for various reasons too numerous to go into here. It is to be hoped that at least one installment in this series can be blogged in the coming blogging month which will end on your host's birthday next month.{4}

Offhand those are the ones that immediately come to mind though I will be recording some audioposts on various subjects too -basically whatever is on my mind when I decide to record the clips which means it could be on virtually any subject that this renaissance man{5} wants to discuss at that time.


Notes:

{1} If there is one thing your host is most pleased with it is not only presenting this century old plus theory to the readers over the years but also (i) developing it further in light of contemporary realities for easier application to actual situations and events and (ii) applying it to various circumstances and events to show a consistent approach is possible in dealing with the problems in society today. But I digress.

{2} Who is most assuredly not your humble servant at Rerum Novarum for whom the gift of longform poetry was not a God-given gift.

{3} We have written probably two hundred or more haikus in our lifetime -most of which have been lost and some of which were written on bar coasters when significantly buzzed.

{4} October 21st.

{5} For those constitutionally incapable of avoiding a fundamentalist hermeneutic to everything they read, this is a tongue in cheek quip which is equal parts true and equal parts intended at self-deprecation.

On Justification and Catholic Understandings Thereof:
(With Tim Enloe)

Tim's words will be in blue font and any sources I cite in darkblue.

Shawn,

Hi Tim:

Do you have anything you could recommend I read to get a better handle on why Catholicism doesn't teach "salvation by works" in the way that Protestants mean that phrase? Years ago in one of our exchanges you cited Augustine saying that when God crowns our merits He is really only crowning His own works in us. I'd like to follow up on that, as part of my ongoing effort to divest myself of Reformed caricatures of Catholicism. I'd appreciate any suggestions you might have. Thanks,


The best explanation I can give offhand is that Catholics approach a lot of things incarnationally. The notion of sacraments as channels of God's grace (to note one such example) is a logical extension of this principle. We see love of God and love of neighbour as being interconnected in such a way that one cannot exist without the other. However, we also recognize that justification is impossible without grace. The problem with trying to use a synthesis of my own to explain this is that I am liable to overemphasize one or more aspect of the puzzle to the detriment to other parts.

For that reason, I would consider the formulation from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and also Pope Benedict XVI's words in his first encyclical as the best sources to direct you towards at this time -starting with the CCC's section on "merit" (underlined and bolded emphasis in spots is mine):

III. MERIT

You are glorified in the assembly of your Holy Ones, for in crowning their merits you are crowning your own gifts.59

2006 The term "merit" refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment. Merit is relative to the virtue of justice, in conformity with the principle of equality which governs it.

2007 With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.

2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace . The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God's gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us "co-heirs" with Christ and worthy of obtaining "the promised inheritance of eternal life." 60 The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness.61 "Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due. . . . Our merits are God's gifts."62

2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.

2011 The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace.

After earth's exile, I hope to go and enjoy you in the fatherland, but I do not want to lay up merits for heaven. I want to work for your love alone. . . . In the evening of this life, I shall appear before you with empty hands, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works. All our justice is blemished in your eyes. I wish, then, to be clothed in your own justice and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself.63

IN BRIEF

2017 The grace of the Holy Spirit confers upon us the righteousness of God. Uniting us by faith and Baptism to the Passion and Resurrection of Christ, the Spirit makes us sharers in his life.

2018 Like conversion, justification has two aspects. Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, and so accepts forgiveness and righteousness from on high.

2019 Justification includes the remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man.

2020 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us through Baptism. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who justifies us. It has for its goal the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life. It is the most excellent work of God's mercy.

2021 Grace is the help God gives us to respond to our vocation of becoming his adopted sons. It introduces us into the intimacy of the Trinitarian life.

2022 The divine initiative in the work of grace precedes, prepares, and elicits the free response of man. Grace responds to the deepest yearnings of human freedom, calls freedom to cooperate with it, and perfects freedom.

2023 Sanctifying grace is the gratuitous gift of his life that God makes to us; it is infused by the Holy Spirit into the soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it.

2024 Sanctifying grace makes us "pleasing to God." Charisms, special graces of the Holy Spirit, are oriented to sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church. God also acts through many actual graces, to be distinguished from habitual grace which is permanent in us.

2025 We can have merit in God's sight only because of God's free plan to associate man with the work of his grace. Merit is to be ascribed in the first place to the grace of God, and secondly to man's collaboration. Man's merit is due to God.

2026 The grace of the Holy Spirit can confer true merit on us, by virtue of our adoptive filiation, and in accordance with God's gratuitous justice. Charity is the principal source of merit in us before God.

2027 No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.

...

34 Rom 3:22; cf. 6:3-4.
35 Rom 6:8-11.
36 Cf. 1 Cor 12; Jn 15:1-4.
37 St. Athanasius, Ep. Serap. 1,24:PG 26,585 and 588.
38 Mt 4:17.
39 Council of Trent (1547): DS 1528.
40 Cf. Council of Trent (1547): DS 1529.
41 Rom 3:21-26.
42 Council of Trent (1547): DS 1525.
43 St. Augustine, In Jo. ev. 72,3:PL 35,1823.
44 Cf. Rom 7:22; Eph 3:16.
45 Rom 6:19,22.
46 Cf. Jn 1:12-18; 17:3; Rom 8:14-17; 2 Pet 1:3-4.
47 Cf. 1 Cor 2:7-9.
48 Cf. Jn 4:14; 7:38-39.
49 2 Cor 5:17-18.
50 St. Augustine, De gratia et libero arbitrio , 17:PL 44,901.
51 St. Augustine, De natura et gratia, 31:PL 44,264.
52 St. Augustine, Conf. 13,36 51:PL 32,868; cf. Gen 1:31.
53 Cf. LG 12.
54 Cf. 1 Cor 12.
55 Rom 12:6-8.
56 Cf. Council of Trent (1547): DS 1533-1534.
57 Mt 7:20.
58 Acts of the trial of St. Joan of Arc.
59 Roman Missal, Prefatio I de sanctis; Qui in Sanctorum concilio celebraris, et eorum coronando merita tua dona coronas , citing the "Doctor of grace," St. Augustine, En. in Ps. 102,7:PL 37,1321-1322.
60 Council of Trent (1547): DS 1546.
61 Cf. Council of Trent (1547): DS 1548.
62 St. Augustine, Sermo 298,4-5:PL 38,1367. 53
63 St. Thérèse of Lisieux, "Act of Offering" in Story of a Soul, tr. John Clarke (Washington DC: ICS, 1981), 277. [Catechism of the Catholic Church: Section on Merit (c. 1994)]

The manner in which these are synthesized in a practical manner was explained in Pope Benedict's first encyclical from January of 2006 (again, all emphasis is mine):

Love of neighbour is...possible in the way proclaimed by the Bible, by Jesus. It consists in the very fact that, in God and with God, I love even the person whom I do not like or even know. This can only take place on the basis of an intimate encounter with God, an encounter which has become a communion of will, even affecting my feelings. Then I learn to look on this other person not simply with my eyes and my feelings, but from the perspective of Jesus Christ. His friend is my friend. Going beyond exterior appearances, I perceive in others an interior desire for a sign of love, of concern. This I can offer them not only through the organizations intended for such purposes, accepting it perhaps as a political necessity. Seeing with the eyes of Christ, I can give to others much more than their outward necessities; I can give them the look of love which they crave. Here we see the necessary interplay between love of God and love of neighbour which the First Letter of John speaks of with such insistence. If I have no contact whatsoever with God in my life, then I cannot see in the other anything more than the other, and I am incapable of seeing in him the image of God. But if in my life I fail completely to heed others, solely out of a desire to be "devout" and to perform my "religious duties", then my relationship with God will also grow arid. It becomes merely "proper", but loveless. Only my readiness to encounter my neighbour and to show him love makes me sensitive to God as well. Only if I serve my neighbour can my eyes be opened to what God does for me and how much he loves me. The saints—consider the example of Blessed Teresa of Calcutta—constantly renewed their capacity for love of neighbour from their encounter with the Eucharistic Lord, and conversely this encounter acquired its real- ism and depth in their service to others. Love of God and love of neighbour are thus inseparable, they form a single commandment. But both live from the love of God who has loved us first. No longer is it a question, then, of a "commandment" imposed from without and calling for the impossible, but rather of a freely-bestowed experience of love from within, a love which by its very nature must then be shared with others. Love grows through love. Love is "divine" because it comes from God and unites us to God; through this unifying process it makes us a "we" which transcends our divisions and makes us one, until in the end God is "all in all" ( 1 Cor 15:28). [Pope Benedict XVI: Deus Caritas Est section 18]

As there is a lot there, I will try to summarize it all in brief:

---without grace we are incapable of performing anything of merit

---love of God and love of neighbour cannot be separated

---authentic love of neighbour cannot exist in the abstract but must somehow be manifested in reality

---works of charity are necessary to manifest love of neighbour and thus love of God

---works performed in and of themselves are of no avail therefore, only works performed "in God" (or "works of charity") can be efficacious

---as works of charity are performed "in God" and are impossible without God's gratuitous bestowal of grace upon us in advance, we rely on salvation from God's grace without which it is impossible

---grace by its very nature cannot be earned but instead is given

---salvation therefore is by grace alone -a good shorthand formula of sorts would read "salvation by grace alone, through Christ alone, by faith working in love" (cf. Bob Klaus).

Let me know if what is noted above suffices or if you want more. There are a lot of interconnected threads in this puzzle and I hope this treatment adequately represents them all.

"Excerpts from Classic Literature" Dept.

A new series was conceived of last week whereby we will post from time to time excerpts from classic literature. The sources will vary and will depend to some extent on our moods but certainly any readers who have something in mind in this area, we will take requests as part of the ongoing attempt by your humble servant at Rerum Novarum to cultivate the intellectual plate of our readers. The inaugural except will be from Miguel de Cervantes' classic Don Quixote de la Mancha and is the picture your host has of certain kinds of pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists of varying stripes and how they see the world around them. Without further ado, let us get to it...

"Fortune is arranging matters for us better than we could have shaped our desires ourselves, for look there, friend Sancho Panza, where thirty or more monstrous giants present themselves, all of whom I mean to engage in battle and slay, and with whose spoils we shall begin to make our fortunes; for this is righteous warfare, and it is God's good service to sweep so evil a breed from off the face of the earth."

"What giants?" said Sancho Panza.

"Those thou seest there," answered his master, "with the long arms, and some have them nearly two leagues long."

"Look, your worship," said Sancho; "what we see there are not giants but windmills, and what seem to be their arms are the sails that turned by the wind make the millstone go."

"It is easy to see," replied Don Quixote, "that thou art not used to this business of adventures; those are giants; and if thou art afraid, away with thee out of this and betake thyself to prayer while I engage them in fierce and unequal combat."

So saying, he gave the spur to his steed Rocinante, heedless of the cries his squire Sancho sent after him, warning him that most certainly they were windmills and not giants he was going to attack. He, however, was so positive they were giants that he neither heard the cries of Sancho, nor perceived, near as he was, what they were, but made at them shouting, "Fly not, cowards and vile beings, for a single knight attacks you."

A slight breeze at this moment sprang up, and the great sails began to move, seeing which Don Quixote exclaimed, "Though ye flourish more arms than the giant Briareus, ye have to reckon with me."

So saying, and commending himself with all his heart to his lady Dulcinea, imploring her to support him in such a peril, with lance in rest and covered by his buckler, he charged at Rocinante's fullest gallop and fell upon the first mill that stood in front of him; but as he drove his lance-point into the sail the wind whirled it round with such force that it shivered the lance to pieces, sweeping with it horse and rider, who went rolling over on the plain, in a sorry condition. Sancho hastened to his assistance as fast as his ass could go, and when he came up found him unable to move, with such a shock had Rocinante fallen with him.

"God bless me!" said Sancho, "did I not tell your worship to mind what you were about, for they were only windmills? and no one could have made any mistake about it but one who had something of the same kind in his head."

"Hush, friend Sancho," replied Don Quixote, "the fortunes of war more than any other are liable to frequent fluctuations; and moreover I think, and it is the truth, that that same sage Friston who carried off my study and books, has turned these giants into mills in order to rob me of the glory of vanquishing them, such is the enmity he bears me; but in the end his wicked arts will avail but little against my good sword."

"God order it as he may," said Sancho Panza, and helping him to rise got him up again on Rocinante, whose shoulder was half out; and then, discussing the late adventure, they followed the road to Puerto Lapice, for there, said Don Quixote, they could not fail to find adventures in abundance and variety, as it was a great thoroughfare. For all that, he was much grieved at the loss of his lance, and saying so to his squire, he added, "I remember having read how a Spanish knight, Diego Perez de Vargas by name, having broken his sword in battle, tore from an oak a ponderous bough or branch, and with it did such things that day, and pounded so many Moors, that he got the surname of Machuca, and he and his descendants from that day forth were called Vargas y Machuca. I mention this because from the first oak I see I mean to rend such another branch, large and stout like that, with which I am determined and resolved to do such deeds that thou mayest deem thyself very fortunate in being found worthy to come and see them, and be an eyewitness of things that will with difficulty be believed."

"Be that as God will," said Sancho, "I believe it all as your worship says it; but straighten yourself a little, for you seem all on one side, may be from the shaking of the fall."

"That is the truth," said Don Quixote, "and if I make no complaint of the pain it is because knights-errant are not permitted to complain of any wound, even though their bowels be coming out through it."

"If so," said Sancho, "I have nothing to say; but God knows I would rather your worship complained when anything ailed you. For my part, I confess I must complain however small the ache may be; unless this rule about not complaining extends to the squires of knights-errant also."

Don Quixote could not help laughing at his squire's simplicity, and he assured him he might complain whenever and however he chose, just as he liked, for, so far, he had never read of anything to the contrary in the order of knighthood.