"Do Not Count Your Chickens" Dept.
(On the Incoming Senate Democratic Majority)

Readers of this humble weblog are aware that your host recently blogged a response to an emailer who was pessimistic about the majorities in the incoming congress. Among our response to them included these words:

As far as what the new situation is with the incoming Democrat congressional majorities, I am not that pessimistic actually. One vacancy in the Senate on the Democratic side -by death, scandal, or whatever- means the president gets to pick the replacement to serve out the term. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 7, 2006)]

I am unaware of anyone else who made this argument about the Senate{1} but we did so here at Rerum Novarum and at the moment, this observation may have been more prescient than we presumed when it was written. From the AP circa twenty minutes ago:

Sen. Johnson suffers possible stroke

Here is the pertinent part of the article:

WASHINGTON - Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson (news, bio, voting record) of South Dakota suffered a possible stroke Wednesday and was taken to a Washington hospital, his office said. If he should be unable to continue to serve, it could halt the scheduled Democratic takeover of the Senate.

Democrats won a 51-49 majority in the November election. South Dakota's governor, who would appoint any temporary replacement, is a Republican.

For some reason, I was under the assumption that it was the president who filled the congressional vacancy in such situations as I noted. Nonetheless, the substance of my observation remains intact and goes to point out why things are rarely as set in stone politically as many would presume. Senator Johnson being last elected in 2002 would be set to run for election again in 2008 so if I am not mistaken, the appointment to fill his seat would serve out the last two years of the term. Let me be the first to wish Sen. Johnson a solid long-term recovery. However, I cannot say that if in the short term he cannot continue to serve and his state's governor appointed a Republican to take his seat that I would be too disappointed.

On "Implicit Faith":
(From the Mailbag)

The emailers words will be in shale coloured font.

Hey Shawn,

I've been reading your blog for some time. I noticed that you're knowledgable in the Catholic faith.

I have some areas I know a lot about and other areas I do not know not as much about. Unlike most of those who consider themselves "apologists"{1}, I have the decency to let people know this in reality and not just in the abstract.{2} I suppose that is one of the benefits of not trying to make $$$ off of that endeavour XX{3}: being able to focus on what I do have knowledge in and at best{4} making a tentative statement on areas where I am not as well-informed. But enough on that and onto the contents of your emailing...

I have a question for you; Could you let me know what exactly does 'implicit faith' and 'explicit faith' mean in Catholic theology?

Explicit faith would by its very title have to involve some kind of visible manifestation of one's faith in whatever (or whomever) the faith is in. Such manifestation could involve (i) verbal or pictoral displays that make it clear what one has faith in (ii) syllogistic arguments in support of what one has faith in, etc. Implicit would mean either the faith is absent a corporeal point of reference or perhaps has said points of reference but they are not direct ones. Put another way, if one looked at a variety of factors in what a person said and what they did not say, one could conclude at least in outline where they probably were in their views.

For example, someone who makes no references to God but acted in a fashion that underscored a belief in certain immutable truths could be said to have "implicit faith." To the extent that they make no conscious movement in the converse direction or otherwise contradict their conscience, they can be said to be on the right track.

I know that Catholics don't draw the distinction between essential and non-essential doctrines, although there is a certian hierarchy of truths.

Yes, the hierarchy of truths refers to how they pertain to one another. It is a lot like dialogual approaches{5} when one views it as consisting of a series of concentric circles{6} with each circle being a more precise or direct understanding. Doctrines are like that in that some are more important than others -the Christological ones are obviously of paramount importance hierarchially speaking.

My impression is that the Catholic church teaches that the entire desposit of faith is essential in some sense. I am just not sure what this means in practise.

In practice it means one needs to have faith in all that has been revealed by God.

Are Catholics supposed to have implicit faith in all the doctrines that the church has proposed for belief throughout the centuries, even if they lack any understanding of the content of all these proposed doctrines?

Yes.

Is that what is meant by implicit faith in the church?

Yes. It also embraces the intuition that one will accept what is recognized later on as revealed of God and by their actions would conform themselves to it once they recognize it. (This is a tricky area also because the kind of recognition I am talking about is integral to the person.) Not all that is in what is called the "deposit of faith" is known at once because there is simply too much there. Some can be known directly whereas others take time to understand because they are not ascertained except by a more indirect path -building on information already possessed in the manner of any advancement of knowledge in the natural sciences.

Also, do you know of any internet resources which could help me to understand the distinction between implicit and explicit faith?

There are few that I put much stock in anymore for this kind of stuff. Part of the reason for this is we are taking about concepts that requires a lot more intellectual exercise than the lions share of "apologists" have any interest in doing -most of whom would not be able to adequately handle it anyway due to their own intellectual dependence.{7} But I will see if I can dig up some more material on it for you in the coming weeks as time allows for it. One that may be of assistance is this letter from the Vatican's doctrinal office issued in 1949. The passage particularly relevant to your question would be this one:

[W]hen a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

The concept of "invincible ignorance" is generally understood as a lack of knowledge that cannot be removed by what would reasonably be considered due diligence. This could vary from person to person due in no small part to the variety of foundational presuppositions{8} from which people operate. Hopefully this summarizes the concepts adequately and (in what is for me) a reasonably economical way.

Notes:

{1} I am a person who writes on a variety of subjects which are of interest to me at a given point in time who happens to be Catholic, not a Catholic apologist...I make this clarification because I have no small degree of annoyance at the garbage that so often passes for "Catholic apologetics"[...] and as a result I do not want to be affiliated with them in the slightest -at least not directly.[...] But enough on that for now. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa November 14, 2006)]

{2} I say "in the abstract" because all of them will admit that they are "not infallible" when it does not petain to a particular issue. However, in practice they defend with dogmatic insistence their views even on issues where they would be wise to refrain from discussing with the same tenor as they do issues where they may be able ot speak with relative certainty on.

{3} Those who wonder why your host has as a rule[...] not referred to individuals in his writings over the years and why that practice will remain intact in the future will now know the reason for that. In a sentence: to mention names generally distracts from the issues of discussion and introduces personalities into the mix. Once the latter happens, it is very difficult if not impossible to have an authentic dialogue if one of those parties is a grandstander or otherwise tries to draw attention to themselves.

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

{4} I am also far more willing to direct people to those who know certain issues better because I am not in a position of having a financial stake in the process (and therefore try to "sell them" in a matter of speaking).

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

The above thread was quoted in footnote one.

{6} In the understanding of relation to the Church in the form of concentric circles, the widest circle involves mankind in general and the Church seeks to promote that which is most authentically human. The summary of [Ecclesiam Suam] §97-98 is in the statement that without any temporal or political motive that Our sole purpose is to take what is good in man's life on earth and raise it to a supernatural and Christian level. Contingent on the latter is the moral values that the Church proposes which are of value to all people and are rooted in their consciences (cf. Rom. ii,11ff). [I. Shawn McElhinney: Excerpt from On the Intricacies of Dialogue - A Commentary (circa December 16, 2003)]

{7} Catholic apologists are oftentimes intellectually dependent. I say this because they demonstrate a serious lacuna in their ability to utilize the thinking mechanism. Their intellectual dependence is on what the Catholic Church's magisterium[...] says on issues. Where this authority speaks with a clear voice, they can wade their way into issues of discussion with a degree of comfort. However, where this authority does not speak[...], they are at a loss of what to do. This is where they flail around like a drowning man seeking to find anything they can remotely ascribe to a magisterial statement on the issue in question as their way of coping with a lack of such guidance which they so evidently need.

For it is easy to argue a position where there are definite guidelines of sorts and Catholic doctrine does provide certain principles which are able to be grasped. The problem is the areas where there is not the same authoritative guidance. Finding themselves unable to argue a position on the grounds of what is reasonable and what is logical[...], they seek to manufacture an intervention by magisterial authority in the hopes of avoiding accountability for the grey matter between their ears. This approach is (of course) not a properly Catholic one and any hope of convincing non-Catholics that their position is the correct one evaporates like dew on a hot summer morning. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 5, 2006)]

{8} I have not discussed in detail what I mean by the term foundational presuppositions but from the context in which I use the term, its general meaning should be evident. Nonetheless, I did find this thread in my archives from earlier this year where I explained the term by virtue of what a change in said foundational presuppositions would inexorably involve. To wit:

[O]ne has to consider from time to time not only if the arguments they use to advance their position are good ones or not but even if their position itself is actually correct. As all of this probably sounds more complicated than it actually is, I will use the analogy of stocks and options to explain it in brief.

Those who are familiar with how stocks and options have a symbiotic relationship know that one of the reasons many investors like options[...] is because a small movement in the stock results in a magnified movement in the underlying option. This is the potential power inherent in dealing with foundational presuppositions of an individual: small shifts there can result in magnified movements in the individual's weltanschauung though sometimes it takes a bit of time for working out the ramifications of such shifts. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 28, 2006)]

On Men and Woman, the Latter Having Any Positions of Authority in Society, Etc.
(Dialogue With Some Friends)

Should one of my friends not object to being named in this posting, I will reveal their identity. Their words will be in darkgreen font while the words of others will be in blue font.

Why do you think it is that men are overwhelming more drawn to apologetics than women?

Because men are more logical and rational than women.

As a rule this is true.

Women based decisions primarily on emotion ...which is why it is absolutely insane that we allow them to vote and have other positions of authority in our society.

Frankly XXXX, there are a lot of men who base their decisions this way too. I favour not gender exclusion from voting but some kind of test that shows that the person taking it can reason properly and not fall into solipsistic fallacies. I can think of not a few men who would fail that test along with most women. Some of them are even apologists -though I do not have you in mind with that criticism amigo :)

Any honest historian can see that society was more stable and healthy before we allowed such things.

Society was more stable when concern was more for the common good than for individual wants wherever the two conflicted. As it is, the rise of women voting happens to coincide with a societal shift in this area of no small problem...a subject for another time perhaps. But your assertion is far too simplistic and does not seem to account for a variety of factors which were involved in what happened.

Women were also much more happy and well-adjusted, because they knew precisely what was expected of them and were able to achieve their own excellence in society, which means that they were able to be a powerful civilizing influence as mothers and wives, etc. Women need conformity, and they seek conformity (e.g. "Oprah says it, so it must be true" or "one girl screams for some pop star, and all the others scream too")..

People in general are that way XXXX. One of the reasons the Founders were concerned about giving any branch of the government over to election by the populace is because of the problem with public opinion. Even Alexander Hamilton (the founder whose outlook most approximates my own incidentally) while he favoured the populace electing the House of Representatives, did not favour such things for the Senate. His rationale was as follows:

The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct permanent share in the government... Can a democratic assembly who annually revolve in the mass of the people be supposed steadily to pursue the public good?

They are rarely (if ever) able to "think outside the box."

Again, that describes people in general.

Every advancement in human learning, technology, or art was made, not by a woman, but by a man.

That is a bit of a stretch XXXX.

This cannot be denied.

I just did and yes it can.

Did you ever hear the old saying that "little girls mature faster than boys." This is not actually true.

Really???

It's not that girls "mature" faster. Rather, girls CONFORM faster --that is, they look around at how things ARE (the status quo in a family, etc.) and adapt to it (and this, to a parent, is often interpreted as "maturity").

I know not a few non-conformist women XXXX. While this may be the case as a rule, there are certainly exceptions to it which could be noted.

Boys, on the other hand, retain an individualistic mentality, and this is what allows men to come up with new things and advance society.

Again, there are women inventors too. Not as many as men but I already disproved your universal negative so no more needs to be said about it.

It's also what allows us to think logically and rationally, whereas women are predominately the victims of their need to conform and to "nest" (that is, to maintain the status quo as they know it).

Again, this is a bit too simplistic XXXX.

This is why you will never win an apologetics argument with an Evangelical woman. She is not an Evangelical because of any rational decisions to be an Evangelical (although she will try to use supposedly rational arguments ["from the Bible"] to try and convert you. ;-)). Rather, she is an Evangelical because that's what her surroundings tell her she must be (her peers and/or family) and also because she is fed EMOTIONALLY by Evangelicalism, which is her only standard for truth.

It depends on how you define "winning." I "won" every apologetics argument I had with an Evangelical ex-ladyfriend. Lost the war in the process though -an important education that was for me but I digress. She was highly intelligent but had a foundational presupposition towards evangelicalism because that was how she was raised. This is hardly unique to women though as most people accept uncritically the religion their parents bring them up in, their family or locale's political beliefs, etc. And though (admittedly) there are more women than men who are intellectually dependent; nonetheless, this situation is not unique to one sex or the other.

You can rationally prove the Catholic interpretation of Scripture beyond any shadow of a doubt to her. But, it will have no effect. She will just ignore you and continue to spout the same nonsense.

I am having de ja vu in reading this.

And why? Because, in her mind, emotion is a greater gage of truth than local and/or reason.

Most people are that way unfortunately.

Now, please understand, there are illogical and overly-emotional men as well ...religion is 80% emotion and 20% reason anyway.

Agreed. That is why I have had greater difficulty with apologetics over the years: for all the pretenses towards being "intellectual" far too many of its practicioners are anything but that at all.

But, when it comes to women, hardly any (and I would even dare say: none at all) are converted to truth based on (reasonable) apologetics arguments.

Most apologetics arguments are too simplistic and hardly as "reasonable" as you presume XXXX.

Rather, just like in dating, they must be "wooed" to believe by appealing to their emotions.

That is generally the case with men too: if you get down to the nitty gritty, virtually no one changes their view on the basis of rational argumentation. Whatever of the latter is involved, it is always dwarfed by more personal or emotional elements. That is in some respects unfortunate but it is reality.

This is why so many women convert to Catholicism because they are exposed to our Marian devotions and similar things.

In most cases this is probably true.

And while there are female intellectual types (like Patty Bonds, etc.) who also honestly explore the reasonable arguments for Catholicism and are convinced by them, this is only to supplement and intuitive (read: emotion-based) sense that Catholicism is correct. They are not converted (as a man often is) because of the reasonable apologetics arguments themselves. This is an important distinction.

Rather than the complete dichotomy you postulate, it would be more accurate to state the above paragraph this way:

And while there are female intellectual types (like Patty Bonds, etc.) who also honestly explore the reasonable arguments for Catholicism and are convinced by them, this is quite often to supplement an intuitive (read: emotion-based) sense that Catholicism is correct. They are generally not converted (at least as often as a man can be) because of the reasonableness that apologetics arguments themselves can have. This is an important distinction.

Again, a little nuance goes a long way.

And, please understand .... Everyone is converted by the grace of God; and only the grace of God. Sometimes this grace appeals to the intellect, and sometimes it appeals to the emotions.

Agreed.

So, converting to truth because of an emotional conviction is not a bad thing. I'm not saying that it is. All I'm saying is that women are predominately converted (by God's grace) because of emotional factors, whereas men are far more open to reasonable, intellectual arguments, which is why they have a far-greater affinity for apologetics.

This is a much better explanation than the more simplistic "black and white" approach you tried earlier XXXX.

Apologetics is a "man's game" because it is based on reason. There is very little emotional content to it, and so women don't typically find it attractive because of that.

Well, there are more than enough problems which could be noted about the activity of apologetics XXXX: far more than I could possibly cover in a brief posting such as this. But that is all I will say on it at this time.

Points to Ponder:
(On Envy of Others and Insecurity)

[D]o you know the hallmark of the second-rater? It's resentment of another man's achievement. Those touchy mediocrities who sit trembling lest someone's work prove greater than their own - they have no inkling of the loneliness that comes when you reach the top. The loneliness for an equal - for a mind to respect and an achievement to admire. They bare their teeth at you from out of their rat holes, thinking that you take pleasure in letting your brilliance dim them - while you'd give a year of your life to see a flicker of talent anywhere among them. They envy achievement, and their dream of greatness is a world where all men have become their acknowledged inferiors. They don't know that that dream is the infallible proof of mediocrity, because that sort of world is what the man of achievement would not be able to bear. [Ayn Rand (circa 1957)]

To revisit a remembrance thread from last year:

Remembering Chris

While substantially reiterating everything I said in that thread, a few things come to mind which I have thought about at times since the posting of that thread. I want to note them in a brief paragraph before I forget to mention them so here goes...

I know Chris that you are absent this world now but it is my hope that you are in a place where there is no pain, only wonderous things beyond what we can imagine. Your sister told me in tears after reading a version of the material at the above thread that you had expressed some regrets in your last days: regrets about slights committed against others. Yes, there were some slights you committed against me, I need not tell you because you know what they are. But I assure you my friend, that stuff was minutiae in the grand scheme of things, that is all it was. Know that while I may not have said it explicitly, you were forgiven long ago. I consider myself far more culpable for my negligences towards you in recent years than anything I could recall from the less-than-stellar parts of our relationship: I held no grudge or ill-will, I simply did not do my full duty towards you. You will always be close to my heart my friend: always. May God rest your soul until (hopefully) we meet again in a much better place.

"See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil" Dept.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

As things move quickly through the grapevine of the blogosphere, it was not long before a reader made me aware of a response of sorts from Dave Armstrong to the December 7, 2006 weblog thread on the hypocritical double standards of the apologetics oligarchy and also a Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG thread from November 27, 2006 where I defined explicitly the term apologetics oligarchy.

The decision to define the latter term occurred after I had drafted a post response to Jimmy Akin where I used the term. It made sense therefore to define the term so I could link to the definition throughout the aforementioned post response to Jimmy; ergo, that is what I did. So Dave seems interested in the term apologetics oligarchy and also the post from 12/7 of an email originally sent on November 14, 2006.{1} Dave as is his wont posted on those threads with a misleading title and premise:

Reports of the Death of Catholic Apologetics Greatly Exaggerated: Momentous Anti-Apologetics Manifesto Launched

All is not bad I suppose since (at the very least) he spared us all yet another attempt to disingenuously cut and paste bits from what I wrote to try and erect another cohort of strawmen for his rhetorical cornfield.{2} Nonetheless, the title he used with the pictures is quite misleading. For one thing, he tries to bring into the picture Dr. Scott Hahn, Steve Ray, and Pat Madrid as if they are necessarily being viewed by me in the same light as I do Karl Keating, Jimmy Akin, Mark Shea, and himself. Secondly, Dave obviously is interested in playing this up in his predictable way{3} as an excuse to ignore my arguments as he has been doing for the better part of sixteen months now (on and off) since he came up looking quite bad on a subject matter I do not want to go into again at this time.{4} The title of the post basically sums his view up in a nutshell: if you are in any way whatsoever critical of any aspect of Catholic apologetics, then you are an "anti-apologist."{5} How else can it possibly be interpreted than that???

You read that correctly folks: there is no such thing as criticism allowed. PERIOD. Instead, you are to just close your eyes and pretend all is well. Oh and do not forget to tip your biretta, bow three times and uncritically incense what Dave and the others say. Oh and send your $$$ to the addresses they indicate while you are at it. But by all means, shut your yappers. Pay attention instead to the smoke and mirrors before you and do not inquire what is actually behind the curtain. Shut up, pay, pray, and obey essentially. And do not ask yourselves why you should do this either.

The same goes for standards too folks: there is one standard for them and one standard for others. Do not question it or else you will be labeled as a "hater of apologetics" because that is what it must be. So if you see them acting in the same way as those non-Catholic apologists they like to publicly screech about, do not even think of calling them on it in the interest of respect for non-contradiction. For if you do, you are an anti-apologist. Be afraid folks...be VERY afraid!!!

If anything, their whole way of responding to criticism conforms so precisely to my definition of what an apologetics oligarch is that no more needs to be said on it. These problematical sorts would rather protect one another and excuse their excesses while hypocritically chastising non-Catholic apologists for acting in the same way against them. I remind you all of the challenge advanced in my critical thread which was posted before the email itself:

[W]hile I am sure this will piss off some parties, frankly I do not give a damn. Furthermore, I challenge anyone who disputes my viewing of this matter to present a viable hypothesis of their own to explain the obvious double standards involved here otherwise their kvetching will be without merit to me. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 7, 2006)]

Dave and the others if they have any semblance of basic ethics should interact with my arguments on their merits. Of course I am perhaps a bit naively optimistic that these sorts have the cajones to actually do this but I generally like to think better of people than they often deserve. Dave even has a kind of "poll" at his site so people can "vote" on what I say. As if the veracity of someone's arguments are based on popular voting instead of properly being assessed by objective criteria which means using the tools of reason and logic, not emotional impulses. But to go over that with the detail it deserves would take more time than I want to devote to this posting so it will have to be put aside for another time perhaps.

The bottom line though is this: any attempts to oppose what I wrote with anything that does not deal with my arguments on their merits or lack thereof will reveal these people as grandstanding demagogues interested not in truth but instead in how they can protect their own backsides from legitimate scrutiny. And no matter how Dave, Jimmy, Mark, and/or their uncritical and fawning sycophants try to spin it to sound differently, that is the bottom line folks.

Notes:

{1} Which incidentally was referred to in the November 28th post to Jimmy Akin and previously quoted in my election synopsis thread of November 24, 2006.

{2} To post all of the posts at Rerum Novarum where I sought to get him to do this in the past would be to make this post overly long. I will however post here the last post in the sequence at this time:

Standing on Principles Vs. Public Demagogery and Historical Airbrushing--An Open Note to the Participants on Dave Armstrong's Weblog on the Subjects of Apologetics and General Ethics (circa September 21, 2006)

Many of the other postings preceding them can be found linked to it at some point or another.

{3} Dave has basically done everything he can including continually trying to to manufacture conflicts as people are naturally drawn to them much as they are to a trainwreck. Dave is also quite good at casting himself as the martyr. There will always be a certain large segment of humanity that is drawn to that sort of thing -even if only out of curiosity. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 16, 2006)]

{4} See footnote two for one such example and also this thread.

{5} This is a marvelous way to try and evade accountability and only highlights in spades why my reference to the apologetics oligarchy is so apropo.

Notes on A Few Upcoming Blog Threads:

Briefly as time is short...

--A reader wrote me asking about the concept of "implicit faith." I have been working on a thread to post pertaining to that subject which should be ready soon.

--Do to some feedback on yesterday's brief exposition on the hypocrisy of the apologetics oligarchy, I will be responding to at least one piece of email received on that subject within the next week or so.

--The last thing I expected was a criticism of my prayer for the soldiers blogged yesterday but indeed I got some from a former soldier. A response to those criticisms will be forthcoming.

--As several readers have sent me links to the Iraq Study Group recommendations as per yesterday's request, I will be looking them over and considering how to deal with them in the coming days. Right now, I am leaning towards listing them all in bullet form and noting which ones are practical or otherwise achievable and which ones are impractical or otherwise not worth taking seriously.

--I am working on a response to a friend who is critical of women being allowed to vote to be blogged when it is ready.

--Some "points to ponder" threads are planned from Allen Bloom, Herbert Butterfield, Mike Mentzer, Cardinal Ratzinger, Greg Mockeridge, Fr. John Laux, Albert Cipriani, Ayn Rand, and Stephen Hand among others.

--A weblog thread of miscellaneous links with assorted commentary is also in the works to be completed soon. (The hold up here is determining how many links to use and what subject matters to cover.)

--A weblog update is being worked on bit by bit to be posted within a week or so.

--Some administrative fixes are being made to make the weblog easier to operate from this end.

Anyway, while hardly all I have planned, those are some threads which will be focused on in the coming days and weeks for completion.

As today in the liturgical calendar is the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, it seems appropriate to revisit a couple of threads from this weblog's archives dealing with that subject matter. Ergo...

On the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Fathers Who "Denied" Her Sinlessness--Parts I-II (circa January 15, 2003)

As it is the anniversary of Pearl Harbor's bombing today, it seems appropriate to recognize it with a prayer for the soldiers -slightly modified from the text here to cover both living and dead...

Father, hold our soldiers in your loving hands. Keep them from spiritual and bodily harm. Place them under the protective mantle of our Blessed Mother Mary and send St. Michael and the holy angels before them in every danger. Give them and their families courage, strength and hope. Remember in your mercy all who have made the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom and security of others both recently and in years past. We have in mind with this petition those who are lost their lives on 9/11 and in the current fight against religious zealotry much as in years past who fought the monsters of totalitarian communism and its twin leftist scourge fascism. With special mention we implore your mercy and the intercession of the entire heavenly cohort for those who died at Pearl Harbour sixty-five years ago today and those who gave their lives in that heroic conflict. In your mercy, grant peace to all your children in every nation on earth. We praise you and thank you in Jesus' name. Amen.

With all the hubbub on the "Iraq Study Group", I am considering analysing all of their proposals. However, I need to find a link that has all of them in order to do that. Anyone who can find the thread and send it to me, it would be most appreciated as I do not have time at the moment to look for it myself.

On the Election, "Lost Causes", and Activism:
("From the Mailbag" Dept.)

This email was sent in response to my election synopsis thread from last month. The emailer's words will be in purple font.

We may have lost our chance for another generation to re-orient the Supreme Court. Again, Bush in his heart is quite comfortable with the Harriet Miers's of the world and he'll be just dandy with a nominee along those lines. So the collapse of a GOP Congress that can counter that is possibly catastrophic.

Well, to start with, we need to avoid activism on our side when it comes to the judges. As one of my friends noted when the Harriet Miers nomination was still feasible, my opposition to it was in part because of activist mentalities. To wit:

Shawn,

Thank you for joining my voice here in the blogosphere by stating you don't really care if she's pro life or an Evangelical. I honestly think as far as the blogopshere goes, the two of us are rare in stating those.

Perhaps so. I have never cared for judicial activism of any kind much the way I do not like liturgical tampering. In both cases the dictum of Fr. Stravinskas comes to mind which is this:

"Never tamper with the liturgy, even under the pretense of making it 'better' because if you can tamper with it on your end, then you give others the right to do so on their end" (cf. Liturgy of the Third Millennium circa 2000).

The same is the case with activism...allowing it on one side means the other side can do it too. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 5, 2005)]

As it was, Kevin Tierney and I were to my knowledge{1} the only Catholic bloggers who took this view. As far as what the new situation is with the incoming Democrat congressional majorities, I am not that pessimistic actually. One vacancy in the Senate on the Democratic side -by death, scandal, or whatever- means the president gets to pick the replacement to serve out the term. That is not all actually as the margin in the Senate is just one and if not for the election of some more conservative Democrats, the Republicans would still be in control. It does not take much for the power to shift in that situation -the Reid's are going to have to practice diplomacy now and if they bag on the conservative Democrats, the situation could become a repeat of the first six years of the 1980's where the "blue dogs" allied themselves with Republicans against their own party. More could be noted but that suffices for now.

Seems to me that this was a combination of a fed-up-with-Iraq vote (thank you, mainstream media) and disgust at corruption, the lack of exciting leadership based on real conviction, and, let's not forget, a somewhat normal swing of the pendelum.

It was in many respects the normal sixth year cycle of a two term president. If not for the Republicans controlling the Congress in 1998, the same would have probably happened with Clinton: the only president since Calvin Coolidge in 1926 to not see loss of seats in at least one legislature by his party in the sixth year midterm election.

Those who think that this means the Republicans are necessarily on the decline as many Democrat supporters seem to think could well be in for a rude awakening in two years. History does not indicate that such presumptions are at all a given though I suppose we all should be thankful that there were no voting machine glitches this election. Of course if the Republicans win in 2008, then we will hear more about election machine glitches because we all know that there are no voting irregularities when the Democrats win elections right??? {the sarcastic undertone of the last two sentences was definitely intended}...

It's hard to tell what it means as far as where the country lies philophically.

I am not so sure this is such a rubix cube. As I noted in my election synopsis thread:

There is also the fact that no conservatives lost their seats and if anything, conservatives were either re-elected amongst the Republicans or elected amongst the Democrats. The reason the Dems will have majorities in both houses is because of southern conservative Democrats being elected. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 24, 2006)]

Essentially, the Democrats had to hide their true selves from the electorate to get elected to majorities. This was predicted by yours truly before the election as what they would have to do along with somehow making this a referendum on a national level. To revisit the aforementioned election synopsis thread:

We said they would need to nationalize the election around Bush and they did that. We also said that they would need to shut their traps and not tell people what they really planned to do[...] and they actually did that also. Give them credit for actually learning from past mistakes if nothing else. The question is, will the idiotic Republicans realize why they lost in the election or not. Alas, we cannot say there is much optimism here at Rerum Novarum that they will -at least not in the short term. Maybe it will take handing over the gavels in the chambers on January 20, 2007 for them to realize what happened and start the process of pondering why what happened actually happened. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 24, 2006)]

In light of these factors, I do not see how this aligns itself philosophically in favour of the so-called "progressivists" in the Democratic party and their nefarious agendas. If anything, these factors point to this being a standard sixth year cycle pattern and not anything indicating a seismic paradigm shift in the electorate.

The election poses something of the Return of the Blue Dogs Democrats, some more than others.

Precisely and that is not a bad thing.

Almost all the same-sex marriage bans passed.

Yep.

The abortion bill failed in S.D., but that was probably a bridge too far without exceptions for rape or incest--something like 44% voted for it anyway, which surprises me.

Well, this is an issue where the prolifers showed their habitual boneheadedness. I have discussed this problem many times before and this is it in a nutshell:

[W]hile a 100% prolife vote is not necessarily congruent with voting for the candidate who either disallows or will legally plunder you less, if in doubt it is an excellent "tie-breaker" issue when it otherwise appears to be Democans and Republicrats...

At the very least the same Constitutional illogic that allows Roe v. Wade to exist is what allows people to think the government has the right to steal from us in ways that the average person could never do without committing a crime...

[P]ro lifers have a history politically of shooting their movement in the head. And sometimes you have to take part of a loaf and do this a few times before you can get the entire loaf. Forgetting this principle has resulted in the pro lifers politically shooting themselves in the head in the past. (In brief, that is how they lost the Republican controlled Senate to Democrats in 1986 which meant losing control of the Judiciary which meant defeat for Bork in 1987. And as 1990 proved, Bork's replacement was the swing vote that retained Roe v. Wade.) [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa November 5, 2002)]

What I noted in that posting and in many other times over the years was manifested in spades by that referendum in SD failing. As you noted, making exceptions for rape and incest would have resulted in that bill passing and would have outlawed the overwhelming majority of abortions. But rather than try for half a loaf (or in this case, over nine tenths of the loaf) the boneheaded prolifers screwed up again.

I've already mentioned the Arizona anti-illegals initiatives; whatever you might think of them they ain't liberal, and none of them got less than 70% of the vote (denies bail to illegal immigrants, denies some education services to illegal immigrants; denies the collection of punitive damages to them; adopts English as the official state language). And many if not most of the new Dems are also gun-friendly (again, think what you want, but that ain't liberal). You could only find Pelosi on milk cartons. etc.

All of that is true -the Pelosi absence during the election...well...see further up in this post for how I predicted that one.

Sorry for the long response.

No problems :)

Bottom line: The Arlen Specters (including actually Arlen Specter) are already saying this proves the party should move to left. I don't think so. But one thing that's certain is that our two national parties are not Tweedledum/Tweedledee, Rome/Carthage, or Not/Different. People who say that...are just not paying attention, or scoring points in their own fantastical drama.

Well, there are differences between the two parties but not enough. As I noted in a thread posted on election day before we knew which way the voting winds were blowing:

[W]e do not have very good options right now. It needs to be made clear that any support for the Republicans is done grudgingly and not because people think they are that good a party because they are not. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 7, 2006)]

This loss needs to effect a change of mind and approach to the Republicans. The view of the Arlen Specters was actually rebuked by this election when all the factors are taken into consideration. What is needed for the Republicans is to return to the sources (read: being actual conservatives instead of copycat "liberal lite" sorts) and this means recognizing that what was rebuked in this election was not conservatism but party politics.

Conservatives who have supported Republicans for years to get treated like dog turds except around election time finally said (in the words of the great western philosopher Dee Snyder) "we're not gonna take it anymore" and enough of them sat this election out to allow the Republicans to be knocked off of their lofty perch. The war issue served more to galvanize the anti-Bush crowd and while there are enough errors of fact and misperceptions in the "this war is an abomination" crowd to fill a small ocean; nonetheless, perception is often viewed by people as reality.

President Bush was also hurt (even though he was not running) because of the absurd and illogical "amnesty for criminals" issue he has promoted. Throw in the Katrina debacle and a few other areas where the Bush Administration has looked less than adequate and the general six year pattern for voting historically, and the result is not that surprising.

I would advise against being too pessimistic about this and remind you of an old proverb: it is often darkest just before the dawn. That is how I view this situation and believe this makes it more likely to elect a conservative as president in 2008 than it would have been if the Republicans had gotten away with their normal "treat conservatives like crap and then throw them an occasional scrap to shut them up" approach.

Note:

{1} I think Greg Mockeridge agreed with this view at the time too but I cannot recall offhand.

Some Additional Outlining of the Public and Private Double Standards of the Apologetics Oligarchy:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

This is the lions share of text from an email I quoted a previous weblog posting in accordance with my long-manifested approach to private correspondence. I also mentioned in a second posting that I would eventually be putting this thread up in its near-entirety. What made the decision to do so at this time pretty easy is the recent response by a key member of the apologetics oligarchy to yet another attempted snowjob by one of the community's more flagrant violators of basic integrity and ethics as of late. This predicatable brushoff by such a key member of the aforementioned oligarchy basically made my posting of this thread inevitable and I might as well get it out of the way now while the iron is still hot. But first some disclosure as to how the material below came about.

What you are about to read was originally written in response to a friend who vetted a post for this weblog. I was multitasking on a lot of projects at the time and was composing the last part of the text in a rush. For that reason, I was concerned about the flow of the text and wanted to make sure what I wrote was adequate -as I was responding to a dialogual partner with no small degree of intellectual firepower. In light of the circumstances, it seemed appropriate to me to get a second opinion so I asked them to review the piece. The feedback was basically that the text read really well but they were admittedly concerned about some of the "barbs" in the text towards certain parties which were ancillary to the subject being discussed in that thread.

It was in writing a response to that which produced the text you are about to read -though this is a toned down more refined version of what was actually written. I was shocked at the text coming out as it did because it was in structure and content a one take which is very rare for me when writing. I knew I would use it at some point either wholly or in part and this is the lions share of the email material. (I judged some of the text as not prudent to post lest it detract from the purpose of posting this thread to begin with.)

I have decided to post the text in purple as what I note below frankly saddens me to no small degree. And while I am sure this will piss off some parties, frankly I do not give a damn. Furthermore, I challenge anyone who disputes my viewing of this matter to present a viable hypothesis of their own to explain the obvious double standards involved here otherwise their kvetching will be without merit to me. Without further ado...

Basically, my lack of respect for Catholic apologists grows by leaps and bounds every day it seems: between these antics and the refusal of people like Akin to publicly rebuke people like Shea and (on other issues) Dave Armstrong I see them as having no credibility whatsoever. When I hear anyone say "lets go after James White" from this crowd, my natural response is "why when y'all criticize in him what you condone in Catholic apologists; ergo, violating the law of non-contradiction and making of this whole enterprise a joke???"

You may be right about the barbs being inappropriate but I have watched this cowardly evasion on Mark's part for over a year now on these subjects. As I see it, he is disgracing Catholics publicly by virtue of having a prominent public profile and refusing to honestly interact with these issues. I cannot show him even an ounce of public respect anymore until he repents for this crap to the same degree he spewed it to begin with: publicly on his blog will suffice. (He made an ass of himself and insulted others repeatedly in that forum on this subject so public repentence in the same forum by him is required in the interest of both consistency as well as out of principle.)

Even worse than his insults and his making an ass of himself is his obvious hypocrisy. Indeed, his attempts to explain away why it is okay for Akin to say what Harrison, McKenna, Mockeridge, Blosser, myself and others{1} have said is sickening and shows just how much this is a matter of personalities instead of issues.I mean why is it okay for Jimmy to say something but for the exact same thing said by others to be not only unacceptable but for such people to be publicly ridiculed and otherwise insulted??? If it is not a matter of $$$ than I have to wonder what it is since a valid opinion is not valid because of the person who holds it but instead its validity or invalidity stands on its own merits. That is where it is at XXXXXXX and I want this bullshit stopped. NOW.

I cannot and will not give any support whatsoever of a financial nature to apologetics organizations like UnCatholic Answers{2} or any of them. I will not write any articles on any subjects whatsoever for either periodicals or for websites, or whatever because I want nothing to do with it anymore. And frankly, I hate to say it because this is a wonderful endeavour in and of itself. I would never have devoted my time over the years to it if I did not see it as being of value. But the value has been sullied and continues to plummet as long as people refuse to recognize that the Emperor has no clothes on.

I have seen this go on for a long time -particularly since 9/11 for reasons I proposed a hypothesis about here- and for a long time, I bit my tongue hoping that things would reverse themselves. For a long time I was willing to believe (against all evidences to the contrary) that what I was seeing was not there -that it was merely me being too overly critical of an enterprise which has its share of frail humans in it and thus will have its chaff along with the wheat. But instead, far from rebounding it is getting worse by the day and I see no end to it in sight.

If not for the obvious and manifested refusal of the apologist community{3}, I would be content to continue to bite my tongue. But when attempts to address this publicly (since private appeals have fallen on deaf ears) result not only in no action taken but indeed result in the apologist oligarchy circling the wagons and protecting one another's idiotic blatherings from legitimate scrutiny, then I cannot and indeed will not play along.

Out of principle I cannot tolerate this anymore XXXXXXX and this is why out of principle I not only have refused the label of Catholic apologist for over five years now but also why I have in the past two to three years in particular come to the point to where I absolutely loathe it. That is why I want it made as clear as possible that I consider applying the term to me in any way whatsoever to be a personal insult. However well intended the person is who does it, that is how I see it and will continue to as long as the garbage spewed by these apologist bigmouths that is condoned by silence or publicly approved of (even tacitly) by the oligarchy continues. That is why I am giving some consideration to removing all apologetics-related material from the side margin of Rerum Novarum. Whether I actually do the latter or not is still uncertain but I am strongly tempted to.

I take principles very seriously XXXXXXX and have an abiding respect for others who do also -even if I disagree with them. But two principles which I cannot compromise are those of integrity and honesty. I expect this in a person's views, in their scholarship, in everything they do. (I also expect an abiding respect for reason and logic though if the attempts in the other areas are tended to, I can overlook lapses here for the sake of getting along.) But I cannot see the value in promoting an enterprise that masquerades as all ethical and moral like Catholic apologetics but which contains every kind of seedy unethical and hypocritical opportunist sort that one finds in secular society.

If these are supposed to be people who are trying to persuade people of the "better way" of orthodox catholicity then they should not show such obvious lacks of integrity on these matters. Indeed, I have at times seen greater integrity amongst atheists and frankly that is disconcerting. It is both a scandal and a disgrace.

To give a political example, it is like the Republicans who saw their congressional power obliterated overnight because they were not true to conservative principles first and foremost.{4} They were in other words hypocrites for preaching about caring for the Constitution while they spent like drunken sailors in the most foul and unconstitutional fashion ala the Democrats in the old days. They also gave every impression of trying to do just enought to placate the base and get re-elected. Frankly, I can respect the people for throwing the Republicans out because if they are going to govern like Democrats, why go with a pale impressionist of the real thing when you can have the real thing??? But that is not the only analogy I could use.

This one will hit Catholics closer to home because I honestly get the impression that like the US Bishops who twiddled their thumbs and pretended "all is nice" when children were being molested by predator priests that the apologetics "old boys network" will continue to twiddle their thumbs until the whole apologetics structure collapses like ancient Rome. Then what was successfully built over a span of thirty odd years bit by bit will have to start from scratch.

I am proposing a public purgation of sorts which I know the apologists will not like. But frankly, it needs to be done if the tree is to continue to bear fruit. But there is too much ego in that crowd and I am not too optimistic that they will be willing to do it. And as this has to start from the top, I do not expect those in $$$ positions to want to do anything lest they shut down the rolling of the gravy train -though that train will grind to a halt bit by bit until it is no more unless something is done to stop that eroding. And at the moment, what is being done is a big fat zero by the oligarchs.

Sorry for the rant, trust me my friend it is not you. If anything, I wish there were a lot more Catholics like you XXXXXXX. But this issue is a big one and I feel for that reason it is time to not be silent on these matters any longer.

PS While I have been for the most part apart from that crowd for a few years now, I would be willing to eat some crow too: for not being consistent in my own principles and calling this stuff out back when I first noticed it really starting to get out of hand (late 2002). If silence implies consent than I could be said to at least appear to have been complicit and for that I have some regrets.

Notes:

{1} Though he has shown the same problems with other subjects that Mark has shown on the torture subject; nonetheless, I have to recognize (even if personally I would rather not) that Dave Armstrong handled this issue well at least to a macro extent.

{2} Credit for this term goes to Greg Mockeridge.

{3} Professional as well as amateur though the former have far more responsibility IMHO.

{4} I am writing an election analysis thread to be posted later this week time-willing and this is one point I will make in that thread.

As it was, the analysis thread noted in footnote four was not posted for ten days after the email was sent. (Time once again not being my ally in that endeavour but I digress.)

[Update and Retraction: Greg Mockeridge informed me that the use of the above epithet of UnCatholic Answers was too rash on his part noting that it appears to be too blanket of a statement -presuming that everyone involved with Catholic Answers is at fault instead of Jimmy Akin and Karl Keating which is where both he and I view this problem as being. While my trackrecord on this matter should be adequate to make it clear that I do not view things this monolithically; I nonetheless upon further reflection regret my use of that expression and hereby retract it. I do not however retract the view that until the heads of Catholic Answers clean up their act and stop supporting (explicitly or tacitly) the kinds of double standards amply outlined in this and other threads to Rerum Novarum and other places that they do not deserve donations or any other support from Catholics who find such hypocrisy unconscionable. -ISM 3/19/07 7:51 pm]

Points to Ponder:
(On Combatting the "Herd Mentality")

The only way to gain an authentic self-esteem was through one's unswerving commitment to reason and reality...Those who had defaulted on their fundamental philosophic responsibility (namely, thinking) were of no concern to me. They were hapless individuals, who were constantly buffeted about by every chance intellectual trend that came along…When I attempted to politely explain this to the hysterics - the mystics, who were emotionally driven --...they seemed to regard it as heresy and declared me a lunatic. Not only did they not care, it frightened them, as what was most shatteringly terrifying to them was to be regarded as different, to lose approval of the pack. [Mike Mentzer]

Points to Ponder:
(On Patriotism and Building a Just Society)

With soul enlightened by the Gospel, it is possible to better understand how it is necessary to love one’s homeland, so that it actively makes its contribution as it progresses on the road of culture and civilization. Membership in a certain nation should be accompanied by sacrificial efforts and the sincere exchange of gifts received as an inheritance from previous generations, in order to build a society open to other peoples and the exchange of traditions. [Pope John Paul II (circa 2003)]

Oh, in the refining and reposting of a thread from November 27, 2006, I included a link to a term I just defined yesterday on the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous blog. Rather than say what it is, I refer you to the previous posting on this weblog as it is noted in there...

Highlighting a Key Problem With Common Apologetics Methodology:

Unlike any other subject matter which I have dealt with on this weblog, the ancillary subject matter briefly touched on in this thread (read: the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) is one that I will not respond to email traffic on in any forum until at least next August. Readers of this weblog for more than a year presumably know the reason why I have taken this position and if not, they can consider the threads in footnote one{1} to be my main reason for that decision -as what interests me at a given time can differ for various and sundry reasons. Having noted that, there is a larger issue of which the ancillary issue is a subtext and it is for that reason that I will touch on the subject at this time.

To start with, what brought about this post is what I view as a cheap trick attempted by Jimmy Akin to comment on something without seeking to substantiate his position by rational argument. I view such tactics as lowbrow and in proportion to my respect for the intelligence of the person making them, a degree of disgust is inevitable. In the case of Jimmy Akin, that makes the degree of disgust quite high indeed because he is a very intelligent man and one of the best of the contemporary Catholic apologists. In response to his attempted slipping of a blurb about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings into what was otherwise a very enjoyable sci-fi thread, I made the following brief comment in the comments box of the thread. Jimmy's words will be italicized in the original comments and in darkgreen throughout the balance of this posting.

In real life, some argued during World War II that the entire population of Japan was functioning as combatants and so we could nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is not tenable, given human nature

When dealing with a conscripted population, the dynamic of the situation is different than when dealing with unconscripted civilians. When that is taken into account along with a plethora of other factors{1} that are glossed over in simplistic fashion by not a few "apologist" sorts, what is rashly presumed to be "untenable" becomes quite tenable indeed.

Too bad you had to ruin a really good sci-fi post with that attempted fast one.

I decided to omit the footnote from that response as the link it contained is among the ones in the first footnote of this post. In response to Jimmy, original blurb, Greg Mockeridge also wrote some stuff -indeed much more than I did. Readers interested in what he said can peruse that combox thread at Jimmy's blog.{2} My interest in this posting is fourfold: (i) to respond to what Jimmy said to Greg and myself, (ii) to deal with the broader issue of certain fallacies which are common to many who approach this issue, (iii) to cover them at the same time, and (iv) to be reasonably brief about it all. How well I succeed in achieving all four objectives in this post will be debatable of course but without further ado, here goes...

Shawn & Greg:

I know that y'all have a burr under your saddle on the subject of the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but you really need to keep perspective on matters.

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

Catholic apologists are oftentimes intellectually dependent. I say this because they demonstrate a serious lacuna in their ability to utilize the thinking mechanism. Their intellectual dependence is on what the Catholic Church's magisterium[...] says on issues. Where this authority speaks with a clear voice, they can wade their way into issues of discussion with a degree of comfort. However, where this authority does not speak[...], they are at a loss of what to do. This is where they flail around like a drowning man seeking to find anything they can remotely ascribe to a magisterial statement on the issue in question as their way of coping with a lack of such guidance which they so evidently need.

For it is easy to argue a position where there are definite guidelines of sorts and Catholic doctrine does provide certain principles which are able to be grasped. The problem is the areas where there is not the same authoritative guidance. Finding themselves unable to argue a position on the grounds of what is reasonable and what is logical[...], they seek to manufacture an intervention by magisterial authority in the hopes of avoiding accountability for the grey matter between their ears. This approach is (of course) not a properly Catholic one and any hope of convincing non-Catholics that their position is the correct one evaporates like dew on a hot summer morning. The end result is various apologists claiming magisterial sanction for certain doctrinal applications and parroting sections of the catechism where general principles are espoused as if they are one and the same. Then, when you point out to these "apologists" that they are not defining their terms either at all or at least not correctly, the response in return is either hostile shrieking, insults, or continued repetition of the same flawed approaches as before as if such repetition constitutes a valid argument. From there, a disintegration of any genuine dialogue occurs (if one existed to begin with) and the end result is hardly edifying in any way to those who are casually observing what is going on--let alone to those who are involved in the disputation as active (or passive) participants.

Anyway, that is what we have seen occurring in recent years in the Catholic apologetics movement with the old apologetics hegemony breaking down and the previously unchallenged bigwigs not being properly equipped to provide a coherent and persuasive voice in the arena of ideas viz. application of principles in the public square. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 5, 2006)]

And again:

Frankly, what I wrote is not a rubix cube. It is a theory properly understood and is intended to provoke logical thought and reasoned analysis. And as logical thought and reasoned analysis is quite rare in most circles (including "apologetics" ones), a degree of condescention is required to outline certain elementary factors that are required for that.

It is indeed unfortunate but after over seven years of observing this phenomenon of "Catholic apologetics" and seeing this problem manifest itself not only amongst the neophytes but to a larger extent the seasoned apologists, I am not about to stand by and pretend that the ship is not sinking when indeed it is. On making a positive contribution to the arena of ideas and influencing culture for the good, Catholic apologists are (as a whole) miserable failures!!! A key reason for this is that they presume a competence in certain issues[...] which they do not have.

Furthermore, as many of them evince either ignorance of (or an unwillingness to differentiate) between what is an authoritative Church pronouncement and what is not, they inevitably[...] throw everything into the same kettle and this is erroneous. It is also disingenuous to no small degree.

I am beyond tired of seeing illogical fideism and warmed over neo-ultramontanism by these self-anointed "experts." All they do is provide fuel for the anti-Catholic caricatures of Catholics as intellectual infants who cannot think and blindly accept anything that is said by a curial representative -no matter how illogical and opposed to sound reasoning it happens to be. As Catholics we recognize that magisterial teachings require religious submission. This is a tall order and it should not be casually presumed without adequate warrant. I refuse to stand by, even by proxy, and watch a bunch of ignorant self-anointed "experts" lump every curial utterance into that category as a cheap expedient to shut off legitimate and necessary debate on various issues. This kind of crap has gone on for too long and it needed to be stopped yesterday. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 22, 2006)]

More could be noted{3} but that suffices to get my point across adequately at the present time.

Now despite more and more evidence that there are few who take the idea of sound rational logical thought seriously in Catholic circles, I am perhaps a bit of an optimist in thinking there are still some out there who have not bent the knee to the Baal of intellectual dependence yet -even among those who call themselves "apologists." But based on what I have observed, I have found myself as a rule less and less optimistic{4} as the years go passing by.

The fact that the Japanese--unlike the Borg and the Cylons--had free will means that one cannot simply rely on the idea that "they all count as aggressors" and exterminate them en masse.

It is better to say nothing at all than play this kind of "lets take a position but slip it into an unrelated post to appear to be not taking a position per se" kind of game. It is disappointing to see that even someone as intelligent as you are Jimmy can fail to make some of the necessary distinctions in this situation that need to be considered for a fair assessment on the matter. Maybe the argumentation fallacy of provincialism that impairs a lot of Catholic approaches to this issue is a deeper problem than I initially presumed.

You'd have to *show* that they were all aggressors, which is dubious in view of the fact that different human use their free will in different ways.

Jimmy, when the mass population was conscripted and working actively against the allied forces in the war -and even had brainwashed children to act as little kamikazes- this is not the same as opening fire on a defenseless city or populace. But rather than speak in the abstract, lets make of this a more real life situation.

Assume for a moment Jimmy that you are a soldier in Okinawa in 1945 and a child sidled up to you with a bomb pack on. Are you telling me you would stand there and let yourself get blown away??? Hardly, you would with the greatest of likelihood do what you could to make sure the bomb would not hurt you -even going so far as shooting the child if you had to. The latter would not be done because you wanted to hurt the child but because if you did not, you would be killed too: either by the child's bomb or by your fellow soldiers who would see any attempt at helping to be giving aid and comfort to the enemy.{5} These kinds of decisions are always made in a snap second and with survival in mind.

That you see is what such children would be (enemies) in the scenario noted above. And for the sake of survival in that situation they must be viewed as such. It is a ghastly picture but guess what: war is a very ghastly business and there is a reason why it should never be undertaken lightly.

In a post *about* killing fictional races that do not have human freedom of will, it is entirely appropriate for me to make passing mention of this difference and to state what is, in fact, the dominant opinion among Catholic thinkers about the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And as I have noted on more than one occasion Jimmy, opinions unsubstantiated by rational argumentation are not worth consideration no matter who makes them. There is no shortage of uninformed opinions out there; ergo one must judge an opinion by objective criteria. The problem is, people are disposed to think of what certain people say as being right irregardless of the merits of their arguments (if they provide any). That is why I would not consider on this matter of discussion that there are many "thinkers" at all: even normally very sharp knives react emotionally to the issue and that impairs the thinking mechanism more times than not. Throw in a general ignorance of many prevalent factors involved and the dominant opinion does not surprise me at all.

Arguing to consensus is of course a fallacious form of argumentation but I trust you were not doing that with your statement but instead making a general statement. Nonetheless, to address the majority view briefly, I know Jimmy that you know as well as anyone that the predominant view of theologians can change on issues and indeed has changed on many of them. Indeed, many of the theological positions taken by the Second Vatican Council were hardly majority viewpoints prior to the convening of that synod. Other examples could be noted but that suffices to point out the problem with staking anyone's tent with "the majority view" among theologians.

There is another problem more implicit and it is this Jimmy: you happen to be one of these people, by virtue of your position in apologetics and the overall quality of the work you have done over the years, whom many people will accept something as true simply because you say it. This is problematical in some respect because there are a lot of people who do not know how to think very well and that is how they approach people whom they have an implicit faith of sorts in. This is why such people need to be careful in what they say and how they say it.

Surely you do not think I am somehow unaware that most theologians disagree with the position I have taken. If anything, I have been far more generous in giving those who disagree with me a fair amount of latitude as long as they stick to the issues and do not attempt indirect attempts to cut myself or others down or shut off legitimate disagreement on the issue as not a few so-called "apologists" do when the shoe is on the other foot: both on this issue and also several others which could be noted.

Another reason I will not call most who disagree with me on this issue "thinkers" as far as the issue goes because frankly, I have seen no attempts thus far to put together a hypothesis on the matter that can be subjected to reasonable scrutiny. And until I see such an attempt made, it would be fallacious to accept the opinion of anyone whomever they are. That is the problem with many if not most on this issue: they namedrop people whose opinions seem to concur with theirs but without presenting any evidence as to how said people arrived at their opinions. Sorry but that is not think[ing] Jimmy no matter how you chop the turkey.

This is not "attempting a fast one." The mention must be brief because of the nature of the post.

Other examples could have been made and you could have avoided giving the impression that this is a closed issue when in fact it is not. Again, your word carries a lot of weight with people Jimmy. There are those who would take your word over any assemblage of facts and rational analysis that would be provided by others. It is a sad spectacle{6} but it is what it is.

I am not obligated, just because I known that some Hiroshima-defenders out there, to slam on the brakes and conduct an extended discourse on the moral illegitimacy of the indiscriminate killing of Japanese people.

You assume it is indiscriminate but do not make any attempt to defend this assumption by rational argument. Apparently, people are supposed to tip the biretta, bow three times, and uncritically incense it because Jimmy Akin says so. In reality, the burden is on someone who makes an assumption to defend it or else to not make it. And this works both ways Jimmy, not just one way.

The burden is on defenders of the nuking to prove that it was morally legitimate to indiscriminately kill Japanese people--particularly given what the Catechism says on the subject of indiscriminate killing in wartime.

Again, the burden Jimmy is on both sides, not merely one.{7} For those who claim that the Catechism passage on indiscriminate killing in wartime applies to what happened on August 6, 1945 and August 9, 1945, they have to demonstrate this and cannot merely assume it. I have already explained in detail why this assumption is faulty for many reasons but I am not about to rehash the issue here. I have already more than established a solid burden of proof for my theory{8} on this matter. Beyond that, the arguments on this score from people of your persuasion without fail tend to be normative and thus subjective rather than non-normative and objective.

For example, does any bomb really kill with discrimination when it hits its target??? Obviously not. I have yet to find a bomb that actually asks who is home before it explodes so that it only kills the persons so aimed for. Therefore, the problem in the atomic bombing case is not what you claim it is. You and others essentially make an arbitrary normative or subjective "it is too big" attempted argument which is hardly non-normative or objective no matter how you slice the bread. More could be noted but as I have already more than adequately established by sound rigorous logical argument my position on this matter and various contingent factors in a series of threads{9}, I am not about to do so again.

And, let me point out, this combox is not the proper place for that discussion.

That is why I blogged this thread and will post the link to the combox so it does not clutter your combox. But kindly keep matters in context Jimmy: when this subject erupted back in 2005, you were AWOL on it as was (in truly predictable fashion) the rest of the apologetics oligarchy. I did not anticipate that my theory would be accepted either immediately or without some friction but I was shocked at the unethical behaviour that masqueraded about as "apologetics"{10} by some whom I once thought fairly highly of. Not a few persons disgraced themselves in how they handled this matter -some more so than others.

Despite what happened, I still think highly of you Jimmy (you are one of a select few apologists I can say that about). What happened in 2005 was a symptom of a much larger problem that has been going on for a long time. I hope therefore that you will call those self-styled "apologists" I refer to in the previous paragraph from the cliff over which they are running (to the discredit of Catholic apologetics). Again, you do have that kind of influence Jimmy -you are probably one of the few who does. It is my hope that you will use it and not seek merely to preserve the status quo: a subject I will touch on another time in another posting when I feel inclined to speak on these matters again.

Notes:

{1} Threads on the Atomic Bomb Droppings, Military and Statistical Calculations, the Moral and Ethical Aspects of the Subject Matter in Question, Etc. (circa August 17, 2005-September 20, 2005)

"Armstrong Illusions" Dept. Revisited (circa January 23, 2006)

Preserving the Historical Record (circa January 26, 2006)

Guest Editorial on the Atomic Bombings, the Continued Emphasis on it Publicly by Certain Apologists, and the Goal of Catholic Apologetics --By Dr. Art Sippo (circa January 26, 2006)

A Followup Guest Editorial on the Atomic Bombings, the Continued Emphasis on it Publicly by Certain Apologists, and the Goal of Catholic Apologetics--By Dr. Art Sippo (circa January 31, 2006)

Some Brief Wrapup Comments on the Previous Guest Editorial (circa January 31, 2006)

Dismantling the GS 80 Attempted "Argument" By Recourse to General Norms of Theological Interpretation (circa February 4, 2006)

{2} Which for the record is among my semi-regular reads.

{3} I could also mention the public flap over supposed "torture" but will save that one for another time as this is too long already. Oh and another more explicit writing is being considered for posting which would get to the core of what is noted above amongst the apologetics oligarchy and do so in a much briefer and much less irenic way. Whether or when it is blogged remains uncertain at this time.

{4} Fortunately (I suppose) in recent weeks I have found some Catholics who can honestly interact with an issue on its merits and this has made me at least cautiously optimistic that there are more people of character out there than I was starting to presume. I refer of course to Dr. Scott Carson and Dr. Michael Liccione. Maybe the reason they can do this is partly because they are not part of the apologetics oligarchy and therefore have no vested interest in circling the wagons to protect one another from legitimate scrutiny while hypocritically condoning similar scrutiny being hurled at rival apologist camps.

{5} I am sure some of the brainless overreactive sorts will claim that this means I endorse murder or something equally as stupid: I note it here so that when it happens, people cannot say that I did not anticipate this pathetic Jerry Springeresque-mainstream mediaesque attempt to avoid intelligent discussion via cultic deadangenting tactics.

{6} I do not mean this in any way as a personal slight against you Jimmy, only as a lament of sorts against people in general. (The metaphor of people as sheep which was used in the Gospels makes more and more sense to me the longer I observe humanity.)

{7} To assert otherwise is to endorse (however tacitly) intellectual and ethical laziness on one side of the issue.

{8} I say theory because it is far more than a mere hypothesis.

{9} See footnote one.

{10} The problems were many but one which was particularly noxious was the violation of private correspondence by a certain party I will not name at this time. When it happened again, I wrote a blog post on the subject which can be read HERE. Certain persons whom I shall not name tried to assert that I "lied" on this matter but if not for my growing tired of responding to them only to have said parties dodge the issues and involve themselves in more character assassination, I would have easily dispatched with this baseless assertion and done so by objective criteria as I had previously done with a panopoly of their other public assertions. Or as I have noted elsewhere:

As for the claim that I lied about his violation of private correspondence, I could easily shred that thread also if (i) I wanted to take the time to do it and (ii) if I actually thought it would do any good to take the time to do it.[...] Unfortunately, unlike XXXX, I do not have all the time in the world to cut and paste people's work to create libelous distortions even if I wanted to. And I most certainly do not countenance this attitude at all -viewing instead a potential excess of prose as preferable to such mutilations of the work of others to insure that the words of others are not taken out of context. [Excerpt from an Unsent Email Correspondence (as of November 25, 2006)]

The approach take by the apologetics oligarchy against one of their own engaging in this unethical libelous behaviour??? Why silence of course.

Points to Ponder:
(On Discussion Subjects That Interest Me at a Given Time)

[A] subject as a rule needs to be of contemporary significance to be of interest to me in its discussing. This can take many forms including but not limited to (i) something that interests me that I have a reasonable degree of knowledge about which I may not have discussed before and want to discuss for some reason, (ii) that someone emails me on a subject previously discussed and I am predisposed for some reason to discuss it again at or approximate to that time, (iii) contemporary events which provide for the opportunity to in some fashion expound on timeless principles pertaining in some fashion or another to the subject so discussed, (iv) something I recall from reading which is of interest to me at a given moment in time, or (v) a situation whereby some additional threads can be added to the mosaic of subjects which have been of interest to me at various times as a way of further refining through development my views on a given subject matter. [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa November 27, 2006)]