On Capitalism, Economics, the Fundamental Rights of Man, Free Trade, Etc:
(With Kevin Tierney)

The following chat is from a fifteen minute block of time yesterday a few days ago when I was taking a break from work. The parties involved will be marked by name, all timestamps removed, and any really egregious spelling goofs on either side fixed. Without further ado...

Kevin: I think what is needed is someone who can criticize the capitalism at all cost mentality without being a marxist or a populist

me: sadly, conservatives are as liable to avoid critical interactions as the liberals they criticize for not allowing them a lot like the apologists in the oligarchy

agreed and without shilling for that illogical drivel known as "distributivism (aka "distributism"). I think a lot of marxist sorts use that as a shield to hide their true views.

Kevin: here's a quick step in the right direction, in free trade agreements, insist on a "no slave labor" clause

me: nice...and insist on the freedom of labour unions to assemble and barter for the workers if the workers want them...why not drive up the cost of labour down there lol

Kevin: hahaha

me: that was a half-serious comment -obviously I do not want people shafted who toil at labour

Kevin: it would be a popular move, those who hate "wallmart slave labor" would support it, unions would support it, protectionists would support it recognizing that unions help out, etc

me: frankly, the only ones who would oppose it are those who believe that business is not requiring of any checks on industryand that would smoke them out

Kevin: since it's a matter of national trade, this is the purpose of the state, one of the areas they do have a right to intervene

me: yes indeed...the problem is, those who want to try and do away with nationalism do not want it

Kevin: and it says that those wishing to trade with America, to acquire her wealth, should also have certain standards

me: oftentimes they are the same people who want to put recourse in faceless bureaucracies who are incapable of getting anything done secularly in the UN...ecclesially those who want to see bishops conferences handle everything...birds of a feather

Kevin: that would do much to help regulate free trade right there, without the need of protectionist tarrifs and the like since we are sending a message that yes we want to trade with the world, but that America will refuse to profit off the exploited

me: yep, amazing how we hash out another major point of civilizational contention in a matter of minutes

Kevin: lol

me: which is why the bureaucracies would not want to hear from us...btw...I am planning to contact Tim Eyman (a major initiative pusher in our state) and suggest to him my rider reform proposal for the Washington legislature... it is almost three years old now but I see nothing in it that needs revising at this time

Kevin: i think people need to also understand the difference between the capitalist mindset and the consumerist mindset...today they are one and the same, but Adam Smith would be abhorred by it

agreed...I just emailed you my rider reform proposal

Kevin: today's economics are rather that of John Stuart Mill than of Adam Smith...Mill believed in liberty absolute

me: yep...

Kevin: whereas the founders and men like Smith believed in a liberty that had it's limits

me: Bastiat believed in liberty constrained only by the fundamental rights of man -and that law's purpose was to safeguard those rights...and that those rights precede all manmade legislation as they are God-given{1}

Kevin: such as Madison's viewpoint that capitalism and America need morality to survive, to them morality was part of that restrainer...probably the only naievete in the founders was thinking that this could be achieved without a strong robust religious body closely monitoring the state

me: well, they had experience of a religious body in that position and it was not a nice situation...and being aware of the historical clashes of church and state probably preferred an environment that was conducive to religious expression without requiring religious profession

Kevin: well the only problem there was the religious body was under the control of the state...a strong independent church is normally within the state's best interest

me: of course the popes have long appreciated the US's approach to religion when it suits their own interests...I have in mind Gregory XVI's famous statement "in no place do I feel more like the pope than in the United States"...Gregory was not a fan of democracy by any stretch but he appreciated I am sure that his encyclicals and other writings were allowed to freely circulate in America in a way other nations did not (even some catholic ones)

Kevin: why for example I would love to have a president one day invite the main religious leaders and remind them that it is their job to clothe the naked and feed the hungry, not Washington's and use the bully pulpit to rally them to that job, secular charities as well Bush's "faith based initiave" was anything but that, rather it used the power of the purse to attempt to make churches move. Many rightly saw that as unconstitutional not to mention dangerous for churches

me: what you propose is very congruent with the Constitution. The Founders did not want a state church but they did want morality and religion to have an important and influential role in the nation...going so far as to view the Constitution as unfit for a people who were not moral and religious. No law can suffice in the absence of a general approach that sets solid public standards regardless of what people do privately: a subject I have discussed before and which bears reiteration at least in link form in lieu of what you just noted.

Note:

{1} Readers can review the side margin of this weblog and peruse the archives for threads I have written on the fundamental rights of man if they are interested. (More will be touched on in this area in the new year.) I have not only merely reiterated Bastiat as several others have or applied it to modern situations but even developed the theory further in light of contemporary realities.

As the aforementioned theory (when properly applied) would fix so much of what is wrong with our society, it is my sincere hope that others can brought to see the wisdom involved and that it may provide them with solid reference points for the cultivation of the natural lights of reason and logic. For people with conservative intuitions, it can put them on a solid and consistent foundation in their arguments to better persuade those of good-will. For those who are espousing various forms of socialism, hopefully it will help them to see where that mentality inexorably leads if they are consistent in their application of it.

To revisit briefly a publicly noted checklist of stuff I wanted to tend to as per earlier this month...

--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.

Done.

--Due 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 text is done but I will wait until after Christmas to blog it.{1}

--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.

About 90% done. I hope to post it after Christmas and before New Years Eve.

--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.

As few people seem to be taking this report as seriously as I initially anticipated, I may well not go ahead with my originally planned project. I mean, how seriously can I actually take a report with a recommendation such as this one:

direct US dialogue with Syria and Iran over Iraq and the Middle East.

If that group is incapable as a whole of realizing that we have already tried this and it has not worked, then I fail to see what more I can say about their "recommendations" other than I respect the humility of Lee Hamilton viz. the recommendations and despise the pompous attitude of James Baker pertaining to them.{2}

--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.

Done.

--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.

Thus far only the one from Ayn Rand was blogged.{3} The others will be gotten to in good time.

--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.)

I will try to finish this between Christmas and New Years Eve. Anyone with links they want me to consider, by all means send them to me.

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

I am significantly behind on this -it will take up whatever freetime I have for this blog in the coming days and in the day or so after Christmas.

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

The beta update feature I had in mind is not available for this blog yet due to the number of posts we have in the archives. Ergo, the next update will be as ponderous as the previous ones to do but my readers are worth the time to get it done.


Notes:

{1} Consider this my own version of a "Christmas truce" if you will.

{2} For those who continue to ignorantly presume I am a shill for Republicans, Lee Hamilton is a Democrat and James Baker is a Republican.

{3} I did blog something from Pope Benedict XVI but the specific passage I have in mind with that series was from his pre-pope days.

On the Intensity/Duration Equation, Physics, and Trying to Understand Engineering Majors:
(With Tim Tull)

I find myself intrigued at times when considering the statements that have crossed my keyboard which receive reader feedback. As it is now, a statement I made in years past which encapsulates one of my own foundational presuppositions -and which has been reiterated a few times since in soem form or another-- was the subject of a recent email from amateur historian (and WW II expert), Guinness lover, onetime-soft-liberal-turned-ardent-conservative, engineering major, and general all-around renaissance man Tim Tull.{1} In responding to my reiteration of what has become practically a proverbial mantra of sorts in one of the blog posts put up on the eve of the November elections, I found an email containing several bits from Tim which included this one (my previous words in blue font, most recent ones in darkgreen font, and Tim's words in darkblue font):

"I remind you of the theories of motion as discovered by Sir Isaac Newton. If an object in motion will remain in motion, then attempts to stop that object will not succeed without a greater or equal force being involved."

Commentary: The unit of Force in the International System of Units (SI) is the Newton. Units on a Newton are kg-m/sec^2. In other words, it takes one Newton of force to accelerate a 1 kilogram mass 1 meter per second every second. And accordingly Newton's Second Law tells us that force equals mass times acceleration or the famous F=ma.

So if we apply 10 Newtons of force for one second to accelerate a stationary object to 10 meters per second, we can easily demonstrate how to declerate the object back to a stationary state with LESS "force" by applying a 1 Newton force on the object in the opposite direction for a period of 10 seconds or for that matter, any force less than the initial 10 Newtons for a sufficient length of time.

A force balance is only necessary if we are trying to prevent acceleration.

To put it in other terms, a wife can either get a garage cleaned in 3 months by nagging her husband for weeks on end or can achieve the same results in a quick time by clubbing him over the head with his TIVO box.

I am sure this is what George Orwell would have called physics-speak. As I was not sure if the email was a confirmation of my proverb or an attempt at refuting it,{2} I sent the following email to Tim.

In other words, my analogy was flawed???

To which Tim responded as follows:

The analogy was fine. It's basically correct. Essentially, any problem in aerospace engineering essentially can be solved from the equations expressing continuity of mass, momentum or energy. And those three equations all come directly from Newton's Second Law. So literaly, we owe a tremendous amount to that equations and at this stage in my education, we are still evaluating it on a daily basis in it's expanded forms. Its' good stuff.

Of course my approach to these matters were based on my indepth understanding of exercise science and its effects on the human physiology spanning fifteen plus years. Tim's was by the route of advanced physics which is one of the subjects he is studying for his advanced engineering degree. I am sure for those reasons there are differences in language and the usage of terms with our respective points of reference. But both underscore three fundamental factors which need to be accounted for at all times and they are as follows:

--One should never underestimate the importance of reason and logic when it comes to properly apprehending objective reality.

--Different approaches or schools of thought in the sciences will have different terms which may not necessarily mean the same thing; ergo taking this into account to avoid context-switching is important.

--One should make sure they do not rashly walk into a discussion of the natural sciences with an engineering major lest they find themselves confused by the latter's use of terms.

Thankfully in Tim's case, he will be finished with his engineering degree in one more year and can return to speaking normally again ;-)

Notes:

{1} For more information on Tim, see the guest editorial posted here for some tidbits.

{2} I thought it was an attempted refutation and I was all ready to point out by sound rational argumentation why this mantra is based on the laws of nature and thus immutable. But then I got the brilliant idea (since I was at best adequate with complex physics models back in the day) to simply ask Tim what he was saying.

Points to Ponder:
(On God's Existence and Reason)

[E]ither God exists or he doesn’t. There are only two options. Either one recognizes the priority of reason, of the creative Reason that stands at the beginning of everything and is the origin of everything – the priority of reason is also the priority of freedom – or one upholds the priority of the irrational, according to which everything in our world and in our lives is only an accident, marginal, an irrational product, and even reason would be a product of irrationality. In the end, one cannot “prove” either of these views, but Christianity’s great choice is the choice of reason and the priority of reason. This seems like an excellent choice to me, demonstrating how a great Intelligence, to which we can entrust ourselves, stands behind everything. [Pope Benedict XVI]

Revisiting the Subjects of Atheism and Rational Thought in General:
(Aka "'From the Mailbag' Dept.")

Having received a request from Beth over at Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to review a piece she wrote to an atheist, I sent her the following text in response on December 10th:

Hi Beth:

There are some spelling or grammatical glitches in the text but you can find those on a proofread. (As I make them myself at times so I am hardly going to be critical when other do it.)

Now, I don't subscribe to the belief that religion is the only thing that makes people compelled to good behavior (although it's certainly true for some), but it does give people inner peace, serenity, enlightenment, and often things like creativity and clarity in thinking.

I would change "it does" to "it can." I know not a few theists who frankly are lousy thinkers. But yes, if one accepts as a certain foundational presupposition that there is Infinite Intelligence (in some form or another) it can definitely assist with creativity and clarity in thinking because it defines a point of reference from which one can operate from. And as I am wont to say at times "definitions are the tools of thought."

On the whole the piece reads fine except it did not seem to me that you challenged the atheist while trying to defend yourself from his assertions. The following threads from my weblog may be of assistance in this area:

Musings on Atheism (circa August 15, 2003)

Points to Ponder on Atheism By Dr. Art Sippo (circa August 14, 2003)

Ultimately, atheism is arbitrary as both Dr. Sippo and I note in various ways. Because to be an atheist is to have an operative presupposition in your thinking that something was created out of nothing. I remember really pissing off atheists at the infidels board about six to seven years ago with pointing that out in various ways to a whole host of their presumed "arguments against God's existence." The beauty of it is that no matter how they slice it, that is what all of their attempts inexorably boil down to. Hope that helps.

I was considering blogging that email in standard anonymous format but since Beth blogged it to her comboxes, it seems appropriate to blog it as written here without alteration. She appended my email in the combox with this text:

Bingo. I had actually emailed him with a “help?!” after writing this post, because I had actually seen those pieces before, and as I said, he’s one of those people who can debate these issues far more thoroughly and knowledgably than I can. I would ask, encourage, Jeff and others to read those two pieces, at minimum. I assure you, you will have better answers there at his blog (Rerum Novarum) than I could ever supply. And in case you’re thinking you’ll encounter a fire-and-brimstone evangelist there, you’re wrong. I challenge you to read this extraordinarily rational, intellectual man’s work. (Isn’t that what an atheist would prefer hearing? Logic and reason?)

Thanks for your kind words Beth. It sure beats some of the baseless garbage that I have heard from fellow Catholics in recent years but then again, I suppose that is the standard tack taken by those addicted to the herd mentality who have no concern for building and maintaining authentic character.

I make no claims for wisdom beyond the objective validity of the arguments I advance on whatever topic I discuss. Logic and reason are not a special preserve of the self-proclaimed "intellectual class" but unfortunately, many people are content to consign us all to various totalitarian systems. These systems could be physical, intellectual, or whatever whereby only a self-anointed class of "experts" are presumed credible by virtue of something other than the intrinsic validity of their positions as ascertained by objective criteria.

The problem is, a lot of people are quite provincialist in their approaches to issues -judging the worth of an argument not on its merits but on who it is who is making the argument.{1} Certainly it happens in politics all the time and that is one reason I am an Independent voter and have been for ten years now.

In summary, yes I have an abiding respect for reason and logic and those who show an interest in these areas can count on respect from me even if I do not agree with them. Those who do not and who try to play games to skirt the rational faculties have nothing but scorn from me as they contribute not to the building up of civilization but to its tearing down however fine their motives may or may not be.

Note:

{1} This kind of atrocious double standard happens all the time -even in places where one may not suspect it. At bottom it is nothing but solipsism and implicitly undermines objective reality by denying that the latter actually exists or is possible.

"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...