If I had to pick some people to be allies in a war of words and rhetoric, Pete Vere is one of those on a very short list who would be among the first chosen. I note that because it has come to the attention of your host that Pete Vere has fired some salvos at New Oxford Review for their savaging of one of the culture war icons up in Canada. As far as what Pete asserts and whether or not it is true, I am not in a position to comment on; however, I will note that it sounds like another example of the kind of imprudent zeal that permeates many of the articles at NOR regardless of whom the writer happens to be...a subject I touched on recently in a post to this humble weblog.

I should note in passing the irony in Pete taking on a battle here since he was the one who persuaded me in late July-early August of 2004 to not pursue a public chastising of a certain person-who-shall-not-be-named which (for a while) was advice that I heeded.{1} Beyond that, Pete is a big boy so I trust he does not need any public defending from me; ergo that is all I will say on the matter for now.

Note:

{1} Eventually, one of those who contacted me about such an endeavour actually put up when I offered them a forum to write a critique of the person in question. Thus, my attempt to sluff it off onto someone else backfired and I felt obligated to weigh in to support in macro form the allegations that person brought forward. (Ones which have been substantiated in spades ever since in the words and actions of the person in question.) But I digress.

The previously noted first draft of an album review (Albert King and Stevie Ray Vaughan In Session) was posted to Amazon a couple days ago with significant redacting of material due to word limits at the latter site. (One minor adjustment was made to the posted review which was also incorporated into the original draft: basically your host confused something a reviewer said at another site with the Amazon reviewers so that part was adjusted accordingly.) But beyond that, the review in draft form is better than the one posted to Amazon so I recommend giving it a read if you have the time and want a detailed review of a very excellent CD.

More on the Conspiracy Superbowl:
(With Kevin Tierney)

I must write a dissent from Shawn's opinion.

Impossible...do NOT make me carry this subject out in public for the next eight months plus Kev ;-)

The idea that there is bias against small market teams I don't think applies here. The steelers themselves were on the receiving end of what was a blatant fix, i.e. the Polamalou interception during the Indy game being reversed.

That was an interception though Kev...I watched the play several times. Furthermore, you are forgetting that that was a situation where you had the Steelers (a big market team) playing the media darling Indy Colts whose Payton Manning the marketing department wanted to see in the Superbowl. (I mean, he is arguably the best QB today in terms of a complete package.)

Furthermore, since calls during the second half went Seattle's way as well (the fumble being reversed) I don't think things are as bad as Shawn says.

That was the only example of a call going Seattle's way really. Still, even if we grant you your premise, things had been so poisoned to that point officiating-wise that Hasselbeck was in a position to have to force some things and the results included that play as well as the interception. I could note more than the three plays I did in the previous email but they are the ones which are unquestionably botched calls...the others I would note cannot have the same thing said about them.

The low block and pass interference calls were questionable, then again there was a questionable call against the Steelers as well.

Grabbing the jersey as the Pitt player did was contact which made Hasselbeck's fall a dead play instead of a live ball. The refs surprisingly did the right thing there...I say "surprisingly" since up to that point they had done so crappily for a team of officials with that much big game experience.

In this instance, the refs, if they were bad, were "equal opportunity." Considering their performance in this game as well as the Indy game, I do think there will be closer attention paid.

But of course there should be. The officiating in the playoffs this year was horrible...the Superbowl was merely the worst of the bunch.

Now as far as the game, Seattle proved that winning statistics does not translate into winning games. That's the beauty of sports in my opinion. The Steelers executed several plays that gave them the win.

Two plays...Ben's phantom "touchdown" was just that: a gift.

Despite a shaky first quarter, Ben showed flashes of brilliance afterwards. As his elbow touched the goal line (and the elbow was couching the ball) I will say that it's a touchdown, and especially there was not conclusive evidence to overrule it.

Elbow is not good enough...the ball must cross the plane of the line at least in part and no part of it did.

Ben's knowledge of the line of scrimmage in the huge pass to Hines Ward was a game turner in my view, it showed that the Steelers were not fleeing. The beautiful reverse pass to Hines Ward will no doubt go down as one of the best plays in Super Bowl History.

Yeah...they fooled the third string Hawks cb and safety on that one...lol.

The problem with it was Seattle bit that play hook, line, and sinker.

See my previous comments.

Bill Cower is notorious for running such "gadgets." They executed that play for huge gain 3 times during the regular season. That Seattle (and their normally respectable coach Mike Holmgren) did not prepare for that is a reason why they lost.

And that they had third string defensive players in on that play had no factor???

There's also the fact Seattle had nobody to blame but themselves. During the end of the second half when they were driving, it took forever for Hasselback to get his team organized in a no huddle. If anything, a Steelers timeout (one I saw no reason for) saved Seattle from getting a delay of game penalty, but most importantly stopped them from being able to drive for a touchdown, leaving them to attempt a very long field goal that was botched.

Yes, they shot themselves in the foot there...no question about it. But in a properly officiated game, they would not have been in panic mode as they were by that point.

When they were ready to take the lead, an interception was thrown.

Hasselbeck was pressing cause of the earlier botched calls taking back a touchdown and a virtually-certain second TD (first and goal from the 3 was the spot where Jackson was tackled in the middle of the field). Late in the game behind by two touchdowns, that can happen when you press even someone who rarely threw an inteception all year as in Hasselbeck's case.

And finally credit must be given to Jerome Bettis. The man did not put up stellar numbers, but he came through when it counted. The runs he was getting and the first downs he got in the 4th quarter took the wind out of Seattle's sails, essentially making the game elementary.

Bettis played well yes.

While the Steelers made a few mess ups, in the end it was smart playcalling and a solid defense that provided them the win. Seattle had several chances, but didn't capitalize due to errors on their own parts, not that of officiating. (The officials even ruled alongside them when the fumble was overturned, giving them another shot that didn't materialize.)

But Kev, that is one example to my three. And when you consider that on that play there was contact and the rules were properly applied (compared to the phantom "offensve pass interference" where Jackson did not even touch the player and the "low block" call which was equally ridiculous, I do not see the "equal time" you assert. Indeed, knowing the Hawks playbook as I do, the play where Hasselbeck was tackled and the ball came loose is the kind of play they run when pressing...something that a team not screwed out of at least two scores by the refs at that point of the game would not have had to do.

If anyone else posts their thoughts, I might do a symposium on my website, just to demonstrate that there is more to us bloggers and commentators than reading theology books and arguing finer points of Catholic doctrine amongst each other. :)

Go ahead...post the geography of each poster too so we can see the true midwest and east coast biases for what they are ;-)

Oh and remember, my second favourite team is the Steelers though should you quote what I say in these emails which you can do since I will probably blog my own comments from the previous note as well as this one anyway. (Those who followed our dialogues before may find the subject of this one to be odd but oh well.)

On Able Danger and Hearings Being Opened in the House of Representatives:

I have heard through the grapevine that the United State House of Representatives will be convening hearings on Able Danger. Readers of this weblog know that your host has been one of those who was concerned that this matter would not be taken up and then (once it was) that it would be dropped without comment in the MSM. Nonetheless, with the news that the House Armed Services Committee will open hearings on Able Danger on February 15, 2006, it seems appropriate to repost in brief the threads I have written on this matter in recent months (or excerpts from multitopic threads) in order from oldest to newest. Let us hope that Senator Arlen Spector gets off his duff and reopens the Senate hearings on the matter. Having noted that, here is what I have written on the matter since I started writing on this issue publicly:

As I have noted in private correspondence to a few individuals, what he has done (in writing a book about Able Danger and 9/11) and what he is saying (in promoting his book on the various media curcuits), Rep. Curt Weldon has taken quite a gamble here...[I]f he is called and does not produce the cards, he will be finished politically. However, if he can deliver on what he says he can, then his prestige will increase. In fact, if the latter proves to be true, look for Rep. Weldon to become a Republican darkhorse candidate for the presidency in 2008 (whether he wants it or not). My money is on Weldon's gamble paying off because generally speaking people do not make public stances like this unless they can deliver. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 16, 2005)]

On Able Danger and A Potential Defense Department Coverup (circa September 21, 2005)

Briefly Revisiting Able Danger (circa October 20, 2005)

"Focus on Able Danger Stupid" Dept. (circa November 2, 2005)

"Focus on Able Danger Stupid" Revisited (circa November 3, 2005)

Bug your senators people...including Senator Arlen Spector who expressed interest in [Able Danger] back in September but may well get wishy washy in true congressional fashion on the matter in question. Of course those of us who have Maria Cantvotewell and Patty Murray (the latter of whose lips have been firmly attached to the backside of Robert "Sheets" Byrd for the past thirteen years), it will not make much of a difference but one must try nonetheless. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 19, 2005)]

And finally:

It’s Time To Investigate Able Danger and the 9/11 Commission (Andrew McCarthy)

As one who has not been quiet on the Able Danger subject myself,[...] I concur with Mr. McCarthy's assessments on the matter in question. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 26, 2005)]

More will be written of course should the grapevine prove reliable on this matter and hearings are opened in the House (and hopefully re-opened in the Senate). I do not give a damn about who or which party these hearings will "help" or "hurt" since what is at stake here is possible national security lapses in the past which (if they had not happened) may have averted what happened on 9/11. National security should be a non-partisan issue but I sense that this will be as politicized as any other issue is in today's climate and it should not be.

"Blosser vs. Blosser" Dept.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

There has been a recent mini blogwar on the subject of Dale Vree and the New Oxford Review. Readers of this weblog are aware that one of the recurring themes in recent months has been the subject of so-called "neo-cons" -the most recent thread of which can be found HERE. A few people have sent your host a writing on this subject from Dale Vree which will be incorporated into that series at some point in the near future. It is noted here only as an aside{1} but among those who sent Us that link for review and comment were Christopher Blosser and his father the esteemed Dr. Philip Blosser.

The sites of those gentlemen are among the ones your host reads with the greatest of frequency and interest. It also bears noting that the amicable but principled disagreement between them on this matter was one which certainly pleases Us -such things these days are unfortunately rare as the present writer has noted before (including recently). As both sides appear to have had their say on the matter for now (as have others such as fellow Blessed Sacrament parishioner Mark Shea), your host has decided to weigh in on one aspect of this matter and leave the rest to the Blossers to hash out amongst themselves. Without further ado, let Us get to it first by noting the threads each has posted on the matter:

Dale Vree, God's Faithful Pit Bull: Show Some Respect! (Dr. Philip Blosser)

Dale Vree and the New Oxford Review - Roundup and Analysis (Christopher Blosser)

Christopher and Dr. Philip Blosser write too well for Us to be able to do the above threads full justice in a mere posting such as this. For that reason, it is recommended that those reading this thread also read the above threads when they finish with this one. (Christopher includes additional threads from Dr. Blosser as well as ones from Amy Welborn and Mark Shea in his posting above.) With those threads in mind, the present writer intends in this post to highlight what he sees as a problem with the methodology of Dale Vree (DV) by using the words of Dr. Blosser to set the stage for the problems your host will then touch on briefly. First though, the words of Dr. Blosser:

Dale Vree has garnered for himself a reputation for being something like the Pit Bull of Catholic orthodoxy in the United States. Like a Pit Bull, he attacks, bites, latches on, and holds on. Like a Pitt Bull, he is tenacious. Like a well-trained Catholic attack dog, he goes after anything that smells of theological compromise. Liberals hate him. Dissidents despise him. Moderates fear him. Neoconservatives are annoyed by him. The trouble is, he unleashes his reserves of adrenalin against his targets at the first, faintest whiff of anything that smells remotely like heterodoxy, even if his target is a widely celebrated champion of Catholic neoconservatives like Richard John Neuhaus or Scott Hahn. In fact, the offending odor doesn't have to even be remotely related to heterodoxy: if he catches the least scent of inconsistency or compromise, this dog of war will unleash himself upon your allegedly hypocritical derriere even if you are Fr. Joseph Fessio, George Weigel, Deal Hudson, Legionaries of Christ founder Fr. Marcial Maciel, Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, or even Catholic-And-Loving-It blog magnate, Mark Shea. Needless to say, this has not made him many fast friends. [Dr. Philip Blosser: Excerpt from Dale Vree, God's Faithful Pit Bull: Show Some Respect! (circa February 4, 2006)]

Now before touching on what is outlined above, it seems appropriate to note something else that Dr. Blosser said which struck a chord with this writer. It was in the same article as the previous quote at a point where the latter was seeking to draw together a discomforting thread between the ancient world and the modern one via the contemporary view of the character of Socrates among college students...in this case Dr. Blosser's own students:

I've been startled by the steady increase in the percentage of my students who seem unable to find insufficient warrant in the defense of Socrates in the Apology for his acquittal. In fact, I have seen a steady rise in the number of students who have little if any patience with the person of Socrates at all, let alone comprehension of his purposes, and who find themselves lining up behind his accusers, even if they find his death sentence a little harsh for their tastes. (I tell you, my friends, a new Dark Age is upon us, and the barbarians at the gates are not on the outside!) [Dr. Philip Blosser: Excerpt from Dale Vree, God's Faithful Pit Bull: Show Some Respect! (circa February 4, 2006)]

Now longtime readers of this weblog are aware that one of those who had an important role in forming your host's mental template{2} was an iconoclastic individual named Michael J. Mentzer. This is a subject that has rarely been discussed at this humble weblog{3} though at some point it probably will be as a way of providing a bit of insight into Our weltanschauung here at Rerum Novarum. Reading Dr. Blosser's words above brought back to Our mind a parallel in something that Mike Mentzer said in an interview about twelve years ago. To paraphrase it as best We can from memory it went approximately as follows:

[W]e are living in a new Dark Ages, we really are. Most people have no concept of logic and how to use it. How to use their intellectual faculties to distinguish between truth and falsehood. Most people are intellectually dependent. [Michael J. Mentzer (circa 1993)]

It would seem (and not only on the basis of his quote from above) that Dr. Blosser could be said to share Our concern for the state of intellectual decline in civilization in general. Certainly he gives every impression of writing with an aim to help fill in that lacuna and (to his credit) he does so very well. However, it seems to Us that he is mistakening what Dale Vree does over at New Oxford Review{4} for the kind of zeal which is commended in the Catholic spiritual tradition. Before touching on that though, a revisiting of Dr. Blosser's words so that We can interact with them before getting to the subject of zeal:

Dale Vree has garnered for himself a reputation for being something like the Pit Bull of Catholic orthodoxy in the United States. Like a Pit Bull, he attacks, bites, latches on, and holds on. Like a Pitt Bull, he is tenacious.

Tenacity in and of itself is in Our view a virtue; ergo your host does not have a problem with Dale Vree exhibiting it.{5}

Like a well-trained Catholic attack dog, he goes after anything that smells of theological compromise.

This is one of the points to be touched on shortly.

Liberals hate him. Dissidents despise him. Moderates fear him. Neoconservatives are annoyed by him.

Aaah yes, the mythical so-called "neo-cons": something that it is one of Our intentions here at Rerum Novarum to finally in some fashion verify the existence (or lack thereof) at some point.

The trouble is, he unleashes his reserves of adrenalin against his targets at the first, faintest whiff of anything that smells remotely like heterodoxy, even if his target is a widely celebrated champion of Catholic neoconservatives like Richard John Neuhaus or Scott Hahn. In fact, the offending odor doesn't have to even be remotely related to heterodoxy: if he catches the least scent of inconsistency or compromise, this dog of war will unleash himself upon your allegedly hypocritical derriere even if you are Fr. Joseph Fessio, George Weigel, Deal Hudson, Legionaries of Christ founder Fr. Marcial Maciel, Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, or even Catholic-And-Loving-It blog magnate, Mark Shea. Needless to say, this has not made him many fast friends. [Dr. Philip Blosser: Excerpt from Dale Vree, God's Faithful Pit Bull: Show Some Respect! (circa February 4, 2006)]

Okay, back to the one criticism your host has of Dale Vree and his methodology and it is this: he gives every appearance of not understanding what constitutes authentic zeal. To remind the readers with longer memories, We blogged on this subject back in September-October of 2002. The work was taken from an eighteenth century spiritual manual and some of the key pointers for identifying authentic zeal from its inauthentic copycat will now be noted in a lighter blue font:

Zeal for the salvation of souls is a sublime virtue, and yet how many errors and sins are committed daily in its name! Evil is never done more effectually and with greater security, says St. Francis de Sales, than when one does it believing he is working for the glory of God.

The saints themselves can be mistaken in this delicate matter. We see a proof of this in the incident related to the Apostles Saint James and Saint John; for Our Lord reprimanded them for asking Him to cause fire from heaven to fall upon the Samaritans. (Luke, IX., 54.)

Acts of zeal are like coins the stamp upon which is necessary to examine attentively, as there are more counterfeits than good ones. Zeal to be pure should be accompanied by great humility, for it is of all virtues the one which self-love most easily glides. When it does so, zeal is apt to become imprudent, presumptuous, unjust, bitter. Let us consider these characteristics in detail, viewing them, for the sake of greater clearness, in their practical bearings.

In every home there grows some thorn, something, in other words, that needs correction; for the best soil is seldom without its noxious weed. Imprudent zeal, by seeking awkwardly to pluck out the thorn, often succeeds only in plunging it farther in, thus rendering the wound deeper and more painful. In such a case it is essential to act with reflection and great prudence. There is a time to speak and a time to be silent, says the Holy Spirit. (Ecclesiastes III., 7.) Prudent zeal is silent when it realizes that to be so is less hurtful than to speak. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 29, 2002)]

And from part two of that series:

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

The value and utility of zeal are in proportion to its tolerance and amiability. True zeal is the offspring of charity; it should then, resemble its mother and show itself like to her in all things. "Charity", says St. Paul, "is patient, is kind, is not ambitious, and seeks not her own." (1 Cor. XIII, 4-5.)...

Never allow your zeal to make you overeager to correct others, says [St. Francis de Sales]; and when you do it remember that the most important thing to consider is the choice of the moment. A caution deferred can be given another time: one given inopportunely is not only fruitless, but moreover paralyzes beforehand all the good that might have have subsequently been done.

Be zealous therefore, ardently zealous for the salvation of your neighbour, and to further make use of whatever means God has placed in your power; but do not exceed these limits nor disquiet yourself about the good you are unable to do, for God can accomplish it through others. In conclusion, zeal according to the teaching of the Fathers of the Church, should always have truth for its foundation, indulgence for its companion, mildness for its guide, prudence for its counsellor and director. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 4, 2002)]

By Our reckoning --both in what We have read of his work as well as Dr. Blosser's own account of DV's methodology{6}-- the latter's zeal is counterfeit, imprudent, and usually does more harm than good. Furthermore, a key aspect of authentic charity is also missing from his frequent jumping on (as Dr. Blosser concedes) anything that smells of theological compromise. The spiritual masters of the Catholic tradition do not look kindly on this sort of thing at all...to quote from Our spiritual instruction on zeal circa early 2004:

Always be ready and willing to excuse the faults of your neighbour, and never put an unfavourable interpretation upon his actions. The same action, says St. Francis de Sales, may be looked upon under many different aspects: a charitable person will ever suppose the best, an uncharitable person will just as certainly choose the worst.

*"Do not weigh so carefully the sayings and doings of others, but let your thought of them be simple and good, kindly and affectionate. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 24, 2004)]

Certainly on the points noted above, it seems to this writer that Dale Vree fails and fails often to conform himself to them.{7} All of which leads this writer to believe he is another one of those converts who merely swapped dogmatic contents when they became Catholic but did not attain a proper Catholic mindset. Your host is hesitant to mention that factor in the equation very often but it bears noting here at least in brief.{8}

Anyway, what is noted above is what has been viewed by Us as a key flaw in DV's slaw. As far as how long he has had it, if he always had it, if he acquired it over time, etc., We are not in a position to say -leaving those distinctions to the Blossers themselves to discuss should they want to. And certainly none of what is noted in Our criticisms above is intended to imply that DV's work as a whole is without merit.

Essentially it is in Our view a case of Dale Vree taking the wrong approach for (oftentimes) the right reasons. And with that in mind, it seems to Us that if he tended to the problems noted above in the future, it would be easier for his better efforts to influence others of a similar weltanschauung for the good rather than turn them off and thus render relatively fruitless the seeds he seeks to sow.

Notes:

{1} It seems to the present writer that the subject of so-called "neo cons" is at the core of a lot of Dale Vree's criticisms of certain persons often given that label for some mysterious and undefined reason. For that reason, though it will be indirect, Our analysis of Vree's statements on what constitutes a so-called "neo-con" may well be an important undercurrent to the disagreement between the Blossers on Vree recently aired at their respective weblogs.

{2} Responding to the Blogosphere Book Meme (circa June 14, 2005)

{3} One of the very few areas where this has been touched on by your host publicly was in a thread on the argumentation fallacy of argumentum ad vericundiam published to this very weblog back on August 27, 2004. Mentzer's influence was also brought up in one of the few mentions of an idea your host has had for nearly seven years viz. writing a technical piece tying ecclesiological principles into the laws of nature-- that subject and a bit more is viewable HERE. It may also be touched upon in an upcoming dip into the mailbag should an email response sent out in November of 2005 actually be blogged here at Rerum Novarum as We are contemplating doing for various and sundry reasons. (Oh and no, the goals for the end of 2004 did not get realized then but after a haitus of a few months your host got back on track late last year and is on schedule to achieve them by approximately autumn of 2006.)

{4} In the interest of disclosure, Our exposure to NOR cannot be said to be nearly as expansive as that of Christopher Blosser (to say nothing of Dr. Blosser's familiarity with NOR of course). We have read articles sent to Us over the years and have perused NOR's site at times looking for stuff We have either heard of or simply perusing the archives for stuff that grabbed Our fancy at a particular moment. But as far as an expansive and continual exposure to NOR, that is not something that your host makes any pretentions towards possessing.

{5} And not only because similar things have been said about Us over the years viz. how We approach the subjects written on in various mediums of expression. (Though that may well be part of it of course.)

{6} See footnote four.

{7} And (of course) there are times when it is necessary to take a harsher or less irenic approach to dealing with people and situations...though as a rule this should not be the approach taken of course.

{8} For the record, it is and has been Our view that among the converts who do not manifest this problem are Christopher Blosser, Dr. Philip Blosser, Fr. John Neuhaus, and Dr. Scott Hahn (to name a few that come to mind and which were mentioned above).

Points to Ponder:
(On Logic Being a Special Preserve of the Learned)

[I]t is easy to get caught up in all of the arguments of "is WWWWW's PhD valid or not", etc. but that is beside the point. Even if it was, a valid PhD does not grant them immunity from making crappy arguments. For that reason, focus on their arguments not their presumed "credentials" or lack thereof.

The truth is, one can be logical without being learned. My father did not have a high school diploma, could not read well due to poor vision, etc., but he hardly was incapable of making logical arguments. The two do not have an intrinsic connection insofar as they must be present at the same time. Obviously knowledge can assist someone in making an argument but the tools for making a proper argument are not (and never have been) a special preserve of the educated.

Indeed, the moment it is conceded (even tacitly) that one has to be learned to be logical is the moment that academic elitists can impose an intellectual tyranny onto the rest of humanity. The truth is, intellectuals are often quite stupid and can make stupid arguments. Likewise, recognized "experts" in a particular area of study also can make poor arguments or misjudge matters. This is why what must be assessed is the validity (or lack thereof) of a theory or thesis they seek to advance, not the status of the person involved. [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa February 11, 2006)]

With all the hulabaloo over the St. Blogs "Awards" that is circulating in the blososphere, it seems appropriate at this time to renew in substance (if not in exact details) a lot of my criticisms over the way things went last year since Santayana's dictum about learning from history is so often ignored by the masses of people who involve themselves in these things. I predict three things with this year's "awards" and they are as follows:

---Candidates will be nominated for (and possibly win) in categories where they have no business whatsoever even being nominated.

---A number of very fine weblogs will be overlooked yet again in this years nominations.

---There will be probably be yet more cheating this year as there was last year with blogs no one has heard of being nominated in categories and (possibly) winning.

Anyway, if I do not go at least two for three with these predictions (and most likely three for three) I will be shocked to put it mildly my friends. But I digress.

Some Principles For Authentic Dialogue and the Proper Use of Sources in Papers:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

Certainly some of these subjects have been posted on over the years by the present writer in various mediums.{1} However, the subject of authentic dialogue and how to conduct it is one that is still appropriate to touch on from time to time -particularly after the kind of public spats that have taken place and to which those of Us at Rerum Novarum were unfortunately drawn into recently. It also seems appropriate at this time to touch on some of the principles that should be utilized whenever sources are quoted in a paper purporting to set forth a position on any subject.

For that reason (and without any intention of completion), the purpose of this thread will be to touch on some key points in a summary fashion which the present writer may take and develop further in the coming weeks and months if the time and inclination to do so converge to facilitate that endeavour. Nonetheless, authentic dialogue should facilitate these characteristics (as noted in blue font):

---Striving to enter into the viewpoint of the other person as much as you possibly can.

This is done to best try and understand where they are coming from. Rarely is this practiced today by anyone but it is an indispensible part of the equation of authentic dialogue. How is one to do this??? It starts with the next point to be covered...

---Listening to what someone actually says and taking time to assimilate their arguments into the collective of your mind.

Without mentioning any names, your host can think of many people who think they know how to dialogue but who appear to evince no familiarity whatsoever at times with those two key elements of authentic dialogue. Listening does not mean scanning the words of someone to immediately throw together a half-baked (if even that) "response" which demonstrates that you did not bother to take in what they actually said. That brings us to the next point to be touched on...

---Striving to conform ones approaches to the canons of traditional charity as much as one feasibly can.

This is also important. With variations in views one encounters differing interpretations of data, etc. and it is anathema to authentic dialogue to either presume that apparent incongruities in someone's statements are a result of deliberate obstinence without a reasonable degree of evidence to do so first.{2}

---Seeking to properly represent the positions of the other person in accordance with objective criteria.

This means do not engage in petitio principii methodology or trying to find cute ways to redefine matters apart from how they are objectively assessed.{3}

---Seeking to at all times respect the wishes of the other person viz. the manner in which one seeks dialogue in various mediums.

If there is any area that sets your host off like a Roman candle on the fourth of July it is this one. One of the reasons there is a Welborn Protocol at this weblog is because email is a very good source for writing topics and it enables for interaction with readers on topics covered at this weblog without the hassle of messing with comments boxes and the general low grade of stuff that those things engender as a rule.{4} Certainly every posting protocol has regulations of which seldom need to be mentioned...though recently at this humble weblog they did{5} due to an unfortunate circumstance not to be delved into at the moment due to a lack of time and desire to do so.

Nonetheless, it should not be presumed that any correspondence in the private forum can be taken public without the concurrence of the parties involved in the correspondence. (Either explicitly or tacitly.) In the case of your humble weblog host, he almost always explicitly notes somewhere in a private text that such a text may be blogged later on with the parties involved not mentioned by name. Those who do not make a similar disclosure to those they discuss matters with privately engage in an egregious violation of the sanctity of the private forum which should be treated almost as if it is a confessional in some respects...and no, that is not seen by your host as an exaggeration for reasons{6} not about to be dealt with in detail here.

The reason your host almost always refers to people anonymously in posting such threads (when they are posted at all which is not often) is because the purpose of dialogue is not to seek in it our own advantages. This is one of the points made clear by Paul VI in Ecclesiam Suam and which was covered by Us in a commentary on dialogue and its intricacies written a few years ago.{7} Those who wonder why your host has as a rule{8} 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.

---Make actual arguments for a position rather than merely give the opinions of others as if said opinions constitute an actual argument in and of themselves.

This should be self-evident but alas, often it is not.

---In citing sources, concern for proper context should be viewed to be of importance.

Once again, this should be self-evident but it is not. One of the reasons your host so often links to his sources in essay writings or on this weblog is so that it can be verified that he is quoting those sources correctly and not absent proper context. Obviously this cannot always be done since sometimes one must quote a source that cannot be found on the web. However, by disclosing web sources when they are utilized as a rule, the reader can recognize that the present writer quotes sources correctly and thus implicitly trust him when he quotes from a source they may not have access to.

The converse principle is also true in that those who demonstrate that they cannot be trusted in quoting sources which can be verified should not be trusted to quote accurately sources which they cite and the reader cannot verify. But enough on that point for now.

---In utilizing any source with a degree of controversion pertaining to it, factors which may bias that source should be disclosed to the readers if they either are known or can be reasonably ascertained.

For example, consider if this writer was to quote the Institute of Historical Review as a source critical of the Holocaust and the number of Jewish deaths and not reveal that the IHR was comprised of no small number of former Nazis and other unsavoury characters with an obvious agenda. If that were to happen, then this writer would be failing to practice proper disclosure of the source viz. certain key factors biasing the source's view. As a result, he would be deserving of a rebuke of no small degree by his contemporaries in no uncertain terms.{9}

---There should always be a strong hesitancy against making any kind of strong and opinionated public assertions on an issue where the person in question has minimal knowledge (if any) on.

Those who would presume to act in that fashion should not be surprised when they are treated less than amicably in the process...particularly if in doing so they also find themselves violating any of the other principles noted briefly in this posting.

While it is obvious that more could be covered on this matter than is covered by Us above; nonetheless, what is dealt with here suffices for a brief outline of certain principles for conducting an authentic dialogue and representing an argument accurately, non-fallaciously, and with scholarly integrity.

Notes:

{1} Here are some of the threads posted on this subject by your host in recent years -either directly on the matter in question or indirectly as examples of methodology:

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

On Dialogue and When it is a Waste of Time (circa September 27, 2005)

Clarifying Some Additional Points on the Atomic Bombing Subject With Dave Armstrong (circa August 28, 2005)

Musings on the Subject of Authentic Dialogue (circa May 20, 2005)

Prelude to a Potential Dialogue on the Subject of Foundational Presuppositions (circa April 18, 2005)

On Historical Figures, Development of Doctrine, and Briefly on Different Views of Historical People and Events With Tim Enloe (circa October 21, 2004)

On the War, Moral and Constitutional Principles, "Supporting the Troops", Etc. With SecretAgentMan (circa August 20, 2004)

On Marriage, the Supreme Court, Law in General, Etc. With Charles M. de Nunzio (circa June 2, 2004)

Society's Ills, the Function of Law in a Just Society, Etc. With Kevin Tierney (circa April 16, 2004)

Reprising a Request for Dialogue on Foundational Premises (circa March 14, 2004)

Brief Response and a Request to Tim Enloe (circa February 22, 2004)

On the Intricacies of Dialogue - A Commentary (circa December 16, 2003)

{2} This is what could be called motives of credibility. Admittedly, your host has a habit of giving a lot of leeway to people (particularly friends) up to a certain point where this is no longer possible. At that point, the benenfit of the doubt is cut off and not easily re-established without evidence of reasonable repentence on the part of the aforementioned parties for their past indiscretions.

{3} One example of many I can think of is making an obviously fallacious usage of argumentum ad veridunciam (argument to authority) and then trying to dress it up in ways to explain away your fallacy.

{4} This writer is hardly going to completely dismiss comments boxes of course since some of the ideas posted on this very weblog (or even whole posts sometimes) have been from material originally posted to comments boxes. There is almost always refinement of such material before it is posted of course -and not infrequently points barely touched on at all originally are developed further in said postings or later on as deemed necessary.

{5} Clarifying My Policy Viz. Private Correspondence--A Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG post (circa January 27, 2006)

{6} There is another principle I have always followed and essentially it is this: if someone sends me a note requesting confidentiality on a particular subject matter, I almost always consider all subsequent emails sent on that subject matter from that emailer to have the same promise of confidentiality that I make when responding to the first note in the series. The reason for this should be obvious: they had already requested the thread to be private so by logical extension subsequent installments are also covered by that cloak unless or until the sender consents at some point for that material to be posted. As a result of this, I get emails from time to time from people who would be considered (by the casual reader) "public enemies" of mine where they do not specify confidentiality and their stuff does not get posted. The reason for this is spelled out in the principle as noted above. [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa January 27, 2006)]

{7} On the Intricacies of Dialogue - A Commentary (circa December 16, 2003)

{8} The emphasis here belongs on as a rule because sometimes when it seems to be helpful or has been deemed necessary due to certain circumstances, your host has mentioned people by name. In the case of the former it is usually with those who do not try to inject personalities into the dialogue but prefer to stick to ideas. In the case of the latter, it is those who in some fashion or another egregiously misrepresent what your host or someone else has written and gives every appearance of doing so deliberately to appeal to the peanut gallery or for some other reason.

Like zeal which has many counterfeits which masquerade under its name, there are more counterfeits than authentic coinage in the dialogual currency. And the fraudulent dialoguists can find themselves sometimes on the receiving end of a fisking by Us...the ferocity of which is generally in direct proportion to their mockery of the concept of authentic dialogue and practicing basic aspects of scholarly inquiry.

{9} And (of course) the proper and ethical thing to do at that point would be to correct the source by inserting a disclosure or deleting the source and apologizing for using it to begin with. (Not pretending that usage of such a source in that fashion or a similar one was in any sense okay to do.)

Points to Ponder:
(On Reality)

If the denial of the Seahawks’ first quarter touchdown was the correct call and the awarding of the Steelers’ first second quarter touchdown was the correct call, then we’re obviously living in a world where I’m going to win the Nobel Prize for Physics next year. I’ll start writing my speech. [Kieran Healy (circa February 6, 2006)]

Synopsis on the Superbowl:
(Aka "None Dare Call it a Conspiracy" Dept.)

Briefly from the mailbag...

I was predicting 28 to 10, Steelers. I was right about Seattle, but one touchdown off for Pittsburgh. If they didn't through that interception at the 2 yard line, I am sure they would have scored a touchdown.

Presumably some may have thought who read this weblog that your host was gonna slink off quietly after his prediction of a Seahawk victory in the Superbowl did not come about. That would not be Our style at all so we admit it up front here before going into a synosis on what happened: OUR PREDICTION WAS WRONG. Not for the reasons some might think but it was wrong nonetheless. There, having noted that and after correcting an A1 error or blown prediction on A1, let Us move onto the aforenoted synopsis.

To start with, it should have been 24-0 Hawks at halftime. The fieldgoal misses were odd cause Josh Brown almost always hits from 50 and beyond on the fieldgoals. Receivers were open all day but the most often used target of the day (the 6'7" tightend Jeremy Stevens) had his usually reliable hands fail him for some reason.

The Steelers were unable to move the ball for most of the game. But the Hawks shot themselves in the foot too many times. However (and this must be said cause it was true) the refs did not help either...the coincidence of three of those calls sure gives at a minimum the appearance of impropriety if not a fix. Part of the reason instant replay was put into the game was because of crap like that but it does not help when referees do not do their job in reviewing the tape.

On three of the plays, Stevie Wonder could have done a better job with the officiating!!! For example, Darryl Jackson of the Hawks was called for a foul where he did not touch the other guy, there was that stupid so-called "low-blocking" call back when Jackson made another reception for about 40 yards for first and goal at the 3 (there was no penalty on that play). Ben Roethlisberger's so-called "touchdown" where the ball did not break the plane of the goalline, etc.{1} To the credit of Chris Berman, Steve Young, and Michael Irvin, they pointed those things out...hell, Irvin made a career out of the kind of contact Jackson was supposedly called for without being called. Once again, the bias against small market teams was evident{2} and it sickens Us to no end to see it cause the game should be left to the players not the officials.

The bottom line is, the so-called "finesse team" roughed up the big bad Steelers as We knew they would. So in giving out the MVP award, give it to those whom it belongs: the referees. The better team definitely did not get the trophy but We see nothing keeping the Hawks from returning next year provided that they have less injuries than they had this year.{3} They exceeded Our preseason predictions this year so it was in that sense a very good year. And if they do go next year, We intend to be there in person.

Oh and to those who made drinks bets with Us need not worry as We will pay up on them in due time. But those people would do well to remember that that in paying them back as We will to return the debt by buying a round for your NFL Superbowl referees, the real "MVP's" of that game without question.

Addendum:

Interestingly enough, two third string players factored in the game...the third string safety missing a key read that resulted in the 75 yard touchdown run and a third string cornerback with the fourth quarter interception.

It should be noted lest anyone think We have an animus against Pittsburgh in saying these things that nothing is further from the truth. They have been Our second favourite team for years, We like Cowher as a coach and Bettis is one for whom We wish the best no matter what he does in the offseason. But the truth is, they were beaten up by a better team and east coast big market bias was a factor again in a professional sport playoff or championship game. And while it happens in all the leagues and the NFL is hardly unique, they claim to be the premiere professional league in all of sports so they should show it by causing some heads to roll after this fiasco...starting with some of those who officiated that game!!! That is all on this subject for now...

Notes:

{1} It is quite likely that if that play was called correctly that Cowher would have gone for a fieldgoal and they would have made it from that distance. (Not wanting to fail on a fourth down attempt that early in the game.)

{2} Ala Michael Jordan back in the day traveling enough in the paint to rack up a free ticket to the moon and was almost never called whereas a rookie player doing the exact same stuff being repeatedly called for the exact same thing. Veteran pitchers like Glavine and Maddux getting an extra ball or two on the outside of the plate called a strike whereas a rookie with a throw in exactly the same place getting it called as a ball, etc. Wethinks some of the refs had bets on the spread or something cause the three plays mentioned above in how they were called smelled worse than a portapotty three months overdue for servicing.

{3} No team in football was missing more key starters throughout the year at larger intervals than the Hawks did and they still managed to make it to the big dance. If Alexander is resigned and Strong does not retire, the offense will return intact and the defense everyone thought would stink this year will be even better still.

"Dogmatic Theology Five Cents, The Doctor is In" Dept.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

On occasion your host has seen a need for various and sundry reasons to expound on intricacies of theological matters as a result of variegated subject matters requiring it, circumstances surrounding certain subject matter, particular persons endeavouring to discuss them, etc. However, there is no intention to deal with specifics per se in this posting, merely certain theological presuppositions that must inform a mature and accurate elucidation of more complex theological/philosophical/geopolitical/ethical subject matters. These are matters that even those who are at times touted as presumed "experts" in any of those fields often approach myopically for more reasons than can be noted in a brief posting such as this. Nonetheless, it suffices to denote here a key factor that gets to the root and matrix of facile or otherwise specious commentaries on more complex and nuanced subject matter so here goes.

With general norms, one has to tread carefully and this is a subject not often understood even by many who are considered "experts" in these matters. This is part of the reason why your host rolls his eyes when those with partisan agendas quote too freely from certain portions of Gaudium et Spes or from any source without taking into account certain factors which mitigate against a false interpretation (and thus misrepresentation of) those sources. To go into details on this at the present time is not viewed as necessary but briefly: there are magisterial sources and there are sources which are not magisterial. Failing to make a proper distinction here is a common problem{1} another is failing to be careful in the citing of sources which are magisterial such as Gaudium et Spes. The Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium gave a not-so-subtle hint to some of the factors involved in a proper interpretation of texts when it noted with regards to the pope's statements the following points:

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

These are certainly not the only ingredients involved in the equation but they are key ones and in this post, we will focus them now on the document Gaudium et Spes. To start with, it is a Pastoral Constitution which means it probably has fairly low authority compared to many of the other documents from the synod. Certainly it is trumped by the dogmatic constitutions and the declarations of teaching. It is probably more authoritative than a decree but that is to some extent speculative and cannot therefore be presumed. Nonetheless, it is certainly a magisterial text so it carries some degree of authority to it...of this no Catholic could deny. So we have established the nature of the document. And as repetition of a teaching applies to not a particular text but to a teaching across a spectrum of texts, that criteria would not be a factor here. That brings us to the manner of speaking.

A frequently overlooked clarifying note in that text explains the manifested intentions of the document and its contents in this fashion:

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

This is why one cannot haphazardly reference any text and properly represent the intention manifested thereof. Even with magisterial texts, there is a gradation involved and GS in particular contains this in the second part of the text not only by the nature of the material covered but even by its own textual admission.

Now then, there are certain themes in the second part of the the text which are touched on briefly and they include the following ones (major chapter headings in black font, subsections in blue):

Marriage and the family (GS 46-52)

The Proper Development of Culture (GS 53-62)

---The Circumstances of Culture in the World Today (GS 54-56)

---Some Principles for the Proper Development of Culture (GS 57-59)

---Some More Urgent Duties of Christians in Regard to Culture (GS 60-62)

Economic and Social Life (GS 63-72)

---Economic Development (GS 64-66)

---Certain Principles Governing Socio-Economic Life as a Whole (GS 67-72)

The Life of the Political Community (GS 73-76)

The Fostering of Peace and the Promotion of a Community of Nations (GS 77-92)

---The Avoidance of War (GS 79-82)

---Setting Up An International Community (GS 83-93)

It bears noting that much of this section from GS 46-72 probably retains its value in light of subsequent magisterial pronouncements (and further developments still) by Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II. The subjects covered in those texts were also dealt with in subsequent apostolic letters, encyclicals, exhortations, etc. by those popes. From GS 73 onward though (particularly from GS 77 onward), the text becomes more transient and speculative and thus (by theological norms of interpretation) cannot be given the same benefit of the doubt as the previously noted sections. Pope John Paul II made it very clear more than once that he viewed the UN as being in need of replacement{1} and the whole "avoidance of war" subject has been put into a new situation in light of technological advances which have mitigated the situation the world found itself in at that time viz. war armarments.

Now certainly much more could be noted than this but what is done in this brief treatment will have to suffice for now. Hopefully it is clear by what is denoted above why your host and not a few others roll their eyes and have no respect whatsoever for the manner which many ideologues misquote sources to try and fill in for the lacuna of solid arguments for their positions. This is done by neophytes as well as even many seasoned apologists, social commentators, etc so by no means is it a localized problem at all but instead one that is more universal in its scope. And while normally these factors do not come up when dealing with boilerplate issues, with geopolitical matters and more complex moral/ethical matters, there is quite a minefield out there. Far too often (and with an alarming frequency in recent years), seasoned apologists social commentators, etc. have stepped on those mines with regrettable yet predictable results.

The bottom line is that no Catholic should presume that because they may be able to adequately discuss matters with a clear magisterial sanction on them that they can likewise do so where there is a lack of similar clarity involved. Or put another way: social commentary and the analysis of more complex geopolitical factors should be left to those who know how to do it.

Note:

{1} And yes, this could be demonstrated lest anyone wonder about the veracity of this assertion by the present writer.

Points to Ponder:
(On Making an Argument in a Paper)

Once you've identified the theme of your paper, you'll frame your theme as an argument. One of the hardest parts in writing a long paper is developing and maintaining an argument.

In simple terms, an argument is the point of view that you assert and back up with evidence. An opinion is a [sic] simply a point of view. The critical difference between an opinion and an argument is the evidence. An argument is a statement or theory that someone else could disagree with, but still follow your logic.

In a Critical Biography, your best evidence is a quotation (from your interview or a scholarly source) or a specific example from your subject's life.

In other words, an argument isn't simply pointing out something that is obvious, and it isn't a statement of you or your subject's opinion on a topic. An argument is the development of a case demonstating that your interpretation of evidence, events, or situations is valid. [Katy Birckmayer Ph.D (Director of College Mission Programs at Rutgers University): Excerpt from Reading and Writing Tips on Developing an Argument]

[Note: For further reading on what a theory is and how it differs from a thesis, see this thread from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG circa two years ago - ISM]

Briefly on President Bush's State of the Union Address:
(Dialogue with Kevin Tierney)

For the first time in this administration, I did not watch a State of the Union Address last night. I also did not watch much of the Alito hearings though thus far I am batting between .800 and 1.000 on my predictions viz. that situation.{1} Before people think I am showing too much detachment on these matters, the truth is, this is an election year and I am pacing myself at the moment both for practical and tactical reasons among others which could be noted.{2}

However, I have recognized in recent years that some of my friends are quite astute on geopolitical matters (even when I do not necessarily agree with some of their interpretations of said matters). One of those persons is Kevin Tierney who sent me an email earlier today with a link in it and some commentary on his part. Here is what was sent...Kevin's words will be in blue font:

Symposium on the State of the Union

So far it seems like typical Bush. Great on foreign policy, and downright scary on domestic policies in that he is supposed to be a conservative.

That is why I elected not to watch the speech...Bush is so predictable that I could have sketched that out as his modus opperandi even before being notified of that distinction by Kevin in his email.

Wanna solve our addiction to foreign oil? Drill ANWR and build more refineries. Let's see a serious push for these two things.

Precisely. I wrote on the economics of high gas prices and what causes them last year. It is a key factor in the whole energy issue and Kevin is on target in what he says on the matter.

The training [of 70,000] teachers to be [competitive], as Mark Steyn says, "barely passes the laugh test." Make them competitive with school vouchers.

I have not written publicly on the school vouchers issue at this weblog yet (at least I cannot recall doing so) but in general, I am and have been a supporter of the idea for over ten years.

Along with the democrats rebuttal, and we have a true blue conservative on the airwaves to present what a real conservative would do?

Well, to outline what a true conservative would do would be to write a post the size of a small pocket thesarus. That is why I have always written on principles of authentic conservatism and applied those principles to situations and events as they have arisen in the public forums. But certainly the things Kevin notes are part and parcel of what a true conservative worthy of the label would do. And as I have noted many times before (including here), President Bush is no true conservative no matter how you slice it. Ergo, I am not surprised that his proposed agenda is half-baked.

For what it is worth, even on one of the key issues where he is considered "conservative"{3} that notion does not resonate convincingly with me. For reasons I briefly revisited late last year{4}, his position contains an internal inconsistency that is maddening to say the least. But that is all I intend to say on the matter{5} at the present time.

Notes:

{1} Depending on how those predictions are interpreted of course. I hope with the three remaining to go two for three on them but only time will tell.

{2} As well as a general lack of time to write much due to work-related issues.

{3} Read: being in favour of strong national security. But from a fiscal standpoint, Bush has been anything but truly conservative.

{4} On the Subjects of National Security, the Patriot Act, Etc. (circa December 31, 2005)

{5} Though I reserve the right to actually read the speech and comment on it later on (depending on my inclinations of course), I think what is briefly noted in this post is adequate for the time being.

Some Brief Wrapup Comments on the Previous Guest Editorial:
(From the Webmaster at Rerum Novarum)

The editorial being commented on is the one posted HERE.

It must be noted in the interest of disclosure that your host had admittedly considered making a final brief thread in syllabus form sketching out in bulletform the various arguments made at this humble weblog which Mr. Armstrong has ignored from the very beginning. Certainly from a personal standpoint it would provide another opportunity to illuminate Our own vindication on the matter if that project were to be undertaken. However, at some point, it is advisable to recognize that an issue has run its course and the mark of a mature writer (be they an apologist or as in the case of the present writer, a commentator) is recognizing that point when it arrives. Dr. Art Sippo's counsel in that area meshes well with that of Sun Tzu from the Art of War on when one should or should not fight:

The enlightened ruler lays his plans well ahead; the good general cultivates his resources.

Move not unless you see an advantage; use not your troops unless there is something to be gained; fight not unless the position is critical.

No ruler should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no general should fight a battle simply out of pique.

If it is to your advantage, make a forward move; if not, stay where you are.

What has been covered up to this point by your host conforms without difficulty to the above counsel, achieving three key and critical purposes:

---Clarifying to a reasonable degree the primary reason why this subject needed to be readdressed after Mr. Armstrong unwisely reopened it in the public forum.

---Publicly vindicating once again Our original assertions in this discussion since the subject was exited by Us last year and then recently (and unfortunately) reopened by Mr. Armstrong.

---Setting the historical record straight on a profoundly disingenuous{1} misuse of Our previous statements by Mr. Armstrong in recent weeks.

However, while those postings had solid purposes to them, your host admittedly cannot see how the project mentioned at the start of this epilogual comments achieves anything of a similar nature. For that reason, there is concern on his part that it would be too much of an exercise in public gratification to complete it.

Ergo, this writer fails to see what more needs to be covered on these subjects of a necessary import and for that reason, he will recognize Dr. Sippo's call to let the issue drop. The aforementioned stance will remain the position taken at this weblog in perpetuity from this point onward. (All things to the contrary notwithstanding.)

Note:

{1} As Mr. Armstrong has publicly retracted and apologized for his usage of the aforementioned statements, your host hereby retracts the assertion of that usage as being disingenuous in nature and chalks it up instead to the kinds of excesses that can sometimes happen in these kinds of disputations. These are excesses it might be added that your host has with reasonable certainty not been completely exempt from and for which he apologizes for at this time to Dave and to the readers of this weblog for any such excesses on Our part thereof (be they real or perceived). -ISM 2/1/06 12:40pm]

A Followup Guest Editorial on the Atomic Bombings, the Continued Emphasis on it Publicly by Certain Apologists, and the Goal of Catholic Apologetics:
(Written by Dr. Art Sippo)

I am very dismayed that Dave Armstrong continues his ranting about the American use of the atomic bombs on Japan in 1945. To support his claims he takes quotations from non-magisterial papal documents which mention the incident but which are irrelevant to his point. He also takes blanket condemnations of the horrors of modern warfare from Catholic sources and then inappropriately applies them retrospectively to the atomic bomb issue in order to render his own magisterial statement on the matter. While he is entitled to his opinion, I am disappointed that he feels the need to manufacture support for his position where it does not exist.

I would be very surprised if the Popes would ever give support to any specific military action without decrying the loss of life associated with that action. If you remember, the Vatican stayed neutral during World War II despite the overwhelming evidence for Nazi aggression and the horrible policies that the Germans pursued both at home and abroad. Pius XII always sought a peaceful solution that did not involve bloodshed and offered himself as an intermediary towards that end. Yet anyone who knows the period realizes that a peaceful solution was not feasible and that the Vatican's position was ideological, not practical. Nevertheless, I do not think that the Church could have done otherwise.

Likewise the decrying of the destruction at Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the Popes in private correspondence or in speeches during a visit to Japan were ideological and in fact inevitable. How could they praise the destruction of life during those and other bombings? The Popes decried the whole of World War II because of the death and misery that it caused, but which of us would dare to say that fighting against Nazism and Japanese aggression was not morally justifiable?

As to the comments Dave used allegedly from the Church Magisterium against "Total War," these are similarly irrelevant. These were directed against a "counter-values " nuclear policy during the Cold War in which nuclear armaments could be used indiscriminately to destroy both valid military targets and non-military targets of no tactical or strategic import. This was not the case at Hiroshima and Nagasaki both of which were valid military targets selected specifically to demonstrate the power of the atomic bombs and to coax the Japanese into surrender without further loss of life.

In fact Dave has not produced a single Magisterial document that condemns the specific use of nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki as immoral. He has just shown that the Church opposes the indiscriminate use of weapons of mass destruction (with which all civilized people will agree) and that she also decried the suffering caused by the atomic bombs dropped on Japan (with which again all civilized person will agree). This is a far cry from condemning President Truman for his decision and denouncing him as a war criminal.

I think that the following paragraph from The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response written by the American bishops in 1983 sums up the true Catholic position on this matter:

12. This passage acknowledges that, on some complex social questions, the Church expects a certain diversity of views even though all hold the same universal moral principles. The experience of preparing this pastoral letter has shown us the range of strongly held opinion in the Catholic community on questions of war and peace. Obviously, as bishops we believe that such differences should be expressed within the framework of Catholic moral teaching. We urge mutual respect among different groups in the Church as they analyze this letter and the issues it addresses. Not only conviction and commitment are needed in the Church, but also civility and charity.

I think that enough time and effort has been wasted on this issue. This issue has nothing to do with Catholic apologetics and a valid diversity of opinion exists within the Catholic fold about it so that no one has the right to claim he holds to THE Catholic position on it.

Adults often must agree to disagree so that they can get on with the truly pressing business at hand. I have no desire to argue any further about this issue. Mr. Armstrong may continue to hold his opinion. I remain unconvinced by his arguments and continue to hold my own. Nothing more needs to be said.

Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro!

#######

Our comments on this editorial and its recommendations can be viewed HERE.

Naked Anticipation:
(A Poem by Albert Cipriani)

A silver blemish in a cloudless sky
moved slow as all the minute hands about
Hiroshima in 1945
to stop. It crawled too high to make a sound
that’d prophesy their baptism of fire,
making them a chosen people by
our high command which set aside, till now,
their un-bombed town to better showcase ground

zero. Some looked up and saw the speck,
a spore, descending from the apogee
of science, from mankind’s intelligence,
the germ of military brilliancy
and radiation sickness, saw what we
just fear, like Jews beneath the shower heads.

"Tracking the Ever-Elusive So-Called 'Neo Con'" Dept.

The previous installment in the series can be read HERE while one would go HERE to start from the beginning of the thread.

Shawn,

Thanks for responding to my note. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the terminology of "neo-cons" with you. You pretty much hit the nail on the head with the characterization:

"Would you be referring essentially to those who see conservatism in some kind of reactionary and static preservationism as opposed to those who see conservatism as something pro-active and vibrant???"

That is precisely the kind of person I was thinking of.

I thought so...that is a common division made by people when discussing the subject of conservatism. I have long argued that conservatism properly understood is ressourcement oriented and thus not strictly speaking reactionary or preservationist in its essential nature.

To answer an indirect question, I am Catholic, and note that none of the people I cited as "deep-in-the-bones" conservative are Catholic, at least to my knowledge.

Indeed. Those I am being critical of with this challenge happen to be Catholics who try to use the "neo-con" label to essentially deadagent those whom they do not agree with rather than interact with their arguments. I can conclude nothing else in light of their cowardice to respond to this very simple challenge as I have set it down to define their use of terms.

Those three people have attitudes (again, to the best of my knowledge) that range from ambivalent to mostly positive towards Christianity, but nothing like the integration of faith and practice I see in Father Neuhaus, George Weigel, or Michael Novak.

Well, with Neuhaus and Weigel they are ressourcement oriented in their approach. I think Novak is too but I have not read enough of his stuff to pronounce on the matter with certainty. For that I recommend asking either Justin Nickelson or Christopher Blosser. I firmly believe they are in a much better position to talk about Novak than I am...particularly Justin from a theological ressourcement perspective and Chris from a geopolitical one.

It is clear that the tradition and doctrine of the Church demands of us a active commitment to building a just social order.

Yes...this understanding was recently reaffirmed by Pope Benedict XVI in Deus Caritas Est.

I read a lot of Chesterton on my way to joining the Church, and I had to agree with him that if I merely loved my country because it was just and fair, I would keep it unchanged. But if I loved my country and my countrymen because it is my country and they are my countrymen, I would lay it waste in order to create the New Jerusalem. (Orthodoxy, pg. 75, Ignatius Press 1995)

Well said. One can have a firm love for their country and recognize at the same time that it is imperfect and in need of purification. That has always been my approach to the matter and is part of the reason I noted in my weblog profile that I support "nationalism (within limits)." There are many things in this nation that need fixing and I have not been shy to discuss a number of those factors as they pertain either to the contemporary issues in question or my particular mood to discuss them around the time they are blogged.

While there is a touch of hyperbole in that,

Hyperbole in Chesterton??? Surely you jest ;-)

I'm guessing that may be why I might be flattered to be perjured as a "neo-con".

Makes sense to me...assuming for a moment that these so-called "neo-cons" actually exist. Assertions by certain public critics without supplying proof (or by explaining what they mean by their usage of that term) is essentially petitio prnncipii; ergo I reject such assertions without hesitation.


To be Continued...

Christopher Blosser gives a roundup of varied responses to Pope Benedict XVI's first encyclical letter

Thus far, I have not said much about the document publicly except linking to it earlier. However, I did quote certain passages of it in the most recent installment of the "tracking the elusive so-called 'neo-con'" series pertaining to matters of church and state as well as the church's role in political life. Beyond that,{1} I am likely to follow my usual pattern of letting others "get the scoop" on the matter first so that I can respond with a less-hurried and more penetrating analysis of the contents of the letter should I have the time and inclination to do so in the coming weeks.

Note:

{1} And it does bear noting in brief that those who like to claim that a certain group of "neo-cons" exist will not be too happy with the parts of the letter I quoted in the aforementioned series installment on trying to find these so-called "neo-cons" and if they even exist or not.

The Arguments Opposed to the War in Iraq As Sent By Us to Our Dialogical Opposition For Their Development Thereof:

This is a continuation of the subject of an upcoming dialogue on the war in Iraq -the previous installment of which can be read HERE. (The first part of which explains the genesis of this idea being accessible HERE.) The arguments themselves will be in black font and some of the words of Our humble interlocutor in response to the thread will be in darkgreen font.

I have not found the time to compile all the arguments yet and am not sure I will at this stage. (They are in my other gmail account somewhere but with about 5000 threads, they will not be easy to find even with the built in google searcher.) Nonetheless, here are seven which I either recall previously or have thought up on the spot including (arguably) the most trenchant one of all...

1) The war was not a just war according to just war criteria.

This argument is one with a lot of variables to it which could be interpreted in different ways. Certainly a good case can be made for it not being a just war (and I have no doubt you will make a good case should you go that route) but it will not be an incontrovertible one anymore than my case for it being a just war would be. In short, this one will at best end in a stalemate though that should not discourage you from making this argument if you are so inclined to.

I will argue this.

2) There should not have been an invasion because there were no WMD's as previously claimed.

This is not the slam dunk that it may appear for your side so I would argue it carefully if I were you. (Cause I know how to respond to it.)

This has no value other than as an adjunct to #1.

3) Bush lied about WMD to go to war, etc.

I have (and would once again) nuke this argument should it be presented. Certainly you may touch on it in your piece but it should be peripheral at best so that your main theory is not harmed when I decimate this thesis.

My opinion is "who gives a damn"? Are we supposed to change our policy based on the subjective moral dispositions of our leaders?...Nobody thinks we have to repeal the First Amendment because Thomas Jefferson constructively raped a slave, and the morality of invading Iraq isn't contingent on Bush being a liar or a stupid opportunist.

4) The war in Iraq was a violation of international law.

I have argued the converse before and would do so again; nonetheless, this is a far stronger foundation than the third example given and a good argument can be made for this view.

Bingo, but this is tied into #1 insofar as the UN Charter allows unilateral military action in just-war scenarios.

5) The popes and their representatives condemned the use of force in Iraq without the concurrence of the UN; ergo Catholics could not support the war as it was undertaken by the Bush Administration.

You know presumably that I will vaporize this argument...and I doubt you would try to make it anyway in anything but a peripheral capacity. Nonetheless, it is one which has circulated so you may have to at least touch on it in brief contra the Stephen Hand's/Zwicks of the Catholic world.

Yes they did, but they did it on terms that leave it open to question whether the theories about just war they're using are obligatory magisterial teachings (this is true even for His late Holiness). Don't want to make an argumentarium alla vericundimicelli, do I?

6) Those who oppose the war in Iraq are defacto supporters of the old regime and by logical extension its innumerable atrocities against human rights and violations of international law.

I could possibly argue the third point above but would not bother with the first two because I think they are examples of overly jingoistic approaches to this matter which do neither side any good. (The converse from your side would be the Handian "those who support the war have no conscience about broken bones and crushed lives, yadda yadda yadda": an argument as equally absurd as the first two attempted arguments in the paragraph above.)

I plan to spend some time on this, since [someone] tagged me with this one about a year ago. It's nonsense.

7) Apprising the past and considering the delicate geopolotical situation with attempting to overthrow existing governments in general (and the particular tinderbox that is the Middle East in particular), there is always a risk that the medicine proposed for such a cure would be worse than the disease itself. If one looks at Czarist Russia in 1917, the Czar was overthrown by a provisional government headed by Lvov and then Kerensky but that provisional government was overthrown by the Bolshiveks in its infancy; thus creating a far greater problem than there was with the original Czar.

In the case of Iraq, one could argue that the idea of overthrowing Saddam Hussein and installing a democratic government in Iraq both (i) in a country where Shi-ites are the majority population and (ii) within such a close proximity to a fanatical Shi-ite theocracy like Iran is a gamble that (if it fails) would pave the way for a Shi-ite theocracy in Iraq which would closely align itself with Iran and create a Shi-ite theocratic powerblock in the Middle East with potential nuclear capacities in the near future. The latter scenario would be a far greater problem than the retention of Hussein in power. For this reason, I judge it as an unwise and potentially catastrophic policy to invade/have invaded Iraq with the intention of overthrowing the Hussein government and attempt to replace it with a democratic government as the Bush Administration has done and is in the process of seeking to do.

I had to sketch this one out a bit to explain it for those who do not know their history. (Obviously historical ignorance does not apply to you XXX.) I will disclose up front that the above argument (based as it is in an examination of the past ala Santayana's dictum) is by far the strongest argument against what the Bush Administration have sought to do in Iraq since March of 2003. I almost have anxiety actually sending it to you but heck, I have wanted to see good arguments for the contra-the-war stance so I am obligated out of conscience as well as a innate sense of fair play to do so.

I've argued this before, the invasion is just plain stupid because (a) we've actually forfeited any long-term chance to do anything valuable with the Arab and Muslim world, (b) we're gonna get an Islamofascist state or a Biggie-Size-It version of Lebanon / no-man's land existing between Greater Turkey and Greater Iran.

Anyway folks, the cards have been dealt and We at Rerum Novarum anticipate (based on the trackrecord this person has have had in dialogue with Us over the years) that this will be a good vigorous and (most importantly) charitable dialogue. Furthermore, We anticipate an authentic dialogue rather than a sham one so wherever you stand on this issue, stay tuned to this same Bat blog for the aforementioned event when it materializes. (Read: whenever Our most humble of interlocutors finishes the draft of his opening comments...since We had the last word in the previous war dialogue, it seems fitting that they have the first word this time around.)