On Objective Principles and Subjective Circumstances Where Citing Sources Are Concerned...

[Prefatory Note: This was originally published to Facebook on June 12, 2012. -ISM]

This material is taken from a status posted by a friend of mine circa June 10, 2012. Here is said status for the sake of contextualizing what is said below -all names removed to eliminate the possibility of anyone taking this personally as my concern here is the principles involved, not the parties themselves. Without further ado...

‎"In some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception. For two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail." ---The U.S. Supreme Court, in "Planned Parenthood v Casey" [1992]

And here are the words of my original comment on the thread:

I am presuming that you got that quote from someone and did not get it from the case itself. Because that quote above appears nowhere in the case texts. Here are the actual quotes:

"The Roe rule's limitation on state power could not be repudiated without serious inequity to people who, for two decades of economic and social developments, have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives. The Constitution serves human values, and while the effect of reliance on Roe cannot be exactly measured, neither can the certain costs of overruling Roe for people who have ordered their thinking and living around that case be dismissed. Pp. 855-856.

...

It should be recognized, moreover, that in some critical respects, the abortion decision is of the same character as the decision to use contraception, to which Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird, and Carey v. Population Services International afford constitutional protection. We have no doubt as to the correctness of those decisions.

I should add here that the two parts above which were prooftexted for the manufactured quote in this status were from the members of the court that UPHELD Roe vs. Wade in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey!

The above words on my part got the following response on the thread which will be in bolded font. My response to them will be in regular font.

Shawn, the manufactured quote above takes a bit from the second paragraph you cite and the rest from the first. I don't think that is so bad.

I have a serious problem with playing fast and loose with citations.

The court did say both things.

That is an egregious butchering of what the Court said both in terms of ripping the statements from context as well as how they are presented. 

And I am quite sure XXXXXXX is aware that what he cites is from the rationale for upholding Roe v. Wade.

It is quite possible XXXXXXX got the citation from a pro-life website without checking it. I have learned over the years that pro-life websites are roughly as prone to miscite sources as anti-life sources are. That is why I said what I did where XXXXXXX is concerned: I cannot believe he would knowingly cite a quote in the manner above -it is highly unscholarly and blatantly disingenuous. XXXXXXX is from everything I know about him both scholarly as well as ethical. 

He isn't quoting it to approve of it, but rather to lay bare the way these folks think, and what they think is of more value than human life.

And how does this help matters when someone goes back to find the citation and discovers the unscholarly hack job that the above quote represents viz. what the Court actually said? This is not even a case of citing two things in sequence with an ellipse between the different parts -that would be ok. This is reformulating what was said and making it say something that the Court did not say for the sake of political agenda. 

Which is, to be explicit, the right to have sex without having to be prepared to raise children. Which they think is good and we think is bad.

By way of example, what would you say if someone did this with your last comment?:

"Which is, to be explicit, the right to have sex without having to be prepared to raise children. Which we think is good." 

Before you object, you did say all of that yourself in your last comment on the thread prior to mine. Heck, there is not a word in that sentence that you did not say. So by your rationale, you would have no right to take offense at someone misrepresenting your words like that. But you would take offense at it because that is not what you actually said as anyone who checks the comment you made can readily see. How is that any different than the quote above objectively speaking?

Look, I have blistered my adversaries over the years when I have caught them doing such things with sources they cite. For that reason, I cannot in the interest of both ethics and rational consistency turn a blind eye to my allies when they do the very same thing. It is a matter of objective truth insofar as such things are not right or okay when "the good guys" do it and wrong, deplorable or to be condemned when "the bad guys" do it. The subjective nobility of the cause is not the determining factor of the objective rightness or wrongness of the conduct undertaken but instead, said conduct is objectively wrong, period.

Points to Ponder:

It would seem that in the vacuum of our modern lives has morphed what we construe to be mistakes and “failures.” When we are able to live life without the atrocities and sacrifices of war, we somehow feel as though that our comfort should be juxtaposed onto war itself. Yet, Mr. Hanson paints a vivid landscape of what would be these same expectations during World War II. It is quite illuminating to see such a historian critique an era from the perspective of modern eyes and expectations foisting upon the “Greatest Generation” our ideas of mistakes and “failures.” ["Publius" (circa late May 2006)]

Chelsea Clinton: America Was ‘Too Sexist’ To Elect My Mom


In brief...

The drawer's dullest knife
Desperate for relevance
Poor homely Chelsea

Points to Ponder:

“I read to experience other places, other people. I write to describe a moment in my ordinary life. Sometimes there are scents, sometimes there are sounds. And I often wonder, is that enough? Maybe not if I wanted to make a living writing. Maybe not if I wanted to write the next great American novel, or publish a short story in the The New Yorker. But to write for my personal blog? Sometimes scent, sound, and a sense of ‘in this moment’ are enough. The poem about cooking an eggplant, that was enough for Natalie Goldberg; Williams’ poem written on a prescription pad, that is enough for me. Details are meaning enough. Being present in a moment is meaning enough. “ [Angela Badgley]

My latest contribution to the Jaded Politics project courtesy of the Musings From Exile website{1} can be read HERE.

Note:

{1} "I link to the Musings From Exile website version so I do not trigger a trackback to it on the main page; thereby ensuring that I keep Rerum Novarum separate from that project." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 8, 2017)]

Points to Ponder:

“A great nation is like a great man:
When he makes a mistake, he realizes it.
Having realized it, he admits it.
Having admitted it, he corrects it.
He considers those who point out his faults
as his most benevolent teachers.
He thinks of his enemy
as the shadow that he himself casts.”
[Lao Tzu]

Briefly on War Atrocities, History, Selective Outrage, Etc. 

I must admit I am rather surprised at the moralizing outrage positions taken against ISIS{1} by certain sorts who every year or so bemoan the ending of WWII in the Pacific theater while glossing over what occurred at that time and place. I want to note at the present time that this thread is not an invitation to debate the issues surrounding the end of the war in the Pacific Theater -an issue that experience in past years showed was best limited only to the time of year where those events are anniversaried if they are addressed at all.{2} 

Having clarified that, I simply want to remind folks who had forgotten or who did not know that the war crimes committed by Imperial Japan dwarfed anything we have seen so far from ISIS. I point this out not to exonerate ISIS by any stretch mind you{3}, only to point to the amazing double standard folks take when figuratively or in reality{4} it is their ox being gored versus someone else's rather than being rationally and ethically consistent on the matter. But I digress.

Notes:

{1} Including the claim that they are "monsters" or some other dehumanizing tag being attached to them.

{2} For those who are interested, here is what was published on this site on that subject in years past:

Threads on the Atomic Bomb Subject and Various Factors Involved in Objectively Assessing the Moral and Ethical Ramifications Thereof--A Rerum Novarum Recapitulation Thread (circa August 6, 2009)

I do not plan to say anything new on those matters anytime soon.

{3} I have zero sympathy for them whatsoever to be quite frank about it.

{4} This includes those who play the sob sister card for the purported “innocents” in the days of Imperial Japan but do not do this for the folks connected with ISIS.

My latest contribution to the Jaded Politics project courtesy of the Musings From Exile website{1} can be read HERE.

As there is no shortage of folks across the political spectrum who are drinking various flavours of Kool Aid where the Trump Administration is concerned, it seems appropriate to remind folks of what my standard disclaimer on that subject entails:

I am one of the very few no BS commentators on the actions of the Trump Administration; meaning: you will get no BS from me on what they do. I call fair balls and strikes. I am no administration slappie unlike a lot of folks now who unfortunately were reactionary critics of Obama for eight years. Nor am I a reactionary critic either unlike a lot of folks who are now but were Obama slappies for eight years previously. If you are looking for either (i) uncritical and mindless fanbot worship of the Trump Administration or (ii) constant unrelenting criticism of everything the Trump Administration does, this page is not for you. If however, you are looking for someone who will call a fair strike zone and give credit to President Trump and his Administration where warranted and also criticize them when warranted, then you are at the right place!{2}

This same disclaimer applies to virtually every subject out there. To frame it another way, and since this site only recently became active again, for those who do not know or may have forgotten: I call fair balls and strikes on all subjects I write on. I do not believe in spin nor do I believe in being a slappie for any person or cause{3} -even those causes I happen to generally agree with.

And as the archives of Rerum Novarum more than adequately substantiates this claim; ergo, no more needs to be said on that at the present time.

Notes:

{1} "I link to the Musings From Exile website version so I do not trigger a trackback to it on the main page; thereby ensuring that I keep Rerum Novarum separate from that project." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 8, 2017)]

{2} Excerpt from the Musings From Exile Article Introduction and Page Disclaimer (circa April 5, 2017)

{3} Though I write from a predominantly conservative point of view politically and socially, I am a longtime Independent voter. I am therefore not wedded to conservatism and when I view it as wrong or lacking on an issue, I will where applicable say so. On moral and ethical matters, my position is within Catholic thought and this also applies to theological matters. However, with Catholic positions that fall outside the realm of doctrine, if I view a given position taken as wrong or lacking, said positions will hardly be blindly accepted by me no matter now predominant they may be.

Points to Ponder:

"A willingness to apologize is part of the willingness to shoulder responsibility, which is an important part of growing up. A mature person is supposed to feel regret when he or she has offended or upset some other person...Someone who rarely apologizes will seem unsympathetic and uninterested in coming to terms with others. He or she will seem overly proud. It may seem to a more dispassionate observer that that person is more insecure than arrogant, and unwilling to admit to a mistake for that reason." [Fredric Neuman M.D.]

My latest contribution to the Jaded Politics project courtesy of the Musings From Exile website{1} can be read HERE.

It was actually was originally handled in a much shorter blurb to Rerum Novarum yesterday. After the project editor in a conference asked if anyone wanted this story for Jaded Politics, I figured since I already had a blurb done on it here at Rerum Novarum that I would take it and rework it a bit for that endeavour. The above link encapsulates the essence of yesterday's blurb but goes into greater detail on the subject with pictures and video.

Note:

{1} "I link to the Musings From Exile website version so I do not trigger a trackback to it on the main page; thereby ensuring that I keep Rerum Novarum separate from that project." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 8, 2017)]

A Public Notification To Dave Armstrong:

Dave,

It was brought to my attention that you are talking about me yet again behind my back on your Facebook page. In appropriately yellow font:

"I think Mary may have surpassed Shawn McElhinney's extraordinary insults from a fellow Catholic to me: his coming after I condemned the nuclear bombings of Japan and he thought they were fine and dandy according to Catholic teaching.

That record of the greatest insults from a Catholic has stood since 2005, so it's quite a feat for Mary to pass it.

It's hard to imagine that Mary's record will ever be beaten in my lifetime (unless she herself does it)."

To start with, Proverbs disapproves of this kind of behaviour: 

"The north wind brings forth rain, And a backbiting tongue, an angry countenance." [Proverbs 25:23]

Now you can try and convince yourself of whatever you want -and undoubtedly by your previous deleting of your history on these matters in years past, it makes such historical revision much easier for you. However, to talk about people behind their back when you know they are blocked from responding to thereby refute you is quite the act of cowardice. But beyond that, is this how you prepare for Holy Week?

Whatever else you do, kindly at least as long as you maintain your cowardly ban do not bring up my name at any time in any context whatsoever.

Having noted that, I do forgive you Dave. As Scripture says:

"And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses." [Mark 11:25]

I will also continue to pray for you.

[Update I: I have been informed that Dave has removed the reference now -presumably quietly and without fanfare much as the way the mainstream media makes their own corrections much quieter than their original proclamations. I will thus leave this note visible for another day and then consign it to private status pending any future violations of this sort in the future. (At which point it will again be made public.) -SM 4/12/17]

[Update II: As unfortunately, Dave cannot help himself and has a few times since this posting was consigned to draft status committed a few of the violations I spoke of back in 2017, I am due to his most recent behaviour once again making this posting public in perpetuity. -SM 1/12/20]

Woman Banned From Uber for Life After Threatening to Falsely Accuse Driver of Rape

This sort of story is a good reason to assert the following: any woman who falsely accuses a man of rape and has him charged should be imprisoned for the equivalent amount of time he would serve if convicted of such a charge.

By the way, the same principle goes for false claims in any other area as well (i.e. domestic violence). No one who engages in false accusations should be allowed to walk away unscathed from their lies. And this same principle should apply to cops who lie, prosecutors who during a trial who withhold evidence, etc. Furthermore, any and all false accusations should be treated as a felony.

Maybe if this kind of hard approach was taken, there would be a deterrent from such stuff.

More on the Controversial Dubia Subject:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

I finished this material some time ago and have been debating with myself as to the best time to post it. I suppose there is no better time than the start of Holy Week, so I have decided to post it today. For those who have not seen the previous note on this subject, I recommend they read it first as it provides both some context as well as material for what is to follow.

To start with, I want to make it clear for any who object to the stance taken in the previous note that its not a requirement of the pope to respond to the four cardinals on their terms and whose “Dubia” is arguably worded in a somewhat disingenuous fashion. The reason I say this is simple: the answers are more complex than simple black and white yes and no answers. To illustrate that point in greater detail, I will touch on each question after posting them in their entirety first. Without further ado, let us get to it!

1. It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?

My response to Question #1:

Question #1 as phrased above involves certain presuppositions and drastically over-simplifies the situations of the divorced and remarried.{1} It cannot for those reasons be answered in a one word yes or no format; therefore, to ask for an answer in that form as the four cardinals do comes off to these eyes as rather questionable viz their motives for reasons I specified in the previous note{2}.

2. After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia (304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 79, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?

My response to Question #2: 

Question #2 suffers from the same kind of presuppositional flaws as Question #1 does above. The Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (AL) acknowledges that objective mortal sin is not always in individual circumstances actual mortal sin. How is that a denial of Veritatis Splendor's teaching on the existence of intrinsically grave sins? Simple, its not. But again, that cannot be explained with a simple yes or no answer and the cardinals who issued this “Dubia” should know this as its a pretty fundamental Catholic moral theology issue.

3. After Amoris Laetitia (301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (Matthew 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, “Declaration,” June 24, 2000)?

My response to Question #3: 

Question #3 is asking if the prohibition against adultery is still in force. Obviously it is. The assumption behind the question from all appearances is that any “objective situation of grave habitual sin” (“Dubia”) must ipso facto involve actual mortal sin. I touched on this in my prior note{3} but again, the attempt with the question to try and force a one word answer is at the very least suspicious.{4}

4. After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 81, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?

My response to Question #4: 

Question #4 proposes a false dichotomy in the form of an argument which strives to make "circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility” incompatible with a condemnation of acts which are objectively intrinsically evil. This is a false dichotomy disingenuously masquerading as a question. Furthermore, it cannot be answered accurately with a single word yes or no so again, the cardinals who pushed this publicly contrary to the manner in which the Magisterium has said such issues should be handled{5} are for that reason at least deserving of a rebuke. I for one consider Pope Francis’ refusal to even acknowledge them on this to be an adequate rebuke but that is neither here nor there. Onto the final question.

5. After Amoris Laetitia (303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 56, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?

My response to Question #5: 

Question #5 is essentially a form of Neo-Feeneyism as it by logical extension treats every objectively grave act as automatically an actual mortal sin. In that sense, it is more or less a rehashing of Question #4. Like its predecessor question, this question involves presuppositions that fly in the face of Magisterial teaching (pre-Francis), the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC){6}, and Doctors of the Church such as St Alphonsis Ligouri and St Thomas Aquinas. And like the prior questions, it cannot be accurately responded to in a one word answer which again, the drafters of the “Dubia” have to have known. We are not talking about ordinary Catholics in the pew here as for them this might not be so evident. No, these are Cardinals of the Roman Church so what is their excuse for either not knowing this or (if they did) disingenuously pretending they did not in issuing this purported “Dubia” to Pope Francis?

In summary, while I have my own issues with some of what Pope Francis has said and done -and even in some minor ways with this Apostolic Exhortation{7}; nonetheless, the Pope’s choosing to leave these four Cardinals hanging by not responding to their "Dubia" is hardly one of them.


Notes:

{1} In essence, the divorced and remarried can go to Confession and then receive Communion if they are striving to live chastely but nonetheless fall into sin of a grave nature. And as often as they continue to strive to live chastely and yet fail, as long as their repentance is sincere, God will forgive them in Confession and they can receive Communion. This is why discretion and the aid of a Confessor on these matters is of no small importance and is emphasized a number of times in AL.

{2} "[I]t is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth" (CDF: Instruction Donum Veritatis). By any objective observation, these Cardinals ran afoul of this Joseph Ratzinger penned and John Paul II approved Instruction by taking their issue public as they did.” [Excerpt from the Facebook Note Very Briefly On the Dubia (circa March 13, 2017) as posted to Rerum Novarum (circa April 9, 2017)]

{3} “The bottom line is this: the principle that every objectively grave act or situation is not automatically mortally sinful is not new.”  [Excerpt from the Facebook Note Very Briefly On the Dubia (circa March 13, 2017) as posted to Rerum Novarum (circa April 9, 2017)]

{4} See footnote two.

{5} "[I]t is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth." [CDF: Instruction Donum Veritatis as cited in the Facebook Note Very Briefly On the Dubia as posted to Rerum Novarum (circa April 9, 2017)]

{6} “The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.” [Excerpt from the Catechism of the Catholic Church Part III, Section I, Chapter I, Article IV The Morality of Human Acts Section 1754 (circa October 11, 1992)]

{7} Sticking only to ecclesial matters here, I do believe that a greater emphasis on repentance and the Sacrament of Reconciliation as well as the importance of regularly receiving it for those who intend to receive Communion at mass would have been a worthwhile inclusion in AL. Also worth including could have been a recommended timeline of reception for folks who intend to continue receiving Communion on at least a weekly basis. (Say once every 3 months at least!) But that’s a subject for another time perhaps.

Very Briefly on the Dubia Subject...

As it is Lent and I am frankly beyond sick and tired of seeing the issue in question here be flogged in the feeds like a proverbial dead horse by the usual suspects, I am posting at this time with a few minor tweaks a note I wrote back in January which has been in draft form until now.{1} My words will be in regular font.

He should as the Roman Pontiff, answer [the] dubia

Why? To start with, the CDF has made it eminently clear in past instructions that "it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth" (CDF: Instruction Donum Veritatis). By any objective observation, these Cardinals ran afoul of this Joseph Ratzinger penned and John Paul II approved Instruction by taking their issue public as they did.

Also, the deliberate obtuseness involved here frankly does not do those prelates any credit. This is not that hard to figure out really and here is a hint: it involves the ethical methodology of casuistry or case based reasoning seeking to resolve moral problems by applying abstract rules to concrete or particular instances. Here is an article on the subject for your consideration:

LINK

The bottom line is this: the principle that every objectively grave act or situation is not automatically mortally sinful is not new. St. Alphonsus Ligouri wrote on this in the seventeenth century, heck St. Thomas Aquinas wrote on it in the thirteenth century. St. John Paul II noted in 1984 that "[c]learly there can occur situations which are very complex and obscure from a psychological viewpoint and which have an influence on the sinner's subjective culpability" (Ap. Ex Reconciliato et Paenitentia). All Pope Francis has done is take that principle and apply it to divorce and remarriage. The argument is not that the latter is not wrong or seriously sinful of course but instead that "[i]t can no longer simply be said that all those living in any ‘irregular situation’ are living in a state of mortal sin" (Ap. Ex. Amoris Laetitia). Discernment of individual cases is needed and that is for penitents and their confessors to do, not those outside the specific situation, be they folks on Facebook, folks who write for periodicals, or even Cardinals of the Church. This is really not all that difficult for those who are not determined to be obtuse about it.

Oh and before anyone gets mad at me, hey I am just "speaking hard truths in love" here folks. Most notably the hard truths that individual situations are not as black and white as many may wish. I realize this frustrates the desire of many folks to play the roles of James and John and ask Jesus if they can call down fire from heaven on all the sinners and heathens but I digress.

Note:

{1} I have a sequel to this note that addresses various objections that were posted when this material was originally posted in comment form a while back. It will be published to this website and elsewhere soon.

As its been a long while since I have published here, it seems appropriate to revisit briefly the subject of comments boxes. I have from day one not been a fan of them, have used them only sparingly in any publishing medium since that time, and have never used them here at Rerum Novarum. Rather than revisit that subject here at any detail, I will simply refer the reader to the last substantial treatment written here about them. After all, for the most part everything I would say now on the subject was already said back then so why invent the wheel anew? Without further ado...

On Reiterating Anew Our Comments Box Policy (circa December 1, 2008)

My second contribution to the Jaded Politics project courtesy of the Musings From Exile webpage{1} can be read HERE.

Note:

{1} I link to the Musings From Exile website version so I do not trigger a trackback to it on the main page. (To ensure that I keep Rerum Novarum separate from that project.)

My third posting to Musings From Exile can be read HERE. In essence it is an old draft of expository musings from Rerum Novarum which was brought up from mothballs, revised slightly, and posted today. The subject is sports related and as the Masters tournament has concluded, it is on the issue of what is required of someone to be considered "Golf's Greatest."

My debut column as posted to Jaded Politics can be read HERE. I link to the Musings From Exile website version so I do not trigger a trackback to it on the main page. (To ensure that I keep Rerum Novarum separate from the other project I am contributing to.) {1}

It may seem odd to try and keep that traffic from this website but when you work on a group project -be it in writing or other endeavours, you need to recognize the rules inherent in the respective projects involved. For that reason, to avoid any possibility of transgressing the latter, all material from Jaded Politics threads will be posted to the Musings From Exile website and shared to Rerum Novarum via the latter, all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Note:

{1} I am simply going to note this point in a single footnote to all applicable threads for a while.

Musings From Exile: Introduction and Page Disclaimer

This is the inaugural posting from the Musings From Exile website outlining a little about the project I mentioned earlier that I would be involved with. For those who have questions as to how I view things in the interval since Rerum Novarum was suspended and now, I touch on it briefly there. In short, not much has changed in how I approach issues from my first involvements in online writing to the present but I digress.

Points to Ponder:

For everything there is a season,
And a time for every matter under heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die;
A time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal;
A time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh;
A time to mourn, and a time to dance;
A time to throw away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
A time to embrace, And a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to seek, and a time to lose;
A time to keep, and a time to throw away;
A time to tear, and a time to sew;
A time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate,
A time for war, and a time for peace.
[Ecclesiastes iii,1-8]