Revisiting the Controversial Dubia:

(A Lenten Reflection)

It helps in the Lenten season for folks to reflect more on themselves and their particular tendencies to better get a grasp of where improvement is needed spiritually as well as otherwise. The purpose of this reflection is to consider those who have repeatedly in social media and elsewhere agitated about the Dubia of the four cardinals and the explicit lack of an answer to it by Pope Francis. Though I addressed this matter years ago, it seems appropriate this Lent to revisit the subject anew. The core flaw of the Dubia can be summarized thusly:

• The presupposition from which the Dubia cardinals operate is that all objectively grave acts are automatically actual mortal sins. This error is reflected in the structure of the Dubia's various questions. Such an approach to moral theology is flatly contrary to centuries of Catholic understanding of what does and does not constitute an actual mortal sin. 

There are three factors that constitute an actual mortal sin. The first is the involvement of what is called objectively grave matter. However, there are two subjective factors as well. One does not by recognizing the variables which can subjectively affect an individual's culpability for a particular act ipso facto affirm that "divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio" (cf. Dubia Q1) are automatically in all cases guilty of actual mortal sin. Nor does such recognition of the aforementioned mitigating variables potentially affecting an individual's subjective culpability for a particular act ipso facto deny "the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts" (cf. Dubia Q2), the idea that there can be "objective situations of grave habitual sin" (cf. Dubia Q3), or consequently affirm that the aforementioned mitigations "transform[s] an objectively grave act into a subjectively good or defensible choice" (cf. Dubia Q4). And of course one who recognizes the variables which can subjectively affect an individual's culpability for a particular act does not necessarily affirm some "interpretation of the role of conscience...that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms" (cf. Dubia Q5). It is not an issue of legitimizing exceptions but instead one of not painting all objectively grave situations with the same level of subjective gravity.

If an objectively grave act is not automatically a subjective actual mortal sin, then the one who committed the act does not necessarily in all cases need to avoid taking communion. As for which situations this could be applicable, that sort of discernment is for individual penitents and their confessors, not those outside the specific situation no matter whom they are.

For those who want to read more on these matters, they can see my notes located here and here. It is actually not hard to answer these questions; however, there is also the factor of expending time on them when those asking the questions will not like or accept the answers given. As Pope Francis is likely aware that most of those who push the Dubia fall into this category and therefore his direct refusal to acknowledge it is actually something that arguably is the correct approach to take.

If You Are Afraid of Public Speaking

Points to Ponder:

In winter, I plot and plan. In spring, I move. [Henry Rollins]

In the ground. I put into it
The winter’s accumulation of paper,
Pages I do not want to read
Again, useless words, fragments,
errors. And I put into it
the contents of the outhouse:
light of the suns, growth of the ground,
Finished with one of their journeys.
To the sky, to the wind, then,
and to the faithful trees, I confess
my sins: that I have not been happy
enough, considering my good luck;
have listened to too much noise,
have been inattentive to wonders,
have lusted after praise.
And then upon the gathered refuse,
of mind and body, I close the trench
folding shut again the dark,
the deathless earth. Beneath that seal
the old escapes into the new. [Wendell Berry]

Dachau: An Overview

History of the Plague

Prosperity Gospel vs Living Within One’s Means

Excerpts From Literature/Writings:

One summer Aksionov was going to the Nizhny Fair, and as he bade good-bye to his family, his wife said to him, "Ivan Dmitrich, do not start to-day; I have had a bad dream about you."

Aksionov laughed, and said, "You are afraid that when I get to the fair I shall go on a spree."

His wife replied: "I do not know what I am afraid of; all I know is that I had a bad dream. I dreamt you returned from the town, and when you took off your cap I saw that your hair was quite grey."

Aksionov laughed. "That's a lucky sign," said he. "See if I don't sell out all my goods, and bring you some presents from the fair."

So he said good-bye to his family, and drove away.

When he had travelled half-way, he met a merchant whom he knew, and they put up at the same inn for the night. They had some tea together, and then went to bed in adjoining rooms.

It was not Aksionov's habit to sleep late, and, wishing to travel while it was still cool, he aroused his driver before dawn, and told him to put in the horses.

Then he made his way across to the landlord of the inn (who lived in a cottage at the back), paid his bill, and continued his journey.

When he had gone about twenty-five miles, he stopped for the horses to be fed. Aksionov rested awhile in the passage of the inn, then he stepped out into the porch, and, ordering a samovar to be heated, got out his guitar and began to play.

Suddenly a troika drove up with tinkling bells and an official alighted, followed by two soldiers. He came to Aksionov and began to question him, asking him who he was and whence he came. Aksionov answered him fully, and said, "Won't you have some tea with me?" But the official went on cross-questioning him and asking him. "Where did you spend last night? Were you alone, or with a fellow-merchant? Did you see the other merchant this morning? Why did you leave the inn before dawn?"

Aksionov wondered why he was asked all these questions, but he described all that had happened, and then added, "Why do you cross-question me as if I were a thief or a robber? I am travelling on business of my own, and there is no need to question me."

Then the official, calling the soldiers, said, "I am the police-officer of this district, and I question you because the merchant with whom you spent last night has been found with his throat cut. We must search your things."

They entered the house. The soldiers and the police-officer unstrapped Aksionov's luggage and searched it. Suddenly the officer drew a knife out of a bag, crying, "Whose knife is this?"

Aksionov looked, and seeing a blood-stained knife taken from his bag, he was frightened.

"How is it there is blood on this knife?"

Aksionov tried to answer, but could hardly utter a word, and only stammered: "I--don't know--not mine." Then the police-officer said: "This morning the merchant was found in bed with his throat cut. You are the only person who could have done it. The house was locked from inside, and no one else was there. Here is this blood-stained knife in your bag and your face and manner betray you! Tell me how you killed him, and how much money you stole?"

Aksionov swore he had not done it; that he had not seen the merchant after they had had tea together; that he had no money except eight thousand rubles of his own, and that the knife was not his. But his voice was broken, his face pale, and he trembled with fear as though he went guilty.

The police-officer ordered the soldiers to bind Aksionov and to put him in the cart. As they tied his feet together and flung him into the cart, Aksionov crossed himself and wept. His money and goods were taken from him, and he was sent to the nearest town and imprisoned there. Enquiries as to his character were made in Vladimir. The merchants and other inhabitants of that town said that in former days he used to drink and waste his time, but that he was a good man. Then the trial came on: he was charged with murdering a merchant from Ryazan, and robbing him of twenty thousand rubles.

His wife was in despair, and did not know what to believe. Her children were all quite small; one was a baby at her breast. Taking them all with her, she went to the town where her husband was in jail. At first she was not allowed to see him; but after much begging, she obtained permission from the officials, and was taken to him. When she saw her husband in prison-dress and in chains, shut up with thieves and criminals, she fell down, and did not come to her senses for a long time. Then she drew her children to her, and sat down near him. She told him of things at home, and asked about what had happened to him. He told her all, and she asked, "What can we do now?"

"We must petition the Czar not to let an innocent man perish."

His wife told him that she had sent a petition to the Czar, but it had not been accepted.

Aksionov did not reply, but only looked downcast.

Then his wife said, "It was not for nothing I dreamt your hair had turned grey. You remember? You should not have started that day." And passing her fingers through his hair, she said: "Vanya dearest, tell your wife the truth; was it not you who did it?"

"So you, too, suspect me!" said Aksionov, and, hiding his face in his hands, he began to weep. Then a soldier came to say that the wife and children must go away; and Aksionov said good-bye to his family for the last time.

When they were gone, Aksionov recalled what had been said, and when he remembered that his wife also had suspected him, he said to himself, "It seems that only God can know the truth; it is to Him alone we must appeal, and from Him alone expect mercy."

And Aksionov wrote no more petitions; gave up all hope, and only prayed to God.

Aksionov was condemned to be flogged and sent to the mines. So he was flogged with a knot, and when the wounds made by the knot were healed, he was driven to Siberia with other convicts. [Leo Tolstoy: From God Sees The Truth But Waits (circa 1872)].

Along With Youth

A porcupine skin,
Stiff with bad tanning,
It must have ended somewhere.
Stuffed horned owl
Pompous
Yellow eyed;
Chuck-wills-widow on a biassed twig
Sooted with dust.
Piles of old magazines,
Drawers of boy’s letters
And the line of love
They must have ended somewhere.
Yesterday’s Tribune is gone
Along with youth
And the canoe that went to pieces on the beach
The year of the big storm
When the hotel burned down
At Seney, Michigan. [Ernest Hemingway]

Points to Ponder:

Men prefer to remain in ignorance and to pronounce rash judgments on things which are difficult and obscure rather than to gain an understanding of them by diligent study. [Rufinus]

Briefly on Burying the Hatchet in 2019...

As I have grown older, I have been more conscious of the need in many spheres of life to be a bridge builder not a bridge destroyer. I have always prided myself on being generally pretty good in this area but on those cases when I have gone astray, it is usually not by a small amount. Sin and weakness have played a part in this but I believe through properly conducted dialogue that obstacles can be overcome for those who are of good will.

During Lent, I will make more than the normal degree of effort in this area as befitting the season in question.

Briefly...

Lent is upon us and while there are issues of far greater importance than what I am about to say, I will simply note very briefly that it is profoundly shameful before we start the Lenten season for certain serial provocateurs to try and rekindle old animosities instead of focusing on their own spiritual improvement. But enough on that distasteful stuff.

As far as my preparation for the season goes, among the things I am giving up and the things I will be taking up for this season{1}, one of the latter is that I am actually considering doing some apologetics during Lent. Why? Because I have for so long had a low opinion of most of what passes for apologetics on the web over the years. While ignoring it most of the time has long been what I have done, this Lent I will don a proverbial digital hairshirt and wade into this matter from time to time during the Lenten season as a form of penance.

Note:

{1} As there is more to Lent than just giving stuff up of course.

Points to Ponder:

There is a sacredness in tears. They are not the mark of weakness, but of power. They speak more eloquently than ten thousand tongues. They are messengers of overwhelming grief…and unspeakable love. [Washington Irving]

Today would have been the 78th birthday of my father Richard Dunn McElhinney. If readers could offer some prayers for the eternal repose of his soul, I would appreciate it. For those who do not believe in this ancient custom, then prayers for my mother (who still has difficulties on anniversaries such as this) and the rest of the family would be appreciated.



Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord and may thy perpetual light shine upon him...May his soul and all the souls of the faithfully departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

Briefly on the Emerging New Site Formatting:

In the fiddling around with the template, I have decided to include as labels almost all the primary tags for the various archive postings. As I have explained before, all posts to this site have been tagged with primary and secondary tags, the primary is the main classification tag of sorts. There are some primary tags which either are not used anymore or which because of their nature, I simply do not want to include but out of the ones so included you can readily access 3221 of the 3284 published postings in one form or another. Make that 3222 of the 3285 if we include this posting.

Points to Ponder:

Smoking cigars is like falling in love. First, you are attracted by its shape; you stay for its flavor, and you must always remember never, never to let the flame go out!  [Winston Churchill]

Let Children Get Bored Again

Roberts again sides with liberal Supreme Court justices in disagreeing with lower court interpretations

To summarize this situation in sequence courtesy of SCOTUS Blog:

• The Supreme Court had previously ruled 5-4 that the Texas state court needed to revisit the death sentence of an inmate who had been argued had intellectual disabilities which they claimed was not in line with the most recent medical guide on these matters.

• The Texas state court retried the case and again sentenced him to death even after the local district attorney agreed the man was intellectually disabled.

• The case returned to the Supreme Court where the justices were asked to take up the case once again. The claim made was that despite the court's prior rebuke of the Texas lower court that the state basically carbon copied their prior analysis and rubberstamped the same verdict. 

• The local district attorney refused to defend the court decision so the Texas AG office sought to do so.

• The Supreme Court reversed the state court with a second rebuke.

• The Court in reversing the Texas lower court argued that the state court basically ignored their prior rebuke and sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with the opinion rendered by SCOTUS.

• Though he had voted with the minority in 2017, Roberts recognized the scam the state court attempted to pull and wrote a separate opinion concurring with those who voted in the majority last time (sans Kennedy who is retired now) to throw out the death sentence in this case because though he had problems with the prior ruling, it was evident that the lower court here misapplied the prior court ruling from 2017. In short, he was recognizing what is flatly obvious in this case no matter what one thinks of the prior ruling.

• Alito along with Thomas and Gorsuch dissented from the ruling mainly to bitch that the 2017 ruling was not clear enough the first time and to uphold the death penalty sentence. In short, it was a sour grapes dissent from them for not winning on the first go around not an fair accounting of how the Texas lower court thumbed their nose at the Supreme Court's prior ruling in their retrying of the case. In short, Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch were engaging in judicial activism here whereas Roberts (who agreed with their position in principle) was not.

• Kavanaugh did not join either ruling on this one. 

In short, Roberts was right on this where the particulars of this case go after what the Texas lower court did in response to the prior SCOTUS ruling and Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch were wrong.

9-0: SCOTUS Rules That Eighth Amendment’s “Excessive Fines” Clause Applies To The State

I have written on civil asset forfeiture before{1} and it is a major issue with me. I am pleased to see the above unanimous decision of the Supreme Court which will serve as a good foundation for being able to go after civil asset forfeiture abuse at the state level.

Note:

{1} Here is one example from recent years:

Briefly on Civil Asset Forfeiture (circa June 3, 2017)

Points to Ponder:

“We should not have an 'open mind' because that means we grant plausibility to anything, however, we should have a discerning mind." [Mike Mentzer]