Contra Mozilla

Monday, September 30, 2013

Two Quick Links: On Misplaced Empathy

One from Ireland, which shows where misplaced empathy can lead; the other from here, warning about the general dangers of misplaced empathy. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and the quickest route to the gas chambers is to follow a misguided sense of compassion.

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Does Obamacare Do Anything Good?

Answer: no. If it did, would every member of Congress and the President (plus his staff) be exempting themselves from it?


Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Slanted Reporting: Excommunication Edition

Australia's laicized former priest*, Greg Reynolds, has been excommunicated--and not by his local ordinary. The excommunication comes from the Vatican, perhaps from Pope Francis himself. That is pretty much automatic when one has been laicized and one continues to celebrate the Eucharist--I'm not a canon lawyer, but I do believe that this is something like simulating a sacrament and celebrating an illicit Mass, which together carry the automatic penalty of excommunication, regardless of whether the man in question is also a "dissident" (he is) concerning serious matters of faith or morality (in his case, both).

Oddly enough, the article linked by New Advent has the same spin one would expect from the mainstream media: they never come out an say that the Vatican is wrong to laicize or excommunicate him. However, the implications are certainly there, and it is also implied that excommunication is something to take lightly (it is not):

Father Reynolds, who resigned as a parish priest in 2011 and last year founded Inclusive Catholics, said he had expected to be laicised (defrocked), but not excommunicated. But it would make no difference to his ministry.

''In times past excommunication was a huge thing, but today the hierarchy have lost such trust and respect,'' he said.

''I've come to this position because I've followed my conscience on women's ordination and gay marriage.''...

Father Reynolds is not the first Australian Catholic to be excommunicated. The best-known was Sister Mary MacKillop, who was excommunicated by her local bishop but was reinstated. In 2010 she became Australia's first saint.


Note the comparison: Sister Mary MacKillop was once excommunicated, and now she's a saint. The implication couldn't be clearer. However, in this case it's not the local bishop doing the excommunicating, nor is Mr. Reynolds likely to be reinstated anytime soon. Nor, for that matter, does one discern any heroic virtues about him, any sense of personal holiness, or of beatitude. I'm not saying that he can't be a saint, for we are all sinners and any man can repent; God's grace can seep into any soul which is open to it. However, Mr. Reynolds strikes me as being more sanctimonious than saintly, a saints do not typically show such selfish pride as to be deliberately dissident on matters of doctrine and dogma.

Heaven is not the home of those who are hellbent in their heresies to the point of obstinacy and final impenitence.


*Ordination leaves an indelible mark, so former priest may not actually be accurate here. When he dies, his soul will retain the mark of ordination, whether bound for purgatory and heaven or for hell.



Update: A palate cleanser from Dr Edward Peters.

On the Cost of Living in New York

Buzzfeed has up a set of 6 castles which cost less than six overpriced apartments in New York city (but I repeat myself). Sadly, many of our other large cities are vying with New York to see if they can duplicate the feat. And we wonder why there was a housing bubble.

As far as New York is concerned, living there is like living in Hell, but you get nicer neighbors in Hell.

Friday, September 20, 2013

Seven Quick Takes Friday (vol. 4): A Round-Up of Reactions

Maybe not a full round-up, but some reactions to the Pope's interview, which can be read in form approved by the Holy Father here. Erm, I agree with the other guy that what the pope is saying and what he's being reported as saying by the media are two entirely separate things, that the media's interpretation of the interview (and of what it means) are flat-out wrong, whether through their imbecilic ignorance or through their deliberate malice. Anyhow, here are a few reactions from around the web.

  1. Father Z has an instant reaction and a fisking reaction, both worth reading:
    Through interviews – and the coverage of interviews – a “virtual Francis” is being created. An interview, by its nature, can only go so far. Short questions and short responses only go so deep. 
    We have to make sure that, with all the media attention, with all these interviews, that the “virtual Francis” is not stronger than the real Francis. 
    That is exactly what Benedict XVI – in his last days as Pope – said and warned about how the Second Vatican Council was interpreted. The media and others created a virtual Council.  Remember that? There is a Council of the Media and a Council of the Fathers. 
    Week by week a Francis of the Media is being crafted. 
  2. Father Longenecker also has a reflection up, noting that some of what the pope is saying will be lost in translation simply because of the difference between the culture of Latin America (very Catholic culturally, perhaps a bit too clerical) as opposed to America and Europe (libearl Protestant/Post-Christian/anti-clerical).
  3. Catholic vote notes that Pope Benedict said in his encyclical Deus Caritas Est pretty much the same thing as Pope Francis is saying in the interview. Also, this: "To read [the Pope's remarks] and say that the Pope wants to be accepting of abortion and contraception and gay marriage is like reading the story of Jesus and the Woman at the Well and say it shows how accepting Jesus is of adultery."
  4. LifeNews read the same interview as all the mainstream outlets, yet it managed to come to pretty much the exact opposite conclusion. Might this have something to do with the fact taht there are actual serious and sincere Catholics on the staff of LifeNews, a thing which appears to be lacking among mainstream journalists?
  5. Marcel Lejeune has posted a set of of seven things about the Pope which rub Certain Catholics (conservative, tradition-loving, orthodox, faithful) the wrong way, and then explains why each shouldn't. Eh, it's not a bad assessment, save that the part about being "pro-immigrant" lends itself to politically supporting amnesty (under any name) and other foolhardy endeavors which will create more problems than they solve.
  6. The pope's interview comes as a bit of a communications blindside for the bishops, which will almost certainly result in a great number of Americans erroneously believing that he just overturned 2000 years of Church teaching on homosexuality, abortion, and contraception.
  7. Finally, there is the reaction from the New Liturgical Movement, which is straightforward and thoughtful:
    Nothing in the Pope's words undo any Catholic teaching. What's more, he intends no change whatsoever. What he is bringing to these hot-button issues is a humane clarity that reflects an aspect of Catholicism that is frequently overlooked in the world at large. It is the most common perception in the world today that Catholicism is nothing more than a strict set of life rules and the Church herself operates as the more judge and inquisitor not only over its members but over the society at large.... 
    Pope Francis is next in line. With renewed clarity about doctrine, morals, and liturgy having taken place, and having inherited this template, he is interested in adding a crucial and critical pastoral and evangelistic element that he perceives to be lacking. His contribution is additive, not corrective. And what he has said is clearly true and introduces an element that has always been present but has too often been ignored by the press and the world. Further -- and this should not be forgotten -- he is speaking not as an infallible guide to all things but only as the pastor.
      Very well put.

Bonus: More reactions will come in, I'm sure, but this is already a lot for now. Also, this image from Catholic Memes:

Seven quick Takes Friday is hosted by Jennifer Fulwiler.

Thursday, September 19, 2013

What Did the Pope Really Say?

With apologies to Fr John Zuhlsdorf (whose excellent blog can only accomplish so much [1]), if I had a lot more spare time (and if I read Italian fluently), I would probably make a knock-off of his blog which focused exclusively on the Media's coverage of the pope. Specifically, I would probably have a daily article similar to this piece on the Nicene Guys' site detailing that day's biggest media botching of the pope's latest interview/open letter/homily/Weekly Address.

This time around, we have the interview (a papal-approved version of which is in America Magazine), and then the New York Times' version of what was said in the interview [2]. Notice the early bait-and-switch in the NYT ("Hell's Handbook") version: the pope says that pastorally, the Church should not just focus on abortion/homosexuality/contraception as being so incompatible with the Church that she cannot welcome a person who commits those sins; the NYT spins this into saying that the Church preaches against these too much (when was the last homily you heard which focused on any of these things?); and then goes after the bishops for holding political campaigns against these things.

Here is the relevant section of the Pope's interview, with some of my emphases:
the thing the church needs most today is the ability to heal wounds and to warm the hearts of the faithful; it needs nearness, proximity. I see the church as a field hospital after battle. It is useless to ask a seriously injured person if he has high cholesterol and about the level of his blood sugars! You have to heal his wounds. Then we can talk about everything else. Heal the wounds, heal the wounds.... [ellipsis in original] And you have to start from the ground up.
“The church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules. The most important thing is the first proclamation: Jesus Christ has saved you. And the ministers of the church must be ministers of mercy above all. The confessor, for example, is always in danger of being either too much of a rigorist or too lax. Neither is merciful, because neither of them really takes responsibility for the person. The rigorist washes his hands so that he leaves it to the commandment. The loose minister washes his hands by simply saying, ‘This is not a sin’ or something like that. In pastoral ministry we must accompany people, and we must heal their wounds....
A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person. Here we enter into the mystery of the human being. In life, God accompanies persons, and we must accompany them, starting from their situation. It is necessary to accompany them with mercy. When that happens, the Holy Spirit inspires the priest to say the right thing. 

This is also the great benefit of confession as a sacrament: evaluating case by case and discerning what is the best thing to do for a person who seeks God and grace. The confessional is not a torture chamber, but the place in which the Lord’s mercy motivates us to do better. I also consider the situation of a woman with a failed marriage in her past and who also had an abortion. Then this woman remarries, and she is now happy and has five children. That abortion in her past weighs heavily on her conscience and she sincerely regrets it. She would like to move forward in her Christian life. What is the confessor to do?
“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.
The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistentlyProclamation in a missionary style focuses on the essentials, on the necessary things: this is also what fascinates and attracts more, what makes the heart burn, as it did for the disciples at Emmaus. We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel. The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow.
“I say this also thinking about the preaching and content of our preaching. A beautiful homily, a genuine sermon must begin with the first proclamation, with the proclamation of salvation. There is nothing more solid, deep and sure than this proclamation. Then you have to do catechesis. Then you can draw even a moral consequence. But the proclamation of the saving love of God comes before moral and religious imperatives. Today sometimes it seems that the opposite order is prevailing. The homily is the touchstone to measure the pastor’s proximity and ability to meet his people, because those who preach must recognize the heart of their community and must be able to see where the desire for God is lively and ardent. The message of the Gospel, therefore, is not to be reduced to some aspects that, although relevant, on their own do not show the heart of the message of Jesus Christ.”

And here is how the NYT reports it:

Pope Francis, in the first extensive interview of his six-month-old papacy, said that the Roman Catholic church had grown “obsessed” with preaching about abortion, gay marriage and contraception, and that he has chosen not to speak of those issues despite recriminations from some critics...

“It is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time,” the pope told the Rev. Antonio Spadaro, a fellow Jesuit and editor in chief of La Civiltà Cattolica, the Italian Jesuit journal whose content is routinely approved by the Vatican. “The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently.  
“We have to find a new balance,” the pope continued, “otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel.”...

The new pope’s words are likely to have repercussions in a church whose bishops and priests in many countries, including the United States, often appeared to make combating abortion, gay marriage and contraception their top public policy priorities. These teachings are “clear” to him as “a son of the church,” he said, but they have to be taught in a larger context. “The proclamation of the saving love of God comes before moral and religious imperatives.” 

 Notice the subtle shifts here, the things which are left out, the things which are ignored. The pope is speaking as a pastor, noting that yes, abortion, homosexuality, and contraception are all evil. They are all sins, and noting that those who deny this are in fact not being merciful, either. There is a danger of being too rigorous, which is that too rigorous (frankly, focusing on the sin without pastoral care or tact) tends to drive people away. This is unfortunate, and to be blunt it is every bit as much a problem with the person who turns away from the Church and frankly from Truth as it is with the confessor (or preacher) who presents this truth tactlessly or carelessly.

The NYT ignores this fact when it focused solely on its boo-group, the conservatives. We often run the danger of being to rigorous, but that danger is no worse than the danger of being too lax ("saying, 'This is not a sin,' or something like that"). That "This is not a sin" is exactly the message which the NYT is saying.

They also ignore that the whole part here is pastoral, since much of the focus is on the sacrament of confession. There are a few key things pre-supposed by this sacrament which are roundly ignored here:
  1. That sin is a reality, and that we are do it
  2. That homosexuality (meaning the acts and not just the disordered orientation [3]), abortion, and contraception specifically are among those things which are sinful
  3. That confession requires an acknowledgement of the sin and repentance from it, meaning that the assumption is that the person in the confessional already knows that abortion, homosexual acts, and contraception are sins and is making a resolve to no commit them anymore
  4. That the purpose of confession is to grant God's mercy and forgiveness through the absolution of sins.

 Most of the rest of the interview is stuff that not only the Pope but also the bishops, even the conservative ones, have pretty much always been saying. The whole concept of a seamless garment of life, for example, is not new to this papacy. The idea that there is some context to salvation is not something invented in the last few decades, let alone the last few years. It seems to me that the pope is here saying that the fundamental thing is the Gospel ("good news") of Jesus Christ and of our salvation--which, of course, implies that there is something (sin, damnation, hell) to be saved from--and that this should be the first thing upon which we focus. But notice that he does not stop there, despite the NYT's portrayal. To quote the pope again:
"A beautiful homily, a genuine sermon must begin with the first proclamation, with the proclamation of salvation. There is nothing more solid, deep and sure than this proclamation. Then you have to do catechesis. Then you can draw even a moral consequence."

Notice that all three of these things are necessary for a good homily, and necessary in the order listed: first the good news, then the (theological/doctrinal) catechesis, then the moral consequences. Yet, to read the media's coverage of it, it somehow becomes a clarion call to ignore catechesis and morality [4].

As for the pope, he is not ignoring the realities of sin, but rather is choosing to focus on the beauty of sanctity and of the Church, on the goodness of God's love and mercy, and on the Truth of the Gospels. The morality flows from first being drawn to the beauty of the Gospels, and then to the Truth of the Faith. There's nothing wrong with that, save what the media attempts to corrupt.

---

[1] Father John Zuhlsdorf, plus Jimmy Akin, and the folks at the Get Religion blog could all dedicate their lives to this and still not be able to undo all the damage which the mainstream media has done. 

[2] To pick just one single media hack job. There will be more, and worse distortions (I'm probably looking at you, Slate, Huffington Post).

[3] Has everybody already forgotten about the whole "gay lobby" thing? Or the fact that the pope quite clearly calls it a thing from the devil:
Let’s not be naive: This is not a simple political fight; it is a destructive proposal to God’s plan. This is not a mere legislative proposal (that's just it’s form), but a move by the father of lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God. . . . Let’s look to St. Joseph, Mary, and the Child to ask fervently that they defend the Argentine family in this moment. . . .May they support, defend, and accompany us in this war of God.

How about his statements about the importance of the family, by which he rather clearly means the Traditional Family? Or the fact that in the first few months of his papacy, he mentioned the reality of the devil in more than a few of his early homilies/other addresses.

[4] Not to mention the NYT's rather pointed (and pointless) slight against those who like the Tridentine Mass.

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Quick Link: Interesting Article on Girls vs Boys

I stumbled across an interesting article in Psychology Today, which discuses the difference between boys and girls (ok, it's actually mostly about the girls) which goes a bit a of a way towards explaining why there are so few women even interested in certain fields (physics, engineering, et al). The Trouble with Bright Girls is--once you overlook the mild feminist agitating--that the schools train them from a young age that smartness (or really any ability) is entirely innate, whereas young boys are trained from that same young age that you can develop ability with effort, practice, and struggle:
[Psychologist Carol Dweck] found that bright girls, when given something to learn that was particularly foreign or complex, were quick to give up--and the higher the girls' IQ, the more likely they were to throw in the towel. In fact, the straight-A girls showed the most helpless responses. Bright boys, on the other hand, saw the difficult material as a challenge, and found it energizing. They were more likely to redouble their efforts, rather than give up....

Researchers have uncovered the reason for this difference in how difficulty is interpreted, and it is simply this: more often than not, bright girls believe that their abilities are innate and unchangeable, while bright boys believe that they can develop ability through effort and practice.

How do girls and boys develop these different views? Most likely, it has to do with the kinds of feedback we get from parents and teachers as young children. Girls, who develop self-control earlier and are better able to follow instructions, are often praised for their "goodness." When we do well in school, we are told that we are "so smart," "so clever, " or " such a good student." This kind of praise implies that traits like smartness, cleverness, and goodness are qualities you either have or you don't.
Boys, on the other hand, are a handful. Just trying to get boys to sit still and pay attention is a real challenge for any parent or teacher. As a result, boys are given a lot more feedback that emphasizes effort (e.g., "If you would just pay attention you could learn this," "If you would just try a little harder you could get it right.") The net result: When learning something new is truly difficult, girls take it as sign that they aren't "good" and "smart", and boys take it as a sign to pay attention and try harder.

There you have it. But notice that this isn't all just "nurture," but nurture in response to nature. Also, the hypothesis that this difference in nurture is the cause of these differences later on is an untested hypothesis.

Vanity and Pristesses

Via Elizabeth Scalia comes the story of another woman who thinks that we can declare herself a Catholic priest.
A Sag Harbor grandmother [Lorello] says she has become the first Long Island woman to be ordained as a priest in a group that seeks equality for women in the Roman Catholic Church....The Vatican does not recognize the ordinations as legitimate, and has said that the women automatically “excommunicate” themselves when they take part in such services....Lorello, who said she did not want her age disclosed, said she was dismissed earlier this summer by the diocese from her volunteer position as a lector at St. Andrew’s Roman Catholic parish in Sag Harbor.
Gee, I wonder why this "grandmother" doesn't want to reveal her age. Sadly, a few younger women have allowed their minds to be poisoned by this nonsense as well, but it's mostly folks in their 60's, 70's, or even 80's who are choosing to excommunicate themselves in this way.

Also, Ms. Scalia is spot-on with her analysis:
Let’s start with the vanity: there is a ton of it, threaded within an article full of self-involved, self-congratulatory “firstness” and “I-ness” and “Me-ness”. I have never met a great, pastoral priest who was all about himself, but this gal manages to communicate herself and her desires in her every sentence. Interestingly, she mentions “justice” and what she believes she is due, and she talks of Augustine and Ghandi and Martin Luther King, but never Christ Jesus or service or sacrifice or laying down one’s life, or denuding oneself interiorly and materially in order to pastor the sheep in need, which is what a good priest does — is called to do. 
Perhaps her “sacrifice” was being told she could no longer lector at Saint Andrews, except that she is not characterizing it as such. It’s just something else being denied her. Poor thing.... 
Her disingenuousness also seeps through the page, like the second person of a fabulist trinity, beginning with the notion that she can willfully separate herself from the church due to a principled disagreement, but should still be able to proclaim from its ambo. And then, per Newsday, She called herself “a faithful daughter of the Church…” without caring (or perhaps without realizing) that one cannot claim to be faithful in a relationship while stepping out from it, or breaking trust with it. This woman has done both. She can no longer say she is “faithful.” Nor can she claim “obedience”, which is one of the anchors of the Catholic priesthood — so heavy it helps to keep the entire church well-grounded. 
Finally, this woman is offensive in her thoughtlessness. To drag her priest and his canonical duties into her passion-play was gratuitous and unnecessary; it’s of-a-piece with her self-involvement, though. She was thoughtless to the pastor and priest who served her — I am sure very faithfully — the whole time she was collecting the theology degree that seems, to some women, to be all one needs to be ordained a priest (as though the credential proves the calling). 
That about says it. "She called herself 'a faithful daughter of the Church…'" Yes, and Anthony Wiener is the faithful husband of Huma Abedin, just as his friend Bill CLinton was the faithful husband of her friend Hillary, and for that matter King Henry VIII was a faithful husband to Anne Boleyn.

Monday, September 16, 2013

Counter-Trolling

The other guy has already linked to this column on Ignitum Today, and also to the column's first commenter (a fairly obvious troll). I want to throw out that it's been really amusing to watch the counter-trolling against said commenter, who isn't so much interested in commenting as in trolling the columnists and any commenter who agree with them, or who disagree without dissenting. A lot of it isn't really high-quality trolling (one of the chief players has a name which suggests "troll" and a profile picture of what I assume is a troll, maybe from a video game or something?). Still, amusing stuff. That particular commenter deserves all the trolling that he gets.

A Few Good Links (vol 8).

Time for a few more good links. Because I'm too busy right now to post much else.
  1.  Mike Flynn continues his discussion of the Galileo Affair.
  2. On a related front, two interesting articles from Space.com. For those who haven't heard, Voyager 1 has "officially" left the solar system: it's the first man-made object to have done this. Also, (and this is older), a cool article about how to build a faster-than-light drive, which operates by moving space around the object at speeds exceeding c. A similar concept is used by the above-linked Mr Flynn in his excellent Spiral Arm series.
  3. Two posts from the same person, one on IGNITUM TODAY and one on Nicene Guys. These came out around the same time, and makes the first comment on the IGNITUM TODAY site all the more ironic (and, to be blunt, ignorant) in its attempt at trolling.
  4. Related to the Nicene Guys article, Jimmy Akin has his own assessment of the Pope's open letter, concluding that the Evangelical blogosphere was wrong in their assessment of the pope's remarks. I agree with him on this one, but I really don't blame them (at least, not all of them). Sure, there are some anti-Catholics in the group, but a number are just reacting to what the media reported (if it can be called reporting), and so the incident serves as yet another reminder that the media really is not competent (or else is being malicious) to report on matters of theology.
  5. The ending to the Arizona State Wisconsin game on Saturday is one of the most bizarre I've ever seen:


  6. And neither of the teasm that I generally root for have figured out how to play defense this year, which is strange given that last year one of them had a generally solid defense while the other's bad defense last year looked like a historical aberration. The former is now 2-1, and the latter 1-2, with all of the losses being bad in their own way.
  7. On a related note to SEC teams, when you chant SEC! SEC! SEC!, it's best to do so when your conference is winning a big game (like a national championship), not when a ranked team is beating a rank team, and especially not when your conference is 1-2 in marquee matchups on the year (with that one coming against what now looks like an overrated TCU team). UT may yet rebound (and Ole Miss may yet tank), but beating what looks like a bad team playing without its starting quarterback and one of its top offensive playmakers the week after it fires its offensive coordinator is really not all that impressive.
  8. Slate is not good for much more than the occasional laugh. Here they've collected a list of odd first names used by Puritans.
  9. And, to close with some very good news, abortion clinics are closing around the country. It kind of puts the lie to that argument about how pro-life laws don't prevent abortions.
I may return to some of these later.

Friday, September 13, 2013

NCAA Death Penalty

The NCAA is rather laughable in its enforcement of rules (effectively destroying USC's footbal program for one booster-paid athlete, leaving Auburn's alone for another, etc). Thus I hesitate to recommend that they be allowed to apply their version of the "death penalty" to a school's program, I think it would be Oklahoma State's.

Thursday, September 12, 2013

New Site by Tito Edwards

Tito Edwards, who is a friend of this blog (ok, a friendly acquaintance of those who write for this blog), has a new (secular) news aggregater site. It's called Big New Wonk, and looks like a secular version of his other aggregater site, Big Pulpit. Here's the blurb that he sent out to us:
The idea behind it is to offer content that Catholics can read secular news without being offended or placed in concupiscence. But even more importantly, it is designed for non-Catholics. Offering news and information from secular sources while at the same time drawing them ever closer to the Truth a la Matthew 10:16.
We'll be permalinking it in the blogrolls to the left.

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Homophobia?

Homophobia is a charge frequently leveled against those of use who accept the Traditional moral teachings of the Church. "You hate gays because you fear them!" some say. The truth of the matter is that I neither hate nor fear gays, and neither do most other faithful Christians. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that we can rightly fear the gay movement, the power-drunk homosexualists, and those who are their "allies." These don't want tolerance, nor even really loving acceptance as people. Their battle cry is "equality," and they will eventually add to it "fraternity!" and "liberty!" That is truly a scary thought for those who would "cling to their...religion."

It's not about fearing gays--what they do in their bedrooms is between them and God, though love does demand that we admonish sinners charitably. But homosexualists with the power to persecute should make us at least a little nervous.

Friday, September 6, 2013

Seven Quick Takes Friday (vol 3).


--1--
I haven't been posting as much (or as lengthy, or in as high-quality) as I'd like, but I've become very busy all of a sudden. It's not just the start of a new semester (though this doesn't help). I can't really point to anything in particular, other than maybe exhaustion. A three-day weekend helped, but it was mostly spent baby-proofing the apartment, and I did not have any time for writing (and little for reading). Maybe it's that when I am home, I am instantly in charge of a very demanding baby, and when I'm at work there is no real down time on most days (including lunch-breaks, etc.). How I pine for a better work-life balance, but i also want a better life-LIFE balance. Some of what follows is a set of threads which I had wanted to make into longer posts, but which I don't have the time or the energy to tackle.

--2--

In the days of my youth I supported both the Iraq and the Afghanistan wars. I'm not sure that it was a mistake per se at the time (and certainly not the Afghanistan War), though now that I see how our country fights wars anymore, and how it botches the clean-up after the war, I'm certain that at the least I would have opposed the war as fought there. I have tried to learn a bit from my mistakes, and really also from the mistakes of others, so even had the pope been silent on Syria, even had the Syrian Christians said nothing, and even if I had more confidence that the President wanted the war for more noble reasons than saving his own credibility, I would be opposing a war in Syria. Alas, a number of Republicans (and a few Democrats, too) are not so opposed. We may well enter into an unnecessary war, and on the wrong side (if there is a right side), to save face for the President, thanks to a Congress which is less interested in doing what is right than in playing politics with lives. Feeling ruled, feeling insignificant? That because in the eyes of the "ruling class," you and I are.

--3--
"Love the sinner, hate the sin." This is a common saying for Christians, in particular orthodox Christians. However, "liberal" Christians think they love the sinner, and are utterly indifferent to the sin; some conservative Christians hate the sin but at times forget about the sinner; and "progressive" Christians celebrate the sin, but are indifferent to the sinner.

--4--
"Love the sinner, hate the sin." It's actually a sort of tautology: the Christian recognizes that loving someone means wanting what is right for them, and despising what is bad for them. The greatest good consists in beatitude and ultimately the beatific vision, that is, seeing God face-to-face, enjoying God. The supreme and ultimate Good is God. Sin is that which separates us from God. Therefore, sin, and its consequence (damnation, separation from God) is the greatest evil. Hence, we cannot love the sinner fully without also hating his sins.

--5--
Two thoughts on the pro-life front. The first is that neither party really stands against abortion as a priority, but it's obvious that one party is willing to go all-in to fight for abortion, whereas the other is not. There are very few genuinely pro-life politicians, but they are more rare on the Democratic side of the political aisle; Senator Bob Casey, for example, is not particularly pro-life, nor really pro-family. Neither party is perfect, and I actually mostly dislike both parties, but one party's platform is at least tolerable, and one party is clearly more pro-abortion than the other. The second thought is related to the first, which is that appalling few states actually ban abortion coverage in insurance outright, and far too few ban it in the state exchanges. A few "conservative," "red," "Republican-stronghold" states (*cough* Texas *cough*) lack such bans.  The pro-life issue has always been grassroots, but there are some frustrations with having little to no political leadership on this issue.

--6--
This series of posts by Mike Flynn on the Galileo Affair is fascinating reading. It's in three parts, though there are prequels. Among other things, it really brings out the personalities of those involved (and it was not just a matter of "Galileo vs the Church" as the modern scientistic-atheistic propaganda would have us believe). Among other things, there was no real reason to believe Galileo's (really Copernicus') model at the time of the Galileo Affair: there were simpler explanations which made more accurate predictions and which were less counter-intuitive. Actually, it seems to me that the main theoretical justification for heliocentrism is found in the laws of gravitation and in Newton's Laws. While two of Newton's Laws (the first and the third) were known prior to Newton, it was Newton who interpreted them into a coherent set of principles relating forces and momenta, and Newton who significantly advanced our understanding of gravity (since overthrown by general relativity). Newton, you will recall, was born in the same year that Galileo died.

Also worth highlighting is the irony that even in Kepler's model of the solar system (which is superior to Copernicus' model), there are still epicycles (e.g. the moon's orbit of the earth, and the orbits of the other planets' moons about their respective planets).

--7--
The Bad Catholic--that is Mr Marc Barnes, not Mr John Zmirac--has a post up about youth ministry and authority. I link to this both because I think it gives some sound advice, and because it relates to some other recent links about Millenials and the Church [1].

Anyway, the emphasis in Mr Barnes' post is on the importance of authority: and I think that this is actually exactly what our generation is looking for, whether from the Churches or from the culture. I rather hope more would find real and reliable authority from the former and not the latter.


[1] Millenials: didn't we used to be called "Generation Y?" I kind of liked that name, even if it was meant as a place-holder, "The otherwise-unamed Generation after Generation X," but it also worked well as a pun which really has so-far captured our generation: "Why?"
-----

Seven Quick Takes Friday is hosted by Mrs Jennifer Fulwiler at her Conversion Diary blog.

Quick Links: Two for the Culture of Death

Two quick links, which are of course related. The first is Simcha Fisher's post about the new IUD "gun," which she dubbed the "uterine assault rifle." The second is about this couple of athletes whose wedding announcement details, extols, and frankly celebrates an abortion which they had.
Seared consciences, much?

Thursday, September 5, 2013

Bottuming Out

Not to beat a dead horse, but I wanted to return the the case of Joseph Bottum, and his surrender on the issue of "gay marriage." It's been about a week since I last wrote on this. I've tried to be fair to him in this space, though some would say I've failed. So be it.

And, to be really fair, he's caved to the secular culture in just one real (public) front of the culture war, and that a front which many consider lost. He himself considers it lost, though to read his long and rambling post on Commonweal, to say nothing of his briefer rebuttal to the early responses on facebook, one would come to the conclusion that it is a fight not worth winning. Others among his defenders have said so and in roughly so many words: and this is a large part of why we appear to be losing this particular fight.

Many people, including many Christians in general (who should probably know better) and many Catholic in particular (who should definitely know better) consider our efforts against legal recognition of "gay marriage" to be a waste. This is certain, and it's been stated. Less certain, by really not in much doubt in my mind, is that many consider the effort a waste because they want to see "gay marriage" become a reality, and not merely because they think the fight is using up political and moral capital which could be better spent elsewhere.

Elsewhere tends to be vague: it may be on the very important issues of fighting abortion, or the culture of death in general, or of poverty, or what-have-you. Anywhere else.

The thing is, the two reasons for giving up on this issue look too much alike. "Spend political and moral capital elsewhere" might be advice you'd give a friend because you want to see him succeed elsewhere, but it might as easily be a ruse to get him to stop fighting a fight which you don't want him to win. And reading through Mr Bottum's essay, I notice that while the words mostly say the former, the tone of the thing seems to say the latter. If this is reading too much into Mr Bottom's essay, it is certainly not overreading the sympathetic defenses of that essay, some of which have said in so many words that fighting against "gay marriage" is not a good fight (if a losing one):
"I just also happen to agree with Joseph Bottum, that the fight over gay civil marriage is not the good fight we should be fighting....Attempting to stop legalized gay civil marriage because of the “grave threat” it poses seems disingenuous, not just to gay people but to everyone. Even to me."
This reads a lot closer to "stop fighting, because I don't want to risk your winning" than to "stop fighting, you're wasting energy here that could be spent on a winnable battle." Many of these essays read like the "gay marriage" equivalent of "personally, pro-life, but politically pro-choice" which provided cover to Catholics who didn't want a pro-life victory (of any sort).

Perhaps they're meant to read this way, and perhaps not.

The fact that so many of them do does give us a clue as to why the reaction against Mr Bottum was so harsh. Some of the posts are downright vitriolic, and many comments look like they come from Two Minutes' Hate. Many more posts were (or attempted to be) charitable but blunt. Only a scant handful were the least bit tactful (I'll admit, I didn't particularly worry about tact here). Such is how the internet (and beyond) often reads, but this felt a little different.

I suspect that the reason is because those of us who still try to fight the good fight in a loosing battle feel more than a little betrayed by Mr Bottum. As mark Shea put it, he sold out, but only after explaining (as if to placate his own conscience) that he never really believed in this cause to begin with. But he didn't just leave the battlefield gracefully: he sold us out, he attempts to sabotage teh efforts of those who remain (or so it seems).

Intentional or otherwise, he became a traitor of sorts, every bit as much as Mr Doug Kmiec became a traitor who sold out prolifers during the 2008 elections. At the very least, he made us all feel betrayed by the way in which he exited the fight--a way which is opening the gates for a seeming exodus of other deserters. Worse still, many of the arguments involved have made it feel less like a desertion and more like a sudden switching of sides, like so many double-agents and turncoats. They aren't just wearily leaving the battlefield, but rather have retreated to the edge of the field and then turned to fire a parting volley into our flanks.

Is it any wonder, then, why there is so little sympathy for them from those who attempt to fight on? He (and they) may have largely been allowed to leave this front quietly to focus his energies elsewhere had he just been a little more gracious in departing and disengaging. Sloth might be forgiven; choosing to focus one's energies on another front would surely have been forgiven, as would choosing to fight on this front with different tactics. But treason, betrayal: this is quite possibly the hardest thing of all to forgive. There is a reason why the traitors occupied the lowest depth of Hell in Dante's Inferno, and it is not merely a matter of Dante's view of the role of kings in the cosmos. Betrayal is like the anti-salt, which makes any other offense taste that much more bitter to the offended.

Yet, in the end, forgive we must.

No Blood for Credibility

Because that's what Syria has become about: Obama wants us to go in (or to "bomb" it) to save face. Not that either side is really worth fighting for, but the rebels seem worse by far. Among other things, they are backed by Al Quaeda, which is now promising to kill all the Christians in the region as soon as the US "liberates" Syria. And this is the side that Obama wants to ally with?


Meanwhile, the Left suddenly stopped caring about keeping us out of war. There are exceptions, of course, but I have yet to hear of a single large and massive protest against this run by the "liberal"/progressive side of the political spectrum now that Obama is the one calling for the war.

No war to save the President's credibility.

Maybe Gene Wolfe's "Traffic Jam" Stories Aren't So Farfetched

Gene Wolfe wrote a couple (at least) of short stories which have as their premise that at some point, there is a traffic jam so bad that those who were caught in it form their own society, and those who were not in it form theirs. The society of the Traffic Jam is similar to depictions of post-apocalyptic stories (poor, nomadic, uses whatever cast off technology and supplies they can get their hand on, etc). The rest of society is called the "Off-Roaders", and is about like society today. It's a funny concept (and works about right for two short stories), but I always thought it was a bit far-fetched.

Apparently, it may not be, though he got the country wrong. In China, there is now a 100 km traffic jam which has so far lasted 9 days and which is expected to last for weeks. Eh, it may not be the years in the short story, but that's pretty awful. This is why I hate cities, but I suppose none of our cities have traffic quite this bad.

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Evolution of US Foreign Policy

Heh.
Evolution of US Foreign Policy, 1946-present
1946-2000: Realism
2001-2008: Neconservative idealism
2009-2012: Neointernationalism
2013: "YOLO" Doctrine

That about sums it up.

Tuesday, September 3, 2013

Labor Day

Happy day after Labor Day. Ace of Spades has this little reminder about amnesty. I'm not going to harp on the pros and the cons (mostly, the cons) of amnesty for illegal immigrants. I am going to note that the tweet at the top makes a twisted sort of sense: "Happy Labor Day from the party that will continue to fight on behalf of our nation's workers." This is from the Democratic National Party. Like I said, it makes some twisted sense, because if we all unemployed, then every day is like labor Day: we don't have to go to work.