Michael Novak: Democracy & Religion in America

Great piece by Michael Novak at NRO today. Its driven by an analysis of Alexis de Tocqueville's own view of our country. The third paragraph is a kicker:

"Tocqueville began with a shocker: That the first political institution of American democracy is religion. His thesis went something like this: The premises of secular materialism do not sustain democracy, but undermine it, while the premises of Judaism and Christianity include and by inductive experience lead to democracy, uplift it, carry it over its inherent weaknesses, and sustain it."

Wow. I wonder what the Internet Infidels think of that? Stupid question... I already know.

Uh-oh

The NYTimes' lead editorial today is on stem-cell research. Guess where they come down?

The Democrat Penchant for Self-Destructing on Foreign Policy Issues

Good column in the Washington Post today by Michael Kelly on the Democrats' decades-long tendency to do and say really dumb things on foreign policy matters. Baghdad Jim and Baghdad Bonior (George Will's terms, as far as I can tell) are only the latest examples, when they say regarding Bush that "the president would mislead the American people", while regarding their hosts, "you have to take the Iraqis on their value, at their face value." Sure, guys.

Rosary Reflection

Great reflection on the Rosary by Disputations.

Talking Wayyyy Past Each Other

With the fall election approaching and the campaigns approaching their typically feverish intensity, I've found myself becoming more and more disillusioned with politics-as-we-know-it in our country.

My biggest problem is with the half-truths and obfuscation that are standard campaign ad fare, and both sides are guilty. It's hard to find a political ad in which the producer is really concerned about getting the full truth about their candidate out there. Now, I know that this isn't completely the fault of the campaigns... they're simply trying to make a point in the 3.2 nanoseconds they have before the average tv watcher either tunes out the ad or flips the channel. And this is clearly a problem beyond the politician's control. Nonetheless, it would be refreshing to see a campaign in which full disclosure is the norm, rather than the extreme rarity.

Another thing that troubles me is the lack of any authentic discussion on the issues. In my experience, Americans heavily involved in politics (as participants or spectators) tend to suspect their opponents on the other side of the aisle of the vilest motives. Take this letter to the editor in the NY Times, in which the writer warns that Republicans are for "regressive economic policies; and against protecting the environment, civil liberties and civil rights, a woman's right to choose, and occupational safety." Yes, that's right: those evil Republicans actually desire pollution, a police state, and on-the-job injuries. Come on! Of course, conservatives can be just as guilty of such suspicions: I have many friends who have stated at one time or another that liberals and Democrats are just out to use Big Government to run our lives. Please. Hey, I live in South Dakota now -- Tom Daschle's home state -- and as much as I can't stand his style and as much as I disagree with this policy positions, I would never say that his secret plan is to rule the life of every American. But it's because of these suspicions that we all too often fail to listen to the other side, and therefore never engage them in meaningful discussion.

Finally, I'm tired of too many politicians basing their actions on the desire to retain or gain political power rather than on principle. My primary example? Daschle's argument during the tax-cut debate, using the example of how a "rich" person would get back enough money to buy a BMW, while a "middle-class" person would only get enough to buy a BMW's tire. Talk about disingenuous! Senator, of course the middle-class taxpayer is going to get back less in a tax cut in which the rates are cut by the same percentage... they pay less in taxes in the first place! (I'm sure there is a similar example from the other side.) It's this sort of half-truth (again) that irks me, and (in my opinion) really prevents America from having a debate about the issues, and ultimately, about the First Things. But then, we've never really been a people interested in First Things, have we?

Deterrence?

Rich Lowry has a good piece on the Deterrence Argument vis. Iraq -- that is, that Saddam will not employ Weapons of Mass Destruction because of the threat that we will annihilate Baghdad in response.

Lowry does a good job of refuting this argument. But Kenneth Pollack, in his book which I linked below, does an even better job. He refutes the Deterrence Argument in principle and then by example. For instance...

Imagine it's 2007. Saddam has by now acquired a small nuclear arsenal. Being sane, he has no illusions about using his arsenal against New York, D.C., etc., as this would most certainly invite an overwhelming response by the U.S. Besides, there is no real reason for Saddam to do so: it doesn't further his purposes. But what does further his purposes and ambitions is taking Kuwait, something we well know he is willing to do. So...

Iraq repeats 1990 and invades Kuwait, with little problem. But this time, he warns the U.S. not to attack his forces, because if we do, he will employ his small nuclear arsenal (or a portion thereof) against the oil fields of Saudi Arabia, thereby reducing the world's oil production by some 22% (Polluck's figure) and thereby plunging the world economy into a recession or even a depression (as Polluck points out, the oil embargo of the early 70's which had such an impact on our economy saw a lessening of oil production of only some 2%).

Now what is the U.S. to do? Allow Saddam to invade his tiny neighbor and thereby gain even more control over Middle East oil and continue in his desire for Middle East dominance, or risk a worldwide depression by attacking Saddam's forces? Hardly a choice any president would want to face. But it is a very plausible one, if we chose deterrence over regime change.

Interview with Archbishop Dolan

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel has an interview with Archbishop Dolan. Good, heartening reading.

The Euros aren't happy

The Washington Post has an article today on how the Europeans aren't happy with the direction the Bush administration has been taking vis. multilateral institutions and coalitions.

Frankly, I'm frustrated and exasperated by all of this. Take the situation with Iraq. The Europeans are apparently unhappy because we've told them to get on board or step aside. Well, what do they want? The Bush Administration (and others -- see the excellent article by Stanley Kurtz on the new book by Kenneth Pollack, The Threatening Storm: the Case for Invading Iraq) has laid out a clear case for regime change, now. We believe that it is in the best interests of our nation, the Middle East, and the world that Saddam be removed from power. And we believe that it is particularly urgent that we take action soon. Europe (apparently) disagrees. So what are we supposed to do? Nothing, simply because some (many) of our allies don't see the urgency? I don't think so.

I'm convinced that the President is right about Saddam and Iraq. He has to go, for a number of reasons. I wish that others would see that, but if they don't, then we must act alone. I don't think Bush relishes the idea of going it alone, but if no one choses to join us, then he doesn't have any choice, does he?

Paul VI's Dominus Iesus-esque language

While reading Pope Paul VI's excellent Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi (On Evangelization In The Modern World), written in 1975, I came across this gem:

"In other words, our religion [Christianity] effective establishes with God an authentic and living relationship which the other religions do not succeed in doing, even though they have, as it were, their arms stretched out towards heaven."

Wow! This is the sort of thing that got the Vatican in trouble with those with a misunderstanding of ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue when Dominus Iesus came out two years ago. I wonder what sort of a reading it got back in '75. If any.

When Unconditional Isn't

The White House website has a nice press release which shows how conditional prior Iraqi promises of unconditionality (is that a word?) are.

New Judicial Nominee on Roe v. Wade

Michael McConnell is Bush's nominee for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. According to this Byron York piece, he stands a good chance of being confirmed, in spite of he's strong public opposition to Roe v. Wade (I'm going to avoid commenting on how that is possible, for now).

The WSJ's online editorial page-plus, Opinion Journal, today posted some of McConnell's past columns which the WSJ published, among them, this 1998 article on the illegitimacy of Roe v. Wade. He does an excellent job in pointing out how the Court settled de facto the very question which it said no one else had and therefore it couldn't -- the humanity of the fetus -- by stating that abortion is protected by the (nebulous) Constitutional right to privacy. After all, if abortion is a "private" affair, that means -- by definition -- that it does not "abridge the rights of a nonconsenting third party" (McConnell's words), and that statement cannot be made unless you first conclude that the fetus is not a nonconsenting third party, a question the Court said it couldn't answer!

Argh!

My latest absence

FYI, my wife and I are enroute to South Dakota for my new job; as you can imagine, packing has occupied my time of late, leaving little room for blogging.

I hope to get back into the swing of things some time next week.

Have a great Labor Day weekend!

Mormons

There's an interesting discussion about Mormonism and Christianity going on over at the Theology Department; your's truly has made a comment or two. Check it out.

No threat from Objectivists?

One of my commenters in my brief link-post on Ayn Rand below argues that while Communists killed millions upon millions of people in the 20th century, Objectivists committed no such atrocities, and ergo, they are not even close to Commies on the Baddie Scale.

He (of course) does have a point: no government/organization espousing Objectivism has killed on such a vast scale. However... I would argue that Objectivism (and libertarianism in general) has contributed to the overly-individualistic mentality that supports abortion -- apart from the fact that the vast majority of people who espouse these positions support abortion rights -- and so has some guilt in the death of millions upon millions of human beings (go read the stuff at Libertarians for Life before ranting at me on this point). Have such people "pulled the trigger"? Of course not. But the ideologue does bear responsibility for those who listen to him and follow his thought out.

Back soon...

Just a quick FYI... I'm out of town now, visiting family, which is why I haven't posted anything in a day or two. I'll be back this weekend...

Ayn Rand

A hard-hitting, succinct post at Mere Comments Monday on the all too often unrecognized threat Rand's philosophy presents to the fabric of society.

Contrary to Rush's view, rugged, unfettered individualism is not the greatest thing since sliced bread. It's the worst thing since communism. Well, before that, too.

An Ecumenist! Run for your lives!

In the July-August issue of New Oxford Review, I found a couple of pages devoted by the editors to parsing Fr. Richard John Neuhaus' account of his conversion as found in April's First Things under the title How I Became the Catholic I Was. The second-to-last paragraph runs thus:

We know that many Catholics see Fr. Neuhaus as a champion of orthodox Catholicism---and his outspoken political conservativism may have something to do with that---but we doubt that many orthodox Catholics would find his words here to be those of a champion of Catholic orthodoxy. For sure, they're the words of a dyed-in-the-wool ecumenist.

A dyed-in-the-wool ecumenist?? I don't think the editors meant it as a compliment, but I'm at a loss to understand why it shouldn't be one. After all, Vatican II stated clearly that "the restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council" (Decree on Ecumenism, 1). If I've read that Council's texts and those of John Paul II correctly, then every Catholic is called to be a "dyed-in-the-wool ecumenist." It's not to be a compliment (or epithet) for Fr. Neuhaus alone.

Faith as a work: responses

There have been a couple of responses to my post at the Theo Dept regarding Faith as a work. Mark Byron made a couple remarks in the comments, as did others, and Mark later made a longer response (and David Heddle agreed with Mark in the comments of Mark's post). Separately, Peter Sean Bradley provided a Catholic take on the question.

I posed the question because the Theo Dept was in the midst of a discussion over baptism, and the relation between faith and baptism is an important question among Christians. My concern in asking my question was to get people to think about the source of faith: does it come from us, or from God? Or perhaps, both, in some way? This line of thinking actually came about while I was reading Lutheran theologian Carl E. Braaten's Justification: the Article by which the Church Stands or Falls. Writing about the divine and human roles in the order of salvation as Luther understood it, Braaten states the following:

On the one hand, Luther could say that faith is a work which must be done by a human being, and on teh other, that faith is not a human work at all, but a gift of the Holy Spirit. Both statements are true when seen from the right perspective. In any case, faith is a work. It is an act. But how is it related to justification---as a means to an end or as the effect of a cause? In other words, how is faith correlated with justification in Luther's mind? If faith is described as a work which justifies, it could be mistakenly understood to mean that God forgives my sin because I do something, because I believe or feel sufficiently miserable about my sin and guilt. The remission of sins is something I can get if only I fulfill certain requirements. I have only to be told what they are, and with proper persuasion I may even choose to fulfill them. This, Luther perceived, is the essential element in all false religion: "If I do thus, God will be merciful to me." [...] The quid pro quo type of connection between faith and justification was certainly not what Luther meant to affirm by his assertion that faith makes righteous, or faith justifies. [...] Justification is objectively prior to faith. Faith is subjectively the result of the creative impact upon the sinner of God's acceptance. [...] Faith is by all means not a cause of forgiveness and not a prior condition of justification which can possibly be fulfilled by a human will in bondage.

For the most part, I agree with Braaten's take, especially in the final sentence. I think it is terribly important that we always remember (as my Protestant friends in blogland have) that faith is a gift, not something that first originates within us. Yes we believe, we have faith. But before we have faith, it is given to us by God, given (normally) in baptism. With the Lutheran tradition (and others), the Catholic Church clearly teaches that we receive faith when we are baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The distinction between belief and faith (referred to in Dominus Iesus 7) is important to remember: the former is a completely human work; the latter is a gift of God to man, which man then "does".

Scalia: radicalist!

According to an editorial in today's Washington Post, Justice Scalia's article in First Things titled God's Justice and Ours. Now, while I disagree with Scalia's take in this article, I do not do so with the contempt and mis-reading which the WaPost's editors do.

My major bone of contention is the Post's apparent assertion that Scalia argues that the source of the government's power is a divine right to rule. This assertion is made in reaction to this statement by Scalia: ""The reaction of people of faith to this tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government should not be resignation to it, but the resolution to combat it as effectively as possible."

However, an honest and objective reading of this passage in context returns no hint of sinister motives and/or intentions on Scalia's part. Instead, Scalia argues that the authority of the government is more than the sum of the wills of the people who authorize the government to act. And I think he's right.

The editorial makes other claims and arguments about Scalia's article, but the best thing (as always) is to read both for yourself. You be the judge.

Delta Force

I'm currently reading Inside Delta Force, by founding member Eric Haney. Very interesting reading. If you're at all interested in the process by which a member of the armed forces becomes an Operator, and what life in the counterterrorist unit is like, check it out.

Evangelization and Ecumenism

As anyone who has read my blog since I started it back at Eastertime probably knows, ecumenism (visible unity among Christians) is one my major interests. I'd like to take a moment to explain why, or at least give some of the reasons why.

The modern ecumenical movement got its start in the late nineteenth century, when missionaries from a variety of Protestant communities found that their own differences where constituting an obstacle to missionary activity among people of other beliefs. This led to meetings of various communities, the goal of which was to reconcile the differences among them.

The Catholic Church, having (as always) approached this new development among Christians slowly (or at least more slowly than some would have liked), eventually gave its full approval and support to the drive for Christian unity at Vatican II.

That's a brief history. Now, as for myself, my own interest in ecumenism derives also from my own evangelical and missionary nature. With all Christians, I truly believe that the world needs Christianity, because it is within the Gospel that the world will be fulfilled. For instance, as I stated a while back, Christian morality is not an arbitrary imposition by an external authority, but is instead the means to true human happiness, to authentic fulfillment. So too with all aspects of divine revelation... it is the means to be what we ought and ultimately really want to be. We need to show the modern world -- so overrun with various forms of secularism and inauthentic humanism -- that it will find its "story", itself, in the message the Father has communicated to us through His Son and in the Holy Spirit.

Having said that, it is a fact that our own disagreements as Christians present a difficulty in evangelization. Instead of presenting basically one coherent and symphonic message, the World is presented with a multitude of messages, each (usually) stating that it is the true message which the Father seeks to communicate to humanity. Clearly, this makes our task of presenting the Gospel more difficult.

Therefore, it is imperative that all Christians seek unity with one another. Not a false unity, based on emotive desires and wishful thinking, but a true unity grounded in the Truth, which is a person: Jesus Christ. We need to be in communion with one another, because (among other reasons) our world today needs us. Desperately. And while we are able to present the Gospel in the current circumstances of disunity, a visible communion of all Christians rooted in truth and love would multiply our ability to present the Gospel in ways we can't imagine.

Fr. Bryce Sibley

As many of you know, my friend Fr. Bryce Sibley has been instructed to make no comments in the public forum for six months, as a result of some prior comments he made about the Louvain seminary. With Todd Reitmeyer -- one of Fr. Bryce's fellow NACers -- I'm suggesting prayer as out best course of action. Fr. Bryce is a good man... I have absolutely no doubt that he's handling this with no problem.

JWs

Anyone seen a Jehovah's Witnesses blog yet? For that matter, anyone seen anything in terms of apologetics from a JW that isn't anonymous? I wonder if JWs are prohibited from engaging in this sort of "dialogue".

Anyway, let me know if you find something out there by an individual JW.

CEDAW and abortion

Contrary to what its supporters have been saying lately, the UN treaty CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) does have something to do with abortion. Go read the latest Friday Fax from the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, and then call your senators and ask them to vote against ratification. (C-Fam has more on CEDAW... browse the prior Friday Faxes.)

Faith as a Work?

Is Christian Faith a mental work?

I asked that question in an entry at Blogistan's Theology Dept. I look forward to hearing what my fellow faculty and others have to say, both there and here.

New Blogs

Here are a few of the latest new members of St. Blog's...

Vita Brevis by Gregg the Obscure

My Daily Crumbs by Karl Kohlhase

Flos Carmeli by Steven Riddle

and this veteran multi-blog, which I haven't linked to yet (and which most of my readers probably already read)...

Heart, Mind & Strength (aka HMS Blog) (This is where Emily Stimpson (formerly of Fool's Folly) is now writing from.)

Check 'em out!

How about this?

According to this story, China is about to enact a new law which gives husbands "veto authority" over their wives' decision to abort their child.

Dare I say that China is thereby becoming -- on one aspect of the abortion issue -- more pro-life than Western democracies?

Red Rabbit

Has anyone read Clancy's Red Rabbit yet? I know... it just came out Monday. But some of you are surely fast readers, and this book is shorter than Clancy's last few works.

I ask because I'm a little "iffy" about the premise of the novel (I'm going to read a library copy before I buy it to keep my Clancy collection complete); as you may know, this book is set in 1983, when Jack Ryan is a new consultant at CIA, and he uncovers a Soviet plot to assassinate Pope John Paul II. Since this is a historical reality (well, the assassination attempt, at least), I'm wondering how Clancy does in weaving his fiction into the true events.

Kids' Questions and Adults' Questions

Yesterday, Mark at Minute Particulars commented on the sorts of questions materialists and atheists ask, e.g. "Does God exist?" or "Is there such a thing as a soul?". Mark proposes that such questions are usually sorted out by people as children, but that -- for some reason -- atheists and materialists never did so. He goes on to (rightly) point out that assertions like "God does not exist" are ultimately non-sensical and irrational, because to assert them implies that there is no necessary existant, which is rationally impossible.

He makes some other thought-provoking comments, but rather than trying to summarize them, let me recommend that you simply go read the post. As always, Mark has solid stuff to say.

Woody on War

Foreign policy guru Woody Harrelson has courageously sounded off on the War on Terrorism, George Michael's brave opposition to it, and the London cab driver whose taxi he trashed.

Woody says that G. Micheal is "incredibly brave to have done that song. Especially when doing something like that could be considered very dangerous in today's world."

Ah yes, Woody... disagreement with world leaders surely is taboo in modern society. I'm sure that the FBI and CIA have already put together a portfolio on Mr. Michael, and are only waiting for the opportunity to dispatch him.

Woody goes on: "I can't believe he got so criticised in America for it. It's so unfair."

So, it's "fair" to criticize Bush and Blair, but when the critic himself gets criticized, that's unfair? Okay. Sure, Woody.

Woody then proceeds to praise the paper that's interviewing him: "The war against terrorism is terrorism. The whole thing is just bullsh*t. What you guys have done is very brave."

Once again, the argumentation Harrelson brings to bear is nothing short of brilliant.

I do have to thank the Mirror for reminding us of this little adventure, though: In June Woody was wrestled to the ground by policemen and arrested after he went berserk in the back of Les's taxi. The cabbie said the star acted like a "caged animal". Within minutes of Les picking the actor up from Chinawhite at 2am, Woody had trashed the cab. He then booted the door open and made a run for it. Les dropped the charges after Woody paid him £542.96 and the two men shook hands after the play. "He said, 'No hard feelings'," said Woody. "He seemed like a nice guy. It's just one of those terrible circumstances."

"Just one of those terrible circumstances"??? Woody, you trashed the guy's taxi!!! Jeesh.... he makes it sound like the whole thing was a minor, unavoidable fender-bender, when the fact is, he lost it!

Thanks for the display of intellectual acumen, Woody.

WaPost on Leahy

Today's Washington Post has an editorial surprisingly critical of Leahy's tenure as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, specifically how quickly (or better, slowly) he has been dealing with Bush's judicial nominees.

Game on!

Another great column by the WaPost's William Arkin on the Pentagon's ongoing wargame which seeks to test new concepts of warfare. (As Arkin notes, this wargame was in the planning stages well before 9/11).

Arkin makes a few references to how this wargame exemplifies the ongoing battle between the Old School and New School of warfare in the Pentagon. For instance:

Mlitary sources also point out that war games begin with a non-negotiable commitment to "jointness" -- that is, that all of the services play equally and at the same time in exercises and in wars. These sources say this requirement means the pace of warfare is actually slowed down to give lumbering ground forces a chance to catch up with airpower and cyber warfare. The important point for the MC 02 is that RDO (and its conceptual cousin, Effects-Based Operations) are concepts for future warfare. They are by no means the "dominant" view in the Pentagon, particularly not in Central Command (CENTCOM), the Tampa-based Middle East command that is dominated by the Army.

and

Those who argue for military transformation and prosletyze on behalf of future warfare concepts worry about the bias -- still rampant not just in the Army but in the media and public mind -- that real war is merely an updated model of World War II's mechanized battles. They believe that such outmoded thinking is responsible for recent news reports which envision U.S. ground troops marching on Baghdad with great physical destruction and unacceptable costs in human lives. These military thinkers argue that warfare has already changed. They point to the first precision war in Desert Storm in 1991 and the victory in Kosovo's 1999 air war as evidence that there is a better way to approach battle, even against a mechanized foe like Iraq. Millennium Challenge will not resolve this conflict, but it goes a long way to introducing concepts other than physical destruction and attrition warfare to a military still dominated by conventional ground forces.

Supporters of the newer theories have a tough task on their hands. Emphasis on physical destruction and attrition have been a part of the American conception of warfare for a long time, well beyond WWII. For more on this, see Robert Leonhard's The Art of Maneuver: Maneuver-Warfare Theory and Airland Battle. Although this book was written with the an armored clash between the Warsaw Pact and NATO in mind, the general principles and critiques still apply.

I need a vacation! (name that Schwarzenegger film!)

Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post looks at the non-issue which is the Prez's August vacation. As he points out, everyone else in DC is off, why shouldn't the President take some time off?

I'd add this, to anyone out there who is concerned that W isn't sitting in the Oval Office for the next few weeks (if such person exists): can't you run your life without the President? Is the role of the President that crucial to our daily lives that we worry when he's out of DC for an extending period of time?

Limbaugh had a great slam on this view on Wednesday; as he pointed out, Bush has access to this amazing device known as the T-E-L-E-P-H-O-N-E. Unlike most of us on our vacation, the President is always well within reach, if he is direly needed.

Relax, people. Enjoy the last month of summer.

NFP... not just for Catholics

Kathryn Lopez of NRO (and on occasion, Crisis) has an article this morning on an Evangelical Protestant couple and their book in favor of Natural Family Planning as a moral and healthy (in multiple senses) alternative to contraception.

She also has a Q&A with them.

Check them out.

Chris' Top Ten

One of my readers wanted to know who the other members of my "Top Ten Catholic Theologians of the 20th Century" are (I mentioned Cardinal Ratzinger as one of them below).

In no particular order...

1. Henri de Lubac
2. Hans Urs von Balthasar
3. Karol Wojtyla (John Paul II)
4. Karl Rahner (before he went cookoo)
5. Yves Congar

Actually, I'm going to stop there... there are several other eminent theologians I might mention, but none of them have quite the stature that these do. Again, IMHO.

Also, it's very possible that I've inadvertently forgotten someone who is a must for such a list. If I have, by all means, email me or make a comment.

Comments?

I (hopefully) just added a comments function. If it's working, let me know any thoughts about my posts.

Cardinal Ratzinger Meets the Press. Again.

According to an email from Ignatius Press, Cardinal Ratzinger's third and latest book-length interview will soon be available.

The title is "God and the World"; this is the second interview-book done by Cardinal Ratzinger with german journalist Peter Seewald. Apparently the previous discussion had a lot to do with Seewald's return to the faith after a number of years of "inactivity".

Here's the Ignatius Press blurb:

During his years as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, well-known Vatican prelate Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger has given three in-depth interviews. The first two interviews have become best selling books: The Ratzinger Report and Salt of the Earth. Because of the tremendous reception those books received, the Cardinal agreed to do another interview with journalist Peter Seewald, who had done the very popular Salt of the Earth interview. This third in-depth interview addresses deep questions of faith and the living of that faith in the modern world.

The interview took place over three full days spent at the Benedictine Abbey of Monte Cassino in a setting of the silence, prayer, and hospitality of the monks. For this meeting with the highly regarded Churchman, theologian, and author, the seasoned journalist, who had fallen away from the faith but eventually returned to the Church, once again provided a very stimulating, well-prepared series of
wide-ranging questions on profound issues. The Cardinal responds with candor, frankness and deep insight, giving answers that are sometimes surprising and always thought provoking.

"When Cardinal Ratzinger, one of the Church's great wise men, sat opposite me in the Abbey and patiently recounted to me the Gospel and the belief of Christendom from the beginning of the world to its end, something of the mystery that holds the world together became more tangible. 'Creation itself', he said, 'bears within itself an ordered pattern from which we can understand the ideas of God—and even the right way to live.' "

--- Peter Seewald

Also, the book is 460 pages long (!!). Should be good reading, whenever it comes out (Ignatius' website says its out of stock, while amazon shows it being published in October).

Among the twentieth century Catholic theologians, Ratzinger stands out in my mind as one of the best. Although God has called him to serve the Church in a way which precludes him from writing as much as he'd like, the work he did prior to becoming Cardinal-Archbishop of Munich in the 70's and Prefect of the CDF in the early 80's -- as well as that which he's put out "on the side" since then -- establishes him as one of the ten greatest Catholic theologians in the last one hundred years. IMHO.

Philosophy has got Soul

A week or two ago there was a discussion between Mark at Minute Particulars and Rand Simberg over the legitimacy of cyronics (freezing humans in liquid nitrogen or some similarly chilly substance with the hope of reviving them in the future when cures for their ailments are available).

In the course of the discussion, Simberg stated that any discussion of the soul was religious in nature, and therefore not worth discussion. Mark's protestations that Aristotle discussed the soul from a strictly-philosophical perspective were to no avail; according to Simberg, anything which he can't see, touch, or in some similar way quantitatively analyze is religious in nature.

To be honest, I was surprised by these kinds of comments. I thought strict materialism was well on its way out the door, but alas... apparently not. At least not in some circles in the blogosphere. The following articles are helpful in a discussion of scientific materialism: particle physicist Stephen Barr's review essay The Atheism of the Gaps and Phillip Johnson's The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism. Check them out.

Doctrina!

For those of you in blogland who enjoy sinking your teeth into good philosophical and theological issues, I'd (once again) recommend Joel Garver's Sacra Doctrina. The topics which can be found on his "current" blog page are nominalism, Thomism, and an explanation of the Reformed doctrine of the limited atonement (see James Akin's A Tiptoe Through Tulip for an example of how the limited atonement can be positively understood from the Catholic perspective).

Make sure you've got your favorite beverage at hand, and dig in.

Democracy in Iraq

An invasion of Iraq continues to be a hot topic in pundit land, both on the Net in in the mainstream media. Much of the argumentation in favor of kicking Saddam out goes like this: if we can remove Saddam and establish a democratic regime in Iraq, this could serve as a catalyst for democratic reform throughout the Middle East, especially in Iraq's neighbor (and our ostensible ally) to the south, Saudi Arabia (see this Tom Rick's article in the Washington Post on a Pentagon briefing last month which outlined why the Saudis are our enemies, and what we should do about it).

By and large, I accept this line of reasoning. I whole-heartedly support W's intention to boot Saddam before he is able to develop and deploy WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction).

Having said that, I'd like to discuss one aspect of this argument, that being the idea of establishing a democratic regime in Iraq.

Most of those who make the argument laid out above believe that people have a natural, quasi-instinctive yearning for self-government, and I agree. At the same time, it seems clear to me that the ground must be made fertile for democracy to flourish... the idea that a totalitarian regime can be replaced immediately with a democratic form of government seems unlikely to me. Now, most of those who argue for such a course of action in Iraq would no doubt affirm that it takes time to establish self-governance. At the same time, the sense I get from many of these pundits and commentators is that the preparation required for such action is relatively short; after all, people desire this, and so it shouldn't take too long to make ready the ground for democracy.

I'm not so sure. I don't know if people are sufficiently aware of the importance of the West's Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman heritage vis. our modern democratic forms of government. I think it can be argued that the preparation for our own modern republics was laid over the course of not months, years, or even decades, but centuries.

Therefore, I think we need to examine a bit more closely how readily the Iraqi people would embrace democracy. After all, the Russian people are much closer to the culture of the West than Iraqis, yet look at the trouble they're having in transitioning to democracy.

Having said that... I wonder if the Japanese example might be a counter-example to my line of questioning. After all, the Japanese culture up through 1945 was hardly akin to Western culture, yet that nation has fairly successfully embraced the concept and practice of self-government. So maybe it wouldn't be as difficult in Iraq as I think it may be.

Scandal Time III

Fr. Neuhaus' latest commentary on The Situation is now online at the First Things website. Check it out.

While you're at it, read Deal Hudson's latest e-update on the Plenary Council which eight US bishops have called for in order to address the root causes of The Situation (something the Dallas meeting didn't do, and probably wasn't meant to do). The update is available here at Mark Shea's blog.

Roadmap to Renewal

Emily Stimpson has laid out an excellent Roadmap for Renewing the Church. The only thing I'd add (probably under Emily's Point #1: Learn the Faith): become familiar with the documents of Vatican II. Read them. Learn them. Know them. Make them yours.

John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger have both pointed to these texts and the knowledge of them by the faithful (that includes all states of life in the Church) as the key to authentic renewal in the Church.

Take their advice.

Can't we all just get along?

The Weekly Standard's online editor, Jonathan Last, has a piece on this November's Godless Americans March on Washington (link via Amy Welborn). Speaking of the commonalities which all of the various atheist groups share, Last points out that the first such commonality is a preoccupation with Christianity. Why is that? Christians are no longer the largest religious group in the world (Muslims now have that honor); Christians are hardly the only religious group (including self-proclaimed atheists) to commit atrocities against their fellow man (this being a common charge against Christianity); and atheists secularists have spent bunches of time and energy "proving" that the positives of Western Civ have nothing to do with Christianity. So why the preoccupation? I suppose it might be as simple as the fact that most atheists in this country were raised Christian, but I wonder if there is more to it.

[Update: a sharp reader noted that there are still more Christians than Muslims in the world... I inadvertently compared the total number of Muslims to the number of Catholics, not all Christians. Nonetheless, I'm still not sure that it's the numeric superiority of Christians which gets atheist ire up.]

Waiting is safest

A good, succinct commentary piece on the value and efficacy of abstinence-only sex education programs from the president of the Heritage Foundation.

Not so Godley to me

According to this article from Reuters, two gentlemen in a town in Texas got into a disagreement about who was going to Heaven and who was going to H-E-double hockey sticks, and it ended with one shooting the other with a shotgun.

The name of the town is Godley. Seriously.

Betts vs. Svendsen

John Betts recently "ran into" polemicist Eric Svendsen, who's been on a mission over the last year or two to prove that modern Catholic usage of the term "Theotokos" (literally "God-bearer", usually translated "Mother of God") points to Christological heresies on the Catholic's part.

I, for one, am befuddled by this sort of refusal to accord Mary a title which was historically given her specifically in order to "safeguard" the unity of Jesus' (divine) person, as John very aptly demonstrates. Maybe some of my Protestant friends in the blogosphere can help me understand this phenomenon.

"The Pope really is great"

A great article from the Toronto Globe and Mail (link via Gerard Serafin). Early on, while explaining the attraction of John Paul II, the author writes, "Everyone is drawn to true greatness, and John Paul II is quite simply the greatest man alive."

Amen.

Chris West and JPII

Fellow Catholic blogger Bill Cork recently made some critical remarks of Christopher West's take on JPII's rich theology of the body.

I haven't read West's stuff, but I know people who hold his work in high esteem; at the same time, I've come to respect Bill's insights "from afar". Hmmm... guess I'll have to listen to the tapes and decide for myself.

Comments recommendations?

I'd like to add a comments function to my blog, and I'm looking for recommendations. YACCS is not accepting new signups right now, and I'm wondering if I should just wait (only until Aug. 1), or if there is another good hosted service out there.

Let me know!

Thanks.

TF Barans

As promised, TF Baran's response to my brief comments on Phil's argument against embryonic personhood (see the earlier post from today below).

TF comments thus:

Clever observation, but at a more serious level it fails to consider several critical points.

First, you have got to know that I'm going to point out the difference between human "life" and human "personhood" -- and that what dies between fertilization and early pregnancy is human "life" (as are eggs, sperms and many forms of cell tissue) but has none of the ACTUAL qualities of an actual human person, but merely the POTENTIAL of possibly developing them in the future. This is especially true of the many fertilizatons that occur but which die very early without even becoming attached to the uterine lining.

Second, even if someone does actually consider the embryonic fertilized material to be a human person, there is a real difference between "someone" dying at the start of their expected life span, before they have had any actual experiences of being a person (and I would reiterate before they have the capacity for experiencing personhood because they are not persons yet), and at the end of a reasonable life span when they have actually lived life and experienced personhood.

Third, if one considers "risk" in purely relative terms, and considers "risk" to the one PERSON involved whose personhood is not in question -- the pregnant woman -- it is not only obvious but supported by extensive statistical evidence that carrying a pregnancy to full term is far more hazardous than abortion. The only reason to bring it up at all is that sometimes the objection to abortion is shrouded in a rather silly argument that it is risky to the woman.

In the course of my discussion with TF previously, I often proposed the definition of personhood which I posted previously: a person is a being which has the active capacity to reason and freely-will. TF has never really grasped this definition, or at least she doesn't seem to have done so on the basis of our discussions. That this is so is seen in her first point, in which she argues that the embryo lacks actual personal qualities, and therefore is not a person. On the contrary, the embryo does have one of the essential elements of personhood: it has the active capacity (i.e. a capacity which it develops of itself, and is not developed by an external action) to reason and freely-will.

She then points out that there is a difference between a person dying at the beginning of their life and and the end. So there is, but it has no significance vis. the moral and ontological status of said person.

Finally, she points to the dangers of pregnancy for the mother, but along the way begs the question of the personhood of the embryo.

I'd invite you to go to TF Baran's essay (linked in the earlier post today), read it, and -- if you have the time -- engage her in a charitable discussion of embryonic personhood. You'll definitely learn how to argue for your position, and -- who knows? -- you might make some progress with showing her the truth of that position.

The Vikes

One of the benefits that our relocation brings is the ability for me to catch more games of that team that every Minnesotan has a love-hate relationship with, the Minnesota Vikings (or Viqueens, as my seventh grade social studies teacher put it). Most national commentators have written off this coming season for the Vikes, chaulking it up to rebuilding; I can certainly understand why. Nonetheless, I think they're going to surprise a lot of people and win more games than most expect. Hey, they still have Daunte Culpepper and Randy Moss, who apparently is going to get 40% of the offense's plays directed to him. Some might think doing so is foolish -- it's practically inviting a double team. But guess what? Moss already gets double-teamed on most plays. I say, throw him the ball anyway... let him outjump both defenders.

I'd like to point out that Mark Byron also expects to see a few more W's than others do from the Vikes: he expects they'll win the NFC North!

Speaking of Mark, by the way, I'd like congratulate him on his marriage earlier this month... Congrats, Mark!

A Job!

One reason I haven't posted in a while is that I've been busy with job interviews, and I'm happy to say that last week I accepted a position with the Diocese of Sioux Falls. The position I'm taking will (eventually) be Director of Evangelization and Adult Faith Formation. I ask for all of your prayers as my wife and I prepare to move to Sioux Falls and undertake this new phase of our lives.


A Belated Acceptance

As some of my (former) regular readers may recall, in June I was involved in a discussion concerning the morality of our bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One of those who disagreed most strongly with me was William Sulik, the Blithering Idiot. A couple of weeks after making his first remarks (which I linked to on my post below from June 4th), he publicly (on an archived blog entry which I can't get to for some reason) and privately (via email) apologized for the tone of his remarks. I immediately thanked him for doing so, but am only now following through on my promise to return his public apology with a public acceptance. Thanks, William.


Links

When I was more active on blogging (which I hope willl be possible again soon), I tried to link to the blogs I checked regularly. Unfortunately, the plethora of excellent blogs has become so numerous to make such a task too daunting for now. So instead, I'd recommend you visit the following blogs (all linked to the left) and check out their links: Amy Welborn, Fool's Folly (soon to be defunct, unfortunately), Mark Byron, and Gerard Serafin's Blog for Lovers (near the bottom of the links list).


The Risk of Pregnancy

A couple of years ago while surfing the Net for substantial arguments in favor of abortion rights, I stumbled across an essay entitled Women's Reproductive Self-Determination, whose author goes by "T.F. Barans". This was (and is) one of the more substantial arguments in defense of abortion rights I'd come across, and I engaged in an email discussion with TF which lasted the better part of four months. Speaking for myself, I found the discussion to be very helpful in learning how to articulate my own pro-life views. Much of my position in favor of the personhood of the conceptus was developed in the course of that discussion.

Every now and then I stop by TF's site, and check out her forum (the feminine possessive reflects only my intutions on the basis of our conversations). TF occasionally posts the more meaningful responses she receives (in edited form), along with her replies. Recently I found a post from an abortion rights supporter named Phil, who argues that because there is a 50% chance that a pregnancy will miscarry, engaging in natural reproductive activity is wrong because it is unsafe, as half of those persons who come to exist will die before birth. Somehow Phil sees this as an argument against the personhood of the fetus.

I wrote TF and asked her to send along my response to Phil, which ran like this: natural human reproduction is completely unsafe... every human being who comes to exist because of it (not just half) dies. Not a very good success rate, if you ask me ;-)

My point, of course, is that it's ridiculous to argue against the pro-life position by saying that half of those "persons" who come to exist from sex will die and therefore they aren't really persons, because we all die after we come to exist; whether death greets us two days or seventy years afterwards has absolutely no bearing on our moral and ontological status as human persons.

TF made her only comments in response. I'll get to them a bit later.

New Multi-Blog

Robert Bauer (the HokiePundit) has started a new, multi-member blog, with a theological focus; your's truly is a member. Go check out the Department of Theology at University of Blogistan.

Sorry... this will be quick

I'm taking a moment out of my disseration work to recommend a new Catholic blog, A Saintly Salmagundi, whose author -- Fr. Bryce Sibley -- I am happy to say I know from my time in Rome.

Fr. Bryce is one of the many wonderful priests coming out of the American diocesan seminary in Rome, the North American College (which, by the way, is one of the few places you can find a decent Thanksgiving meal on Turkey Day; for some reason, Romans don't celebrate this feast ;-).

Another NAC friend -- new D.C. priest Fr. Tim McMorland -- was recently profiled and interviewed by USAToday in what is generally an excellent article.

Trust me... if the men coming from the NAC are any indication, the future is bright for the Catholic Church in the U.S. And it's not just the new priests... many recent rectors of the NAC have gone on to become solid bishops. The most recent case is Bishop Timothy Dolan, who was recently interviewed in the National Catholic Register.

The future's so bright...

Others who wonder

Louder Fenn views the bombing as immoral, while Mark Butterworth disagrees.

No disrespect for Vets & our Soldiers here

Up to this point, most people have taken my thoughts on the morality of dropping the atomic bomb on Japan in the spirit I intended them. However, it was probably inevitable that my intentions be misunderstood, as I believe Blithering Idiot has done in his, umm, scathing response to my initial post.

So, I want to make it crystal-clear that I hold our vets and soldiers in the highest esteem, and that I am extremely grateful to them for what they did and continue to do in defense of our nation. I have relatives who fought the Japanese and had to hide from the Nazis, and I greatly respect all of them for what they did and went through.

The purpose of beginning this discussion was to examine the moral arguments for and against dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As both Mr. Sulik and John Betts have argued, my premise that those two cities had no military value was perhaps flawed. As I noted previously, if that's the case, then my case would have to be seriously revisited (although Disputations indicates that even this doesn't make the morality clear-cut).

Also, the "so what?" rhetorical question in my initial post should not be construed to mean that I could've cared less about the American loss of life that would have occurred in any invasion of Japan. Rather, it was directed at the argument that this justifies killing non-combatants. I thought that this was clear from the context, but perhaps it wasn't. So let me make my initial argument clear:

1. Deliberately killing non-combatants is never morally licit.
2. Therefore, if our intention in bombing Hiroshima & Nagasaki was to force the Japanese to surrender, then it was morally illicit, regardless of the circumstances. (Please recall my note that this refers to the objective moral character of the act, not to the culpability of those involved.)

That's all. Not idiotic. Maybe mistaken (which is why I italicized the "if"), but not idiotic. I can accept being proven wrong, as John's posts may well do. Contrary to Mr. Sulik's assertion, I'm not "wedded" to my views.

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding, and I look forward to the discussion continuing.

More on The Bomb

John Betts has replied to my initial response regarding his views on dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (For the record, I don't see John as a bomb-happy nut, as he is concerned my title "Betts & The Bomb" may have implied.)

The crucial contention in John's new post is that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in fact bombed with the destruction of military power in mind and not the death of civilians. This is obviously a central issue, because if John (and the evidence he brings to bear) is correct, then my case would have to be revisited. From what I knew of the situation, the two cities lacked substantial military value, but John argues that I am mistaken on this point.

Unfortunately, I (for my part) am supposed to be working on a dissertation, so I don't have the time to put in to research this issue. However, if anyone else (including John) has evidence/argumentation one way or the other, I'd love to hear it.

Betts & The Bomb

John Betts has weighed in on the Bomb Discussion, arguing that civilian casualties are an unfortunate side effect of war. While I certainly agree that when civilians die as an unintentional side effect of a military operation, there is no moral dilemma (all things being equal), that was not the case with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

As both sides acknowledge, neither city had any substantial military value; if our goal was to attack some aspect of Japan's military structure, other cities would have been hit. But they weren't, because our goal was not to attack the military, but to force the leadership to surrender by wiping out major population centers.

Our purpose was to get Japanese leadership to surrender. The means we used was to kill thousands of non-combatants. Unlike our War on Terrorism, Japanese civilian death was not an unintentional side effect of dropping the bomb... it was the direct intention, it was the means. And as such, it is inexcusable, at the objective level (see my initial post on this below regarding the mitigated culpability of those involved).

John asks my thoughts on the Cold War doctrine of MAD (Mutual-Assured Destruction)... with Reagan, I thought it was a ridiculous and morally-repugnant doctrine, and I'm glad it's out the door. It's like threatening to kill my neighbor's family if they kill mine... does it work? Maybe. Is it right? I doubt it. Better to develop defensive weapons systems and simultaneously scale back offensive firepower (as we are doing now) than to threaten mutual annihilation.

Anyway, that's my $.02. I'd love to hear any rebuttals/other comments.

By the way, see Disputations for some comments that concur with my assessment and disagree with the other view.

More on The Bomb

E.L. Core has posted some comments in agreement with my argument against the atomic bombing of Japan on his new blog.

On the other hand, Mark Sullivan at Ad Orientem (an excellent Catholic blog focusing primarily -- but not exclusively -- on things liturgical) disagrees.

Mark's argument is basically this: dropping the bombs was justified because it saved more innocent lives than it killed and it ended a war that caused untold suffering (Mark also points to the fighting "character" of the Japanese).

While I understand Mark's argument, I have to disagree. As Catholics who uphold the unique dignity of every human being -- even of those against whom we may have to fight -- we cannot perform a numerical analysis to determine the pluses and minuses of a particular action in order to decide how to act. Although I'm sure that it was not at all his intention, Mark's argument sounds dangerously like that of ethical utilitarians, who argue that the best course of action is that which maximizes pleasure (or money, or power, or whatever standard you choose) and minimizes pain & suffering, regardless of the nature of the act itself.

Such a view clearly runs against Catholic moral thought. Some acts are -- in and of themselves -- immoral, and no circumstances can mitigate that reality. Intentionally killing thousands of civilians is such an act, as Vatican II unequivocally stated in Gaudium et Spes, n. 80:
Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities or extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation.

Am I glad World War II ended, and that we were the victors? Certainly. Do I esteem our veterans? With the highest respect. But in seeking a victorious outcome in a cause that is just, we must make sure that we maintain our moral code, and that we carry out our cause without deliberately, intentionally, and consciously wiping out large populations of civilians or committing similar atrocities.

WWII and The Bomb

I watched NBC's Memorial Day special on Monday, which showed us the horrors and bravery of the island-hopping campaign in the Pacific during WWII.

Near the end of the show, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (with atomic bombs, for those of you in Palm Beach) was discussed, with comments from the pilot of the Enola Gay (which dropped both bombs) and soldiers who were fighting in the Pacific during the war.

The pilot (I can't recall his name) asserted that when he took off to drop the first bomb, he "threw religion and morality out the window" (that's a rough quote). In other words, he had a job to do, a job that he and those above him -- including of course, President Truman -- hoped would end the war. And it did. But in flying the missions, the pilot (and presumably the rest of the crew) preferred not to consider the morality of their actions.

In the time since then, the standard defense for dropping the bomb is this: if we hadn't done so, we would have lost perhaps a million men in an invasion of the Japanese home islands, and many more Japanese would have died in that fighting than did in the dropping of the two nukes. This is the basic form of the argument by the pilot of the Enola Gay mentioned above.

My response: so what?

The fact of the matter is this: if we consider the moral act of dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki objectively -- i.e. apart from the subjective factors involved for those who ordered & carried out the attacks (more on this below) -- there is no doubt that it was an immoral act, in that thousands of innocent non-combatants were deliberately killed (as is well-known, neither city had any real military value). I don't care that it (may have) saved lives, both American and Japanese. On the objective level, there is no moral ground for deliberately killing an innocent non-combatant. (Here it comes...) the ends never justify the means. I'm sure that the Enola Gay pilot did not intend to state a principle for living in the quote above, but I hope that such a view is no longer common among those who have the responsibility for safeguarding our nation. It is in war especially that moral considerations must be made, to ensure that our cause and how we carry it out is just.

I want to make it clear that I am not passing judgment on Truman, the pilots, or anyone else involved in ordering & carrying out the strikes: as they say, war is hell, and the pressure the situation brought to bear on all of them greatly reduces their culpability, in my opinion. As I have noted, my argument focuses solely on the objective level -- whether or not it was (and is) right to nuke a civil population for any reason.

I know that many of you -- including fellow Christians -- may disagree with me. Great. I'd love to receive emails or see another blogger engage me on this issue, because it's possible that I've neglected something. But at this point, I don't see how anyone who values innocent human life could endorse dropping The Bomb on Japan.

Note: please read the rest of this discussion above as well.

Palm Beach is Back... Wayyyy Back

According to this AP story, school district officials in Palm Beach county have "issued" a standarized American and world history final exam on which a student need only answer 23 questions correctly out of 100 in order to pass the test. Answering just over half (that's 50 for those of you in Palm Beach) correctly gets you an A.

Etc.

Joel Garver has a great post on the question of women's ordination from a Protestant perspective. Check it out.

Topics still to come... reprobation and the moral status of the Galactic Empire.

Submission

Check out Fool's Folly today for a great post on the real meaning of submission.

Anti-Catholicism a thing of the past? Try again

According to this Washington Post story, a newly-released poll by priest-sociologist Andrew Greeley shows that anti-Catholic attitudes are common in the US. According to the survey...

73% of non-Catholic Americans believe that we Catholics do what the Pope & bishops tell us to do;
52% of non-Catholic Americans believe that Catholics aren't really allowed to think for themselves;

and then these kickers...
83% of non-Catholic Americans believe that we worship God as well as Mary and the saints;
and 57% of our fellow Americans believe that statues and images in Catholic churches are idols (i.e. things we worship).

Unbelievable.

There are some positives... according to Greeley's poll, younger and more educated non-Catholic Americans are less likely to be anti-Catholic. Well, that's something.

Still... wow.

We've got a lot of work to do. Hopefully the cleaning-up that should come from the sex & cover-up scandals will be the beginning of getting our house in order so that we can more ably turn outward and address some of these misconceptions.

It simply is not going to happen

Emily Stimpson says she’s been getting some flak because she recognizes the infallible nature of the Catholic Church’s teaching on the inability of the Church to ordain women.

sigh

Two things. First of all, as many theologians – professional and lay – have noted, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is a clear example of a teaching which has been “declared” infallible by the “ordinary Magisterium” (as opposed to the “extraordinary Magisterium”: an Ecumenical Council or a decree ex cathedra). In other words, the fact that the Magisterium has always and everywhere held this teaching indicates that it is a definitive truth to be held as such by all believers.

Aside from that fact, there is this consideration: Catholics are to give due assent of the intellect and will to every Magisterial teaching, regardless of whether or not that particular teaching is taught as infallible by the ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium. It’s not as if we have to hold to the infallible doctrines and are free to choose which of the “other” teachings we give our assent to—that’s simply another brand of your typical Cafeteria Catholicism. No. We are called to give assent to all the teachings of the Church, whether or not we grasp their rationality. (On that last point, see my post on “The Obedience of Faith” from last week below.)

This isn’t mindless obedience… it’s recognizing the fact that our intellects are clouded by sin and that we therefore give assent to that organism which Jesus established to be the means by which He reveals His Truth to us with clarity and strength: His Body, the Church.

More on Reprobation soon...

The Empire... good or bad?

John Betts is surprised at my comments about Star Wars' Galactic Empire, and he has a long critical dissection of Jonathan Last's piece which I linked to below. I'm just going to make a couple of remarks here.

First, I want to explain why I'm even dealing with this; someone might ask, "Why waste your time commenting on the policies of a government in a science fiction movie?" I'm not sure if John would agree or not, but I'm doing so because fiction is often used to explain reality. In this case, Lucas' vision of a republic which turns into a dictatorial empire provides interesting fodder for a discussion about the direction modern Western democracies could go.

Second, I'd like to point out that my questions below were just that... questions. John wonders how Last and I reach our conclusions, but on my own part, I haven't done so... I merely raised some questions about the actions of the late Republic-Empire.

Contra Last, John argues that democracies/republics have the right to prevent secession from themselves, and he points to the most obvious example: our own Civil War. John quotes extensively from Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, wherein our former president lays out the case for preventing the South from leaving the Union. Personally, I've been thinking a lot about this over the last several months. On the one hand, I'm certainly glad the North won the war. But on the other hand, I'm not so sure that the North's argumentation against secession is a strong as I've thought, and I'm hoping that someone might be able to make the case for me in favor of preventing secession. The argument Lincoln lays out in the address John quotes and links seems to hinge on the notion that the Union is more than just an association of States; that the US is "a government proper". Is this completely the case? (That's a real question, not a rhetorical one.) It seems to me that if I agree with a group of others to band together and -- while retaining our individuality -- to form a common government, I should retain the right to leave that group, should I so choose. Am I wrong?

John also addresses the issue of the inept nature of the Galactic Senate. Before explaining how I think his remarks are right on, I want to point out that Last was not pointing to this aspect of the Republic to argue in favor of the Palpatine's dictatorship, but to explain/justify the separatists' actions. Having said that, I agree with John that Hitler and Lenin used similar comments to gain power in their countries, and one of my major concerns relating to the outcome of the Culture War is that we as Americans might reach a point at which we are so tired of chaos and disorder that we, too, would trade the chains of for those of totalitarianism. I'm reminded of John Paul II's concerns for modern democracies... that if moral order does not return, the inevitable resulting chaos will lead us to make exactly that "trade".

John doubts the possibility of a "benign dictator". What about the absolute monarchs a couple of centuries ago? Were not some of them benign dictators? No, I'm not arguing for a return to absolute monarchies; I'm just devil's advocating a bit.

In closing, I want to reiterate that I do not think the Empire is "good"; my initial questions were raised to lead to some discussion, which it has, at least with one fellow blogger. I'd take the USA and its government over the Republic and the Empire any day.

Serafin's Blog

Gerard Serafin -- whose website is linked to the left -- has contracted blogitis. You can find his blog here.

John Paul II, We Love You!!

Happy Birthday to our Holy Father, John Paul II, who turns 82 today. Keep him in your prayers.

The Empire... not so bad?

Jonathan V. Last makes an interesting case for the legitimacy and -- for the most part -- positive nature of Star Wars' Galactic Empire. He deals with some questions I've been wondering about lately... why does the Republic want to prevent the separatists from separating? How does the Empire make life miserable for its average "citizen"? What's wrong with Vader's desire (explicated in Empire) to "end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy", especially when that order is (for the most part) benign?

Hmm....

The Obedience of Faith

I'm going to briefly jump out of the predestination/reprobation discussion to comment on another ongoing topic: women's ordination.

Fr. Shawn O'Neal recently provocatively raised the issue in light of Paul's comments in Galatians that in Christ we are neither "male nor female". A number of bloggers have taken up Father's challenge.

One blogger for whom the issue is of personal importance is Peter Nixon, host/author of Sursum Corda. Peter is familiar with most of the standard arguments against priestesses, and yet remains unconvinced as to their validity. The angst this causes him as a Catholic who seeks to remain true both to his Church and his conscience is clear in his recent comments on the topic.

For me, issues like this -- in which the arguments made in defense of a particular doctrine do not convince -- highlight the place of what St. Paul and Vatican II's Dei Verbum (among others) term the obedience of faith.

As Catholics, we are called to form our intellect and will according to what God reveals about Himself and His plan of salvation through His Church; in the language of Dei Verbum 5, we as believers are called to freely assent to the truth revealed by God, revelation which occurs within the community of believers... the Church. This does not mean that the arguments made to explain a particular teaching will necessarily be convincing; the Holy Spirit's protection over the Church acts to protect the Church from teaching error... it doesn't mean that the arguments used will always convince.

But that is why revelation requires faith on our part; while revelation never contradicts reason, reason is not always able to elucidate revelation, at least not immediately. That is the ongoing task of theology, the famous definition of which is "faith seeking [as opposed to "already possessing"] understanding". That the arguments used today to explain the Church's inability to ordain women may or may not convince us is beside the point (interestingly, in his masterful biography of John Paul II, Weigel is mildly critical of the Holy Father's approach to the issue in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, wishing that the Pope might have providing more substantial argumentation in favor of the doctrine); as members of the Church, we are called to give assent to all of the Church's teachings, even those for which we do not perceive the rationality.

I am reminded here of some wonderfully profound thoughts expressed by Hans Urs von Balthasar in his outstanding work, The Office of Peter and the Structure of the Church. Speaking of Mary's Yes to God (via Gabriel), her fiat, her great faith in God which we are called to imitate, Balthasar writes the following:

What is basic to the infinite elasticity of the Marian Yes is that it again and again stretches beyond understanding and must consent to what is not within the domain of the humanly possible, foreseeable, bearable, or fitting. [...] Mary shows herself to be "truly blessed" because she has believed. [...] the Marian principle is thus the exact opposite of any "partial identification" where discipleship depends on the measure of one's personal comprehension or "responsible" evaluation. But it is equally the opposite of the passive indifference of a mere instrument that can be manipulated at will.

It is precisely in those moments when we do not comprehend that God calls and challenges us to assent with the obedience of faith, just as He did with Mary.

Ooops

One Catholic blog I intended to link long ago, but forgot about was Minute Particulars. Check it out.

One more thing

One other thing I wanted to note in response to Tom's thoughts: I agree that the difficulties with the Thomistic position (and probably the Calvinist as well) do not flow from an inadequate conception of God's atemporality. Instead, just an inadequacy seems to me to underlie the position of the average layman who argues for double predestination.

More on Reprobation

Joel Garver and Tom Kreitzberg both offered some thoughts (Joel doing so in an email) in response to my own reflections on the mystery of Predestination and Reprobation. I'd like to offer a thought or two in lieu of their responses.

First, Tom states that my position is something like Molinism; while I can see how one might draw that conclusion from my initial post and certain imprecisions therein, I'd like to state "for the record" that I disagree with both Molina's take as well as Banez's (with Tom, I question whether or not the "Thomistic" position is that of St. Thomas). How so? Because unlike Molina -- and like St. Thomas -- I tend to see my free acts and originating in God. Molina seems to have separated the divine causality from the secondary; with Thomas and others, I would see the secondary causality within the divine and preeminent causality. So in effect, my own free acts are caused by God, but in such a (mysterious) way that they remain free and hence truly mine as well. A useful analogy here is that of the inspiration of Sacred Scripture: just as both the human and divine writers are both truly authors -- with the latter having preeminence -- so too is salvation a result of God's grace and human cooperation with that grace, with the latter seen as "enveloped" within the former, while retaining its distinction.

Tom refers to Question 23 of the First Part of Thomas' Summa, in which the Angelic Doctor discusses the question of predestination. After quoting from the third article, Tom goes on to say that "that God permits people to fall into sin and imposes damnation on that account seems clearly to be Catholic doctrine." Absolutely. My quarrel is with those (later) Thomists who seem to argue that God does not offer the grace necessary for salvation to all, i.e. that He does not do "everything He can" to save all of humanity.

Joel seeks to clarify my presentation of the Calvinist position. He points out that for Calvin, "While election finds its origin and cause wholly in the grace of God, reprobation finds its cause in the creature." I would certainly agree with this. He goes on to explain... "it is true that Calvin doesn't want to see reprobation in terms of a merely permissive will on God's part since God's will extends over every contingent state of affairs. Thus God's permitting S to remain condemned in his sins entails God's willing to permit this. Or, to put this another way, God's *not choosing* to save some entails his choosing *not to save* some. Still, this choosing not to save is not identical with God's positive willing to damn some."

This is where I begin to get a little uneasy. It seems to me that such a view -- again, correct me if I'm wrong -- seeks to assert God's sovereignty by denying that He would be "unable" to save someone, and so we must say instead that He wills not-to-save someone. As Joel says, Calvin does not see reprobation only in terms of a permissive will on God's part.

What I would like to do know is provide a (very) long quotation from Charles Cardinal Journet's The Meaning of Grace, a work which I would highly recommend to be read in its entirety. In this section, Fr. Journet argues for a position on this question with which I strongly agree:

1. On the basis of what has been said in the preceding pages we shall try to interpret a few passages of St Paul, principally on the subject of predestination.

These questions about grace are extremely mysterious and profound. If, in discussing them, we forget that God is a God of love, if we speak about them without steeping them in the atmosphere of divine goodness that knocks at men's hearts, we may well say what would seem theologically—or rather, verbally, literally—exact, but what would in fact be a deformation, misleading and false. Ultimately only the great saints, the great lovers of God, can speak of these matters without distorting them.

We must bear in mind, at the outset, that in the word predestination, as in prescience, the prefix 'pre' signifies an anteriority of dignity and excellence, not one of chronology which would suggest a scenario written beforehand. Predestination is a love-assignation made on high, a supreme divine destination in course of realization, a supreme 'prevenience' on the part of Love, a prevenience not refused, but accepted and finally brought to fulfilment.

2. The doctrine of predestination is a scriptural doctrine, a part of revelation, which we are to believe without doubting. But how is it to be understood? There is the Catholic interpretation, and the Lutheran and Calvinist one, to which we shall return later.

The word predestination we owe to St Paul. In the Epistle to the Ephesians (i. 4-5), he writes: 'God chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted in his sight in charity. Who hath predestinated us unto the adoption of children through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the purpose of his will.'

Further on (ii. 4), we read: 'God, who is rich in mercy, for his exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ, by whose grace you are saved, and hath raised us up together and hath made us sit together in the heavenly places through ChristJesus.' Here the Apostle sees in advance the elect gathered together in the heavens round Christ, saying: thanks to you, O God, for having predestined us by your love. You are he who enabled us to utter the supreme assent we gave to you. To you be the glory.

The word predestination was already used in the Epistle to the Romans: 'Whom he predestinated, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified. And whom he justified, them he also glorified' (viii. 30). Here again the apostle sees in advance the elect gathered in the heavens, and reflects on how they have been led there by God. God first called them; he went to meet them with graces which they did not frustrate though they could have done so. If they assented to them, it was by a divine movement in them, for our assent always comes from God: 'thy salvation comes from me, O Israel, thy destruction from thee'. Since they did not refuse this first call, they went on to justification through a new divine movement; and those whom he has justified God finally brings to heaven. That is the supreme prevenience by which God enables us to die in his love.

3. When you reread these passages, they will give you no difficulty if you see tkem in the context I have indicated. You will remember that, if anyone is not predestined, itis because he refuses the call, and not once only, like the fallen angels, for again and again divine grace returns to, and even importunes, the human heart. How often? The apostles asked Jesus, 'Should we forgive seven times?'; and the answer was, 'Seventy times seven times' (Mt. xviii. 21-22). That is what Jesus expects of men, who yet are miserable creatures and loath to show mercy. Elsewhere he said, 'If your child asks of you a fish, will you give him a serpent? If he asks for an egg, will you give him a scorpion? If he asks you for bread, will you give him a stone? If then you who are evil, give good things to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father!' (cf. Luke xi. 11-13; Mt. viii. 9-11). So then he, too, will forgive me seventy times seven. He will return to knock again at the door of my soul. None the less, if I wish to refuse him, I can; I have the terrible power of saying no to God, of making a definitive refusal that will fix my lot for eternity. I can say to him: I do not want your love, I want to be myself, to be myself not in you, but against you, to be for ever like a thorn in your heart. This is the frightful refusal of hell.

What might possibly lead to a misconception on this point is the very moving parable of Dives and Lazarus (Luke xvi. 19), where we see Dives beseeching Abraham to let Lazarus go and warn his brothers to change their way of life. Abraham, however, answers, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. If they do not hear them, neither will they hear if one is raised from the dead.' As you see, the purpose of the parable is to show that we have to hear now, while there is time; afterwards, it will be too late. But it would be a mistake to suppose that, in hell, the damned have the sentiments of charity attributed to the rich man. If one of the damned could say: Lord, allow me to tell others what thy love is so that they may not be damned like me, he would bring charity into hell, and hell would be blown to pieces. (We must always regard the intention of the parable—and the evangelist shows what this intention is—otherwise, its character would be altered, and we might be led astray. Consider the parable of the unjust steward, which scandalizes so many Christians through their misunderstanding of it.)

So, if anyone is not among the predestined, it is in consequence of a refusal for which he bears and always will bear the responsibility. He will persist in his refusal, in his hate—that, in fact, will be his torment—but he will never retract his original choice. St Thomas gives us a comparison. Take a man who hates his enemy. He wants to kill him. He thinks: If I meet him, I shall kill him. But he is prevented; perhaps he is in prison. Ah, he thinks, once I am out of prison! He lives by, feeds on his hatred. He may be told: 'Don't you see that the cause of your misery is your hatred? 'I do,' he replies, 'but that's the way it is; I want to have my revenge.' In any case, we know quite well that we can cling to feelings which torment us. This example is no more than an image of the perpetual refusal of the damned, the refusal because of which they are not among the predestined. Such is the Catholic doctrine.

What we have said earlier on the divine prescience serves to clarify this doctrine completely. We do not say, 'God does not predestine, God abandons and reproves those who he knows in advance will refuse his prevenient grace'. We say, 'God does not predestine; God abandons and rejects those who, as he sees, from all eternity, themselves take the first initiative in the final refusal of his prevenient grace.' From eternity, he takes account of their free refusal in the establishment of his immutable and eternal plan.

4. The erroneous doctrine put forward by Luther, and by Calvin in his Institutes is that, just as some are predestined to heaven, so are others to hell; God himself therefore drives them to hell, and they cannot escape it. This is the thesis of double predestination: one to heaven, which is just, provided that it is not understood in the sense of Luther and Calvin, for whom, as we have seen, the good act comes solely from God, and not from God through man; the other to hell. As you see, there is a twofold error here: predestination to heaven is misconceived and the idea of predestination to hell is introduced—a still worse aberration. For that matter, Protestants today no longer defend Calvin on this point; Karl Barth declares frankly that he cannot find this idea of predestination to hell anywhere in St Paul. (Yet, from the doctrinal point of view, some critics see, in the thesis of double predestination, the cornerstone of the Institutes.)

With that, I'll end this post and await any thoughts....

Another Fav

One of my favorite websites is Gerard Serafin's Catholic Page for Lovers. I highly recommend it.

Reprobation

One of the most mysterious of Christian doctrines is Predestination, which affirms God's sovereignty regarding our salvation: it is only because God -- in his infinite love & mercy -- has offered us salvation that we have it. This Catholic teaching was formulated by Ludwig Ott in the following way: "God, by His eternal resolve of will, has predetermined certain men to eternal blessedness".

Having said that, things get tricky when the question of those who are damned (if there are any) comes up; if God positively wills the salvation of the elect, does he positively will the damnation of the damned?

If my understanding of Reformed theology is accurate -- please correct me if it isn't -- then the answer to this question would be: yes, God does positively will the damnation of some souls. Such a view is rejected by Catholicism, but that doesn't mean things are hunky-dory among Catholic theologians on this question....

Many Thomists (and other Catholic theologians as well) assert that while God does not positively will the reprobation (damnation) of anyone, He does not predestine all to Heaven; in other words, of the entire human race, some are predestined to Heaven, and some are not. While this view avoids the Reformed position mentioned above -- and can be held by Catholics -- it still seems problematic to me. One of the major themes -- if not the theme -- of Scripture (and Tradition) is God's love for humanity, indeed for all of creation ("For God so loved the world..."). We also know that God desires the salvation of all.

Having said that, how (and why) would someone posit that God reprobates some -- either actively (Calvin) or passively (various thomists)? It does nothing to infringe on God's sovereignty to say that -- of our own free choice to accept the gift of salvation, or to sin -- some humans will be saved and others damned.

I suspect that such a view as a mistaken understanding of God's eternality. It's far too easy for us to imagine that God set forth His plan "before" creation, that He predestines us "before" He creates us. But this is to anthropomorphize God's existence vis. time.

In trying to understand how God's eternality relates to predestination, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 600, is very helpful:

To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of "predestination", he includes in it each person's free response to his grace: "In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.

As this paragraph states, God's plan of predestination already incorporates our response to His grace; contrary to the (alleged) Calvinist position -- and the position argued for by some Thomists -- the elect are chosen and the damned are reprobated not "before" their response to God's grace, but in view of them.

So there ;-)

Seriously, if anyone has any comments -- positive or critical -- please email me. As I noted above, the "thomistic" position is one that a Catholic is free to hold, and -- from my understanding -- is similar to the one held by many Reformed and other Protestants.

Some New Blogs

Catholic and Christian blogs have exploded over the last few weeks, and I am way behind in linking them. Although I can't get to all of them now, I would like to mention and link a couple:

Sacra Doctrina: don't let the latin fool you: this is a Reformed Christian blog, not a Catholic blog :-) This (veteran) blogger -- Joel Garver -- is a philosophy prof by trade, and he usually makes some very thought-provoking comments. And he is -- this may come to a surprise to some Catholics -- a metaphysician, or at least has a strong interest in metaphysics; yes, there are non-Catholic Christian metaphysicians.

John Betts is a newcomer, and his blog is very promising.

Somehow, I've neglected to mention Michael Dubruiel's blog, one of the most insightful and prayerful of the plethora of Catholic blogs.

Sorry to the many others that I have linked yet; I hope to get to you before too long.

(In)Frequency

As some of my regular visitors have noted, I’ve been blogging more infrequently of late, and I wanted to take a minute or two to explain why.

First of all, I’ve simply been busy, with work and visitors.

More importantly, though, blogging has been taking time away from what I really need to be focusing on away from work: my dissertation. I’m a doctoral candidate in dogmatic theology at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome, where I had the privilege of studying from 1997-2000 (my wife, some friends and I were blessed to be inside St. Peter’s for the opening of the Holy Door and the Great Jubilee on Christmas Eve of 1999, and we got to meet the Holy Father earlier that month as well).

Anyway, I’m trying to complete me research and write the dissertation this summer, and that means that for the next few months, blogging has to take a back seat. In the meantime, if anyone has any thoughts on “Concupiscence and ‘Simul iustus et peccator’ in the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue” or the topic of justification in general, feel free to email me.