If God does not exist, than anything is permissible
Mark at Minute Particulars sincerely wonders how one can posit that God does not exist (and that there is no afterlife) and talk about the importance and difference of how one lives his/her life on earth.
Friday, October 11, 2002
Blitz!
Retired Air Force Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney outlines a strategy for a lightning-fast campaign against Saddam.
Retired Air Force Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney outlines a strategy for a lightning-fast campaign against Saddam.
US-French relations, & Iraq
According to this London Times story (link via Drudge), there is a good deal of questioning going on in France concerning the "anti-American obsession" which that country has had for, well, centuries. It includes some info on how the French are moving closer to Bush's position on Iraq.
According to this London Times story (link via Drudge), there is a good deal of questioning going on in France concerning the "anti-American obsession" which that country has had for, well, centuries. It includes some info on how the French are moving closer to Bush's position on Iraq.
Member Inflation
According to a new book, the National Organization for Women (NOW), which claims to have a membership of 500,000 women, cannot possibly have more than 57,000 members, and even that number is most likely too high. The author, Kimberly Schuld, arrived at her conclusion through an analysis of tax returns, corporate foundation reports, etc., as well as "insider information" from former NOW officers.
So the next time you hear that NOW represents a great number of American women and their views, remember: that "great number" is only about 50,000 strong.
According to a new book, the National Organization for Women (NOW), which claims to have a membership of 500,000 women, cannot possibly have more than 57,000 members, and even that number is most likely too high. The author, Kimberly Schuld, arrived at her conclusion through an analysis of tax returns, corporate foundation reports, etc., as well as "insider information" from former NOW officers.
So the next time you hear that NOW represents a great number of American women and their views, remember: that "great number" is only about 50,000 strong.
Thursday, October 10, 2002
Another Pollack Review
The WSJ OpinionJournal has a review of Kenneth Pollack's book, The Threatening Storm, which I recommended and spoke of last week. The reviewer criticizes Pollack only on the latter's estimation of the ability of democracy to quickly take hold in Iraq; to be honest, the jury is still out on that, and I don't think there's anyway we'll know the answer definitively until we're at that point.
The WSJ OpinionJournal has a review of Kenneth Pollack's book, The Threatening Storm, which I recommended and spoke of last week. The reviewer criticizes Pollack only on the latter's estimation of the ability of democracy to quickly take hold in Iraq; to be honest, the jury is still out on that, and I don't think there's anyway we'll know the answer definitively until we're at that point.
NYTimes Letter Watch
Today's Installment: Maureen's Echo
This letter in today's NYTimes to yesterday's column by Maureen Dowd. The writer echos Maureen's general train of thought by stating that Dr. Hagan's beliefs (Hagan is being pushed for the FDA panel on women's health policy) are "antiquated and antithetical to progress, and they will set women's health back years, if not centuries." To really see how silly this statement is, you have to read Maureen's column (linked yesterday), and the quotes from Dr. Hager therein.
How this writer thinks that Hager's views are "antithetical to progress" is beyond me. And as far as "antiquated"... a number of writers have spoken of the modern tendency to "chronological snobbery", i.e. the belief that anything more than about forty years old is outdated and useless, including ideas.
That's bunk, of course. It just might be that a few decades in the future, most people will see Dr. Hager's views as on the cutting edge, and actually more favorable to women's health than those of Maureen Dowd and this letter writer.
Today's Installment: Maureen's Echo
This letter in today's NYTimes to yesterday's column by Maureen Dowd. The writer echos Maureen's general train of thought by stating that Dr. Hagan's beliefs (Hagan is being pushed for the FDA panel on women's health policy) are "antiquated and antithetical to progress, and they will set women's health back years, if not centuries." To really see how silly this statement is, you have to read Maureen's column (linked yesterday), and the quotes from Dr. Hager therein.
How this writer thinks that Hager's views are "antithetical to progress" is beyond me. And as far as "antiquated"... a number of writers have spoken of the modern tendency to "chronological snobbery", i.e. the belief that anything more than about forty years old is outdated and useless, including ideas.
That's bunk, of course. It just might be that a few decades in the future, most people will see Dr. Hager's views as on the cutting edge, and actually more favorable to women's health than those of Maureen Dowd and this letter writer.
Wednesday, October 09, 2002
Someone else on Maureen
After blogging about Maureen Dowd of the NYTimes this morning, I found this article at The Weekly Standard website. Really good stuff... the author (Josh Chafetz of OxBlog) lists Maureen's Five Immutable Laws For Writing a Column. My favorite? Number two:
It's easier to whine than to take a stand or offer solutions. Consider this: In her many columns to date lobbing stinkbombs at the "Whack-Iraq'ers," she has yet to come out and say that she opposes war in Iraq. The reason, presumably, is that she would then have to actually confront and argue against the administration's reasons for attacking Iraq. Instead, she offers this commentary on Bush's U.N. address (from her September 15 column): "But there was no compelling new evidence. Mr. Bush offered only an unusually comprehensive version of the usual laundry list. Saddam is violating the sanctions, he tried to assassinate Poppy, he's late on his mortgage payments, he tips 10 percent, he has an unjustifiable fondness for 'My Way,' he gassed his own people, he doesn't turn down the front brim of his hat."
When confronted with a passage like that, it's hard to know where to begin, but we must be brave. First, notice how she trivializes not only Saddam's violation of U.N. sanctions but even the massacre at Halabja, by including them on "the usual laundry list" along with a joke about being a stingy tipper. Second, notice how she leaves out a few of the more important "laundry list" items--like the fact that Saddam continues to stockpile and build weapons of mass destruction and the fact that he funds terrorism. Finally, observe that she tells us there is "no compelling new evidence" without telling us why the old evidence--"the usual laundry list"--is insufficient. To do that would require considering policy arguments and offering alternative ways to combat Saddam's litany of abuses. Into such territory, Dowd is loath to stray.
Amen, Brother Josh... it's very easy to criticize someone else (and easier yet to do so poorly), but it's a little tougher to come up with solutions yourself. The Democrats and others who have been opposing the Bush stance on Iraq have been finding that out; OTOH, I'm not sure if Maureen is even aware of the fact that she never offers any solutions. Maybe someone should clue her in.
After blogging about Maureen Dowd of the NYTimes this morning, I found this article at The Weekly Standard website. Really good stuff... the author (Josh Chafetz of OxBlog) lists Maureen's Five Immutable Laws For Writing a Column. My favorite? Number two:
It's easier to whine than to take a stand or offer solutions. Consider this: In her many columns to date lobbing stinkbombs at the "Whack-Iraq'ers," she has yet to come out and say that she opposes war in Iraq. The reason, presumably, is that she would then have to actually confront and argue against the administration's reasons for attacking Iraq. Instead, she offers this commentary on Bush's U.N. address (from her September 15 column): "But there was no compelling new evidence. Mr. Bush offered only an unusually comprehensive version of the usual laundry list. Saddam is violating the sanctions, he tried to assassinate Poppy, he's late on his mortgage payments, he tips 10 percent, he has an unjustifiable fondness for 'My Way,' he gassed his own people, he doesn't turn down the front brim of his hat."
When confronted with a passage like that, it's hard to know where to begin, but we must be brave. First, notice how she trivializes not only Saddam's violation of U.N. sanctions but even the massacre at Halabja, by including them on "the usual laundry list" along with a joke about being a stingy tipper. Second, notice how she leaves out a few of the more important "laundry list" items--like the fact that Saddam continues to stockpile and build weapons of mass destruction and the fact that he funds terrorism. Finally, observe that she tells us there is "no compelling new evidence" without telling us why the old evidence--"the usual laundry list"--is insufficient. To do that would require considering policy arguments and offering alternative ways to combat Saddam's litany of abuses. Into such territory, Dowd is loath to stray.
Amen, Brother Josh... it's very easy to criticize someone else (and easier yet to do so poorly), but it's a little tougher to come up with solutions yourself. The Democrats and others who have been opposing the Bush stance on Iraq have been finding that out; OTOH, I'm not sure if Maureen is even aware of the fact that she never offers any solutions. Maybe someone should clue her in.
Someone's been listening...
According to an article from yesterday from the Catholic news service Zenit, Cardinal Ratzinger opened a week-long conference celebrating the tenth anniversary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church by stating that "the primordial impulse of man, which no one can deny, and which in the ultimate sense no one can oppose, is the desire for happiness, for a fulfilled, complete life."
Like I said a while back (too lazy to look for the link right now), Catholic moral teaching gives the desire for authentic happiness a crucial place.
I guess Joe heard me ;-)
According to an article from yesterday from the Catholic news service Zenit, Cardinal Ratzinger opened a week-long conference celebrating the tenth anniversary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church by stating that "the primordial impulse of man, which no one can deny, and which in the ultimate sense no one can oppose, is the desire for happiness, for a fulfilled, complete life."
Like I said a while back (too lazy to look for the link right now), Catholic moral teaching gives the desire for authentic happiness a crucial place.
I guess Joe heard me ;-)
My Senator, Tom Daschle
Having recently moved to Sioux Falls, South Dakota, I now am able to say that my senior senator is none other than the Majority Leader, Tom Daschle. Boy, am I excited! [about getting to vote against him in a couple of years, that is]
Senator Daschle is one of the few, the proud, the pro-choice Catholic legislators. And Citizen Magazine's latest cover story is all about him. I encourage you to read it. You can find out how he referred to his bishop (and mine), Bishop Robert Carlson, in this way, during the partial-birth abortion ban vote in 1997: "Their harsh rhetoric and vitriolic characterizations, usually more identified with the radical right than with thoughtful religious leadership, proved to be a consequential impediment to the decision I have made today." The article goes on to quote Bishop Carlson:
“I think it was the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League who said several years ago that Tom Daschle was their poster boy, because he talks pro-life but votes pro-abortion,” Bishop Carlson told Citizen. “I told him [after the 1997 vote], ‘Thank you for making me a footnote in history — the first bishop ever criticized from the Senate floor.’ ”
Like I said, good reading.
Having recently moved to Sioux Falls, South Dakota, I now am able to say that my senior senator is none other than the Majority Leader, Tom Daschle. Boy, am I excited! [about getting to vote against him in a couple of years, that is]
Senator Daschle is one of the few, the proud, the pro-choice Catholic legislators. And Citizen Magazine's latest cover story is all about him. I encourage you to read it. You can find out how he referred to his bishop (and mine), Bishop Robert Carlson, in this way, during the partial-birth abortion ban vote in 1997: "Their harsh rhetoric and vitriolic characterizations, usually more identified with the radical right than with thoughtful religious leadership, proved to be a consequential impediment to the decision I have made today." The article goes on to quote Bishop Carlson:
“I think it was the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League who said several years ago that Tom Daschle was their poster boy, because he talks pro-life but votes pro-abortion,” Bishop Carlson told Citizen. “I told him [after the 1997 vote], ‘Thank you for making me a footnote in history — the first bishop ever criticized from the Senate floor.’ ”
Like I said, good reading.
Presidents Kennedy & Bush
Michael Kelly's column today at the Washington Post focuses on the parallel between Bush's "preemptive war" doctrine and JFK's own philosophy: "In the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, Bush clearly sees the American role in the world in terms akin to those President Kennedy expressed in 1961: 'We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to ensure the survival and the success of liberty.'"
He also corrects Ted Kennedy, who refers to Bush's view as "imperialism", noting that -- like Ted's older brother -- Bush' stance could be better termed "armed evangelism", and he goes on to explain the difference: "Unlike the European powers, the United States has never sought to own the world. In its peculiarly American fashion, it has sought to make the world behave better -- indeed be better. It is only in this context that the Bush Doctrine (like the Kennedy Doctrine) can be at all understood."
Now, Kelly doesn't come out in support of this view -- he concludes his piece by calling for a more serious discussion of the notion of preventative wars. But he does do an excellent job of clarifying what exactly Bush's view is and what it is about, as well as correcting Ted Kennedy on a number of points.
So, in conclusion... it's a good column. Read it.
Michael Kelly's column today at the Washington Post focuses on the parallel between Bush's "preemptive war" doctrine and JFK's own philosophy: "In the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, Bush clearly sees the American role in the world in terms akin to those President Kennedy expressed in 1961: 'We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to ensure the survival and the success of liberty.'"
He also corrects Ted Kennedy, who refers to Bush's view as "imperialism", noting that -- like Ted's older brother -- Bush' stance could be better termed "armed evangelism", and he goes on to explain the difference: "Unlike the European powers, the United States has never sought to own the world. In its peculiarly American fashion, it has sought to make the world behave better -- indeed be better. It is only in this context that the Bush Doctrine (like the Kennedy Doctrine) can be at all understood."
Now, Kelly doesn't come out in support of this view -- he concludes his piece by calling for a more serious discussion of the notion of preventative wars. But he does do an excellent job of clarifying what exactly Bush's view is and what it is about, as well as correcting Ted Kennedy on a number of points.
So, in conclusion... it's a good column. Read it.
Maureen... at it again
I'm sure the NYTimes has Maureen Dowd on their payroll just to get people like me to read their paper. Well, it works. Maureen continues to amaze me with the sort of commentary that she manages to put on paper. Today's column is no exception. Apparently, Dowd is not too excited about the possiblity of Dr. W. David Hager becoming chairman of the FDA's panel on women's health policy. Why? Because he's a committed Christian (according to Dowd's article) who believes that Jesus has a role in women's health. Dowd brings forth a bunch of evidence of this, and then draws her conclusions:
"Once again, the Bush administration seems to be sowing skepticism about science for the sake of politics. It has smothered the promise of stem cell research to extend and improve life with the right wing's reverence for "life.""
Now, I re-read the article and the quotes from Hager and his work which Dowd brought forth, and I was still unable to find anything that would indicate that Hager and/or the Bush administration was "sowing skepticism about science." She even quotes Hager saying, "The fact that I'm a person of faith does not deter me from also being a person of science." How is that being skeptical of science?? Of course, Dowd has to include a gratuitous slam on the "right wing" reverence for life. Well, I'm sure she intended it as a slam, but I think I'll take it as a compliment.
And finally, she closes with this gem: "Are we so worried about medieval villains abroad that we no longer worry about medievalism at home?" Nice try, Maureen. Maybe you can write about the boogeyman next time.
I'm sure the NYTimes has Maureen Dowd on their payroll just to get people like me to read their paper. Well, it works. Maureen continues to amaze me with the sort of commentary that she manages to put on paper. Today's column is no exception. Apparently, Dowd is not too excited about the possiblity of Dr. W. David Hager becoming chairman of the FDA's panel on women's health policy. Why? Because he's a committed Christian (according to Dowd's article) who believes that Jesus has a role in women's health. Dowd brings forth a bunch of evidence of this, and then draws her conclusions:
"Once again, the Bush administration seems to be sowing skepticism about science for the sake of politics. It has smothered the promise of stem cell research to extend and improve life with the right wing's reverence for "life.""
Now, I re-read the article and the quotes from Hager and his work which Dowd brought forth, and I was still unable to find anything that would indicate that Hager and/or the Bush administration was "sowing skepticism about science." She even quotes Hager saying, "The fact that I'm a person of faith does not deter me from also being a person of science." How is that being skeptical of science?? Of course, Dowd has to include a gratuitous slam on the "right wing" reverence for life. Well, I'm sure she intended it as a slam, but I think I'll take it as a compliment.
And finally, she closes with this gem: "Are we so worried about medieval villains abroad that we no longer worry about medievalism at home?" Nice try, Maureen. Maybe you can write about the boogeyman next time.
Tuesday, October 08, 2002
Priests, not Press Releases
In the last paragraph of this entry, Kevin Miller states that the best way for the US bishops to get their moral messages out (e.g. on stem cell research and the death penalty) would be good moral theology formation of their priests while in seminary, rather than press releases.
Great point... compare how many people ever see (let alone read) a USCCB press release to how many people see their parish priest (at least once a Sunday for most Catholics). From a empirical standpoint alone, Kevin's suggestion is a winning one.
In the last paragraph of this entry, Kevin Miller states that the best way for the US bishops to get their moral messages out (e.g. on stem cell research and the death penalty) would be good moral theology formation of their priests while in seminary, rather than press releases.
Great point... compare how many people ever see (let alone read) a USCCB press release to how many people see their parish priest (at least once a Sunday for most Catholics). From a empirical standpoint alone, Kevin's suggestion is a winning one.
Oh boy
Bob Sungenis continues to sink deeper and deeper... if you want to see evidence, go read this post by John Betts at his Boycott CAI blog. Then read this at Bill Cork's blog.
Anybody who starts using terms like "neo-Catholic papalatrist" (Bob's term for John Betts) is already on very, very dangerous ground.
Bob Sungenis continues to sink deeper and deeper... if you want to see evidence, go read this post by John Betts at his Boycott CAI blog. Then read this at Bill Cork's blog.
Anybody who starts using terms like "neo-Catholic papalatrist" (Bob's term for John Betts) is already on very, very dangerous ground.
Bush compares Saddam to another totalitarian dictator
Mark Byron reminded me of Bush's comparison of Hussein to Stalin; it was one of the best portions of the speech, IMHO. Mark has posted the relevant section of the speech... go check it out.
Mark Byron reminded me of Bush's comparison of Hussein to Stalin; it was one of the best portions of the speech, IMHO. Mark has posted the relevant section of the speech... go check it out.
One Ring to Rule Them All
You have got to go here! I don't agree with the implication, of course, but is hilarious nonetheless!
You have got to go here! I don't agree with the implication, of course, but is hilarious nonetheless!
Seeing the future in England
As more than one person in blogland has noted, the British newspaper The Independent last night posted their story on Bush's speech... before he gave it! The Instapundit got it exactly right when he said, "I always figured that they wrote these things without bothering to hear Bush's speeches, but it's nice to see proof that they really do write him off in advance." Amen!
As more than one person in blogland has noted, the British newspaper The Independent last night posted their story on Bush's speech... before he gave it! The Instapundit got it exactly right when he said, "I always figured that they wrote these things without bothering to hear Bush's speeches, but it's nice to see proof that they really do write him off in advance." Amen!
Bush's speech
I caught most of the President's speech last night (our NBC affiliate ended up carrying the MSNBC feed). I thought it was straight forward and clear. Hopefully, it will answer the questions many Americans have, in spite of the fact that many of them may not have seen it.
I caught most of the President's speech last night (our NBC affiliate ended up carrying the MSNBC feed). I thought it was straight forward and clear. Hopefully, it will answer the questions many Americans have, in spite of the fact that many of them may not have seen it.
Monday, October 07, 2002
MP on God and fairies
Last Thursday Mark at Minute Particulars had an outstanding post on the two approaches of reason (demonstration & probability) vis. the existence of God, fairies, and modern science's mode of operation. Really, a great piece, and I'm looking forward to the next installment.
Last Thursday Mark at Minute Particulars had an outstanding post on the two approaches of reason (demonstration & probability) vis. the existence of God, fairies, and modern science's mode of operation. Really, a great piece, and I'm looking forward to the next installment.
Friday, October 04, 2002
Textbook example of the need for lawsuit reform...
According to this AP story, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury has awarded a women 28 billion dollars in punitive damages against Philip Morris, Inc.
28 Billion!! Dollars!
This on top of the $750,000 she already got for "economic damages" and $100,000 for pain and suffering.
This is sickening. Yeah, We've Changed since September 11th.
According to this AP story, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury has awarded a women 28 billion dollars in punitive damages against Philip Morris, Inc.
28 Billion!! Dollars!
This on top of the $750,000 she already got for "economic damages" and $100,000 for pain and suffering.
This is sickening. Yeah, We've Changed since September 11th.
Bill Cork on Copyright Law
In lieu of CAI's latest attempts to deflect criticism, Bill Cork has an excellent post on "fair use" in copywrite law.
In lieu of CAI's latest attempts to deflect criticism, Bill Cork has an excellent post on "fair use" in copywrite law.
Contradiction?
Josh Claybourn--whose blog I highly recommend (and I've added a permalink to)--has posted some of his favorite contradictions today. Most of them are right on. But not all of them...
One of Josh's contradictions: "It's just smart economics to have individual U.S. states freely trade with one another. But the same logic doesn't apply to individual nations."
I guess this could be a contradiction, depending on your definition of "smart economics". For me, a "smart economics" is (among other things) a "humane economics", i.e. one that respects human dignity. Here in the U.S., we have labor laws that protect the worker from exploitation, and so it is "smart economics" (in my sense) to have free trade among US states. But if there is not similar respect for human beings in other nations, then it wouldn't be "smart economics" to trade with them.
I'm all for free trade, as long as all trading partners ensure that their workers are treated with at least a modicum of dignity & respect, in an absolute sense, not a relative one. For example, if under the "old system" a given worker made one dollar a month, the new, free system isn't respective of the worker's dignity & rights if it doubles his prior wage and gives him two dollars a month. Yes, it's better then before, twice as much so. But it's still unjust.
I find the following paragraphs in the Catechism of the Catholic Church particularly helpful:
2432 Those responsible for business enterprises are responsible to society for the economic and ecological effects of their operations. They have an obligation to consider the good of persons and not only the increase of profits. Profits are necessary, however. They make possible the investments that ensure the future of a business and they guarantee employment.
2433 Access to employment and to professions must be open to all without unjust discrimination: men and women, healthy and disabled, natives and immigrants. For its part society should, according to circumstances, help citizens find work and employment.
2434 A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice. In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. "Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good." Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.
Am I off my rocker? (If yes, why?)
Josh Claybourn--whose blog I highly recommend (and I've added a permalink to)--has posted some of his favorite contradictions today. Most of them are right on. But not all of them...
One of Josh's contradictions: "It's just smart economics to have individual U.S. states freely trade with one another. But the same logic doesn't apply to individual nations."
I guess this could be a contradiction, depending on your definition of "smart economics". For me, a "smart economics" is (among other things) a "humane economics", i.e. one that respects human dignity. Here in the U.S., we have labor laws that protect the worker from exploitation, and so it is "smart economics" (in my sense) to have free trade among US states. But if there is not similar respect for human beings in other nations, then it wouldn't be "smart economics" to trade with them.
I'm all for free trade, as long as all trading partners ensure that their workers are treated with at least a modicum of dignity & respect, in an absolute sense, not a relative one. For example, if under the "old system" a given worker made one dollar a month, the new, free system isn't respective of the worker's dignity & rights if it doubles his prior wage and gives him two dollars a month. Yes, it's better then before, twice as much so. But it's still unjust.
I find the following paragraphs in the Catechism of the Catholic Church particularly helpful:
2432 Those responsible for business enterprises are responsible to society for the economic and ecological effects of their operations. They have an obligation to consider the good of persons and not only the increase of profits. Profits are necessary, however. They make possible the investments that ensure the future of a business and they guarantee employment.
2433 Access to employment and to professions must be open to all without unjust discrimination: men and women, healthy and disabled, natives and immigrants. For its part society should, according to circumstances, help citizens find work and employment.
2434 A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice. In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. "Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good." Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.
Am I off my rocker? (If yes, why?)
Homily on Matthew 21:28-32
This is a homily a good friend of mine and permanent deacon for the Diocese of Duluth, Dr. Philip Mayer, gave last Sunday. Enjoy.
What are we to make of Jesus’ words today? He seems to be saying to us, “It doesn’t matter as much what you say, as it matters what you do.” But is it really that simple? It is always wise, when reading the Scriptures, especially the parables of Jesus, to consider their setting. To whom is Jesus addressing his message, and what is the situation of the discussion? This will often shed light on a very specific teaching he has in mind for us. Jesus is not trying to make it difficult, to mystify us with vague ambiguous stories. He wants us to understand as clearly as we are able, the Father’s plan for our lives and how we are to live in it. We make it difficult when we take things out of their context and try to simplify or generalize. So, lets take a good look.
Who is Jesus talking to? The chief priests and elders (Mt. 21: 23), the religious leaders of the people. That is very important. Note, also, the 13 verses immediately following today’s Gospel (Mt. 21: 33-43), where he tells the parable of the wicked tenants. This parable, for those who don’t remember (it will be the Gospel for next weekend), is about a landowner who leases a vineyard to tenants. These tenants prove to have very little respect for authority because when the landowner sends his representatives to collect his share of the harvest; they seize them, beat one, kill another, and stone the third. He finally sends his son thinking, “They will surely respect him.” They, in fact, show their utter disdain for his authority. They kill his son. Jesus poses the question, What will the owner of the vineyard do to these tenants when he comes? (Mt. 21: 40)
The parable of the two sons is taking place in the context of a discussion Jesus is having about authority, human authority. How do we live with authority? How do we react to the authority in our lives? Are we like the 2nd son and the tenants? Do we enter into agreements like the tenants, then break them? Do we pretend to be law-abiding citizens and then lie on our taxes? Do we vow to love and honor our spouses, then use and abuse them at our whim? Or are we more like the 1st son, willful, yet honest, rejecting authority then ultimately doing what it requires and living according to it? Keep in mind, the parable says nothing about the two sons’ reasons for what they do or the justice in what their father is ordering them to do. It only speaks about their response to human authority. It seems a little empty to me. Interpreting it as such; it doesn’t fit in a way that is satisfying with the parable of the tenants that follows. It is incomplete or inadequate in some way. Lets look further. Lets see what comes before….
The verses immediately preceding today’s parable record Jesus’ miraculous cures, his triumphant entry into Jerusalem and his casting the merchants from the temple. After these events, he is challenged. Again note, by the chief priests and elders who ask him, What authority do you have for acting like this? Who gave you this authority? (Mt. 21: 23) Jesus, who knows their hearts responds, And I will ask you a question, just one; if you tell me the answer to it, then I will tell you my authority for acting like this. Was John the Baptist’s authority from heaven or was it human? (Mt. 21: 24-25) The gospel then explains to us how for political expediency the chief priests and the elders back off and claim not to know. Interesting…
With that in mind, should the parable of the two sons be boiled down to “it is more important what we do … than what we say… to authority in our family, government or in our business obligations?” I fear that to leave it at that is to miss a lot, perhaps, to miss entirely Jesus’ point. This parable is told in the context of a dialogue that Jesus is carrying on with the local religious authorities, the chief priests and elders, and it is a dialogue with people who have religious authority… about religious authority. More importantly, it is a challenge to them to see that there is a new age dawning, the dawn from on high is breaking upon them (Lk. 2:78). The Father’s plan for their salvation and their own role in that plan is unfolding afresh before their very eyes. There is a new order upon them. Christ’s Church is laboring to be born into their very midst. It is foreshadowed in the Baptist’s call for repentance. It can only be accepted by a humble, repentant heart. Jesus, in his love for them, is challenging them to see it, to reflect on how they are responding to this new authority and how His Father will view their response.
The context of our parable is essentially a dialogue about: 1) who has religious authority, was the Baptist’s authority from heaven or human? … 2) how do we respond to it, ….are we like the 2nd son who claims to honor it or more like the 1st ?… and 3) what are the consequences of setting ourselves outside or above religious authority, like the tenants did with the landowner and his representatives? All of chapter 21 of Matthew’s gospel is fundamentally a dialogue about who speaks for God and how we answer to them.
This was a difficult discussion for the chief priests and elders. Their role in their religious community was changing. They could feel it. They could sense their authority slipping away. They had questions…. legitimate ones. They needed to know was this of God? It was their duty to find out. But they also, for very human reasons, did not wish to lose their status, power and influence. Jesus knew this was not easy for them, so he made it as clear as he could. He, also knew they would not receive his message well. He was in a situation very much like a CEO who has to inform his managers that the company is reorganizing. They are no longer in charge. There is new personnel a-coming. Are they going to be onboard? You see, Jesus was already in the process of establishing His Church on earth. He had already selected His Apostles. He had already given Peter the Keys to the Kingdom, the power to bind and loose. Jesus knew what was coming next, that His Church would be born when the water and blood burst forth from His side on the cross, that it would know itself in His Resurrection, that it would breathe its first breath of life from the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, that it would be with us always until the end of time.
Now, understood as a parable about religious authority this is, also, very difficult for us to hear, but for different reasons. In Jesus’ time religious authority was readily accepted. What made it difficult for them to understand was the fact that it was changing. In our day, it is quite different. Religious authority is readily challenged. What makes it difficult for us is that it will not change!!! It will last until He comes again in Glory!! Jesus established authority in His Church around Peter and the Apostles. He declared Peter a rock; a solid, grounded, stable foundation upon which the Church is built. In case we worry about how sturdy that foundation might be, Jesus tells us the gates of hell will not prevail against it (Mt. 16:18). Peter and the Apostles are present to us today in our Holy Father and the Bishops who are in communion with him. Jesus has made this as clear as he possibly can for us!!
Now, the gospel for today, how are we responding to the religious authority in our lives, the authority in the Church? Maybe we acknowledge that the Church is established by Jesus, yet, we find ourselves not accepting or serving her authority? Challenged by her teaching, we cry out, as the prophet Ezekiel observed, The Lord’s way is not fair! (Ez. 18:25). This is part of the human condition; our intellects are fallen and our wills are weak. We, as most parents of teenagers know, are prone to rebellion. However, we must be very careful that we do not, like the 2nd son, say, ”Yes, I am a disciple in His Church,” then publicly deny what the Church definitively teaches, especially in matters of faith and morals. We must not dissent, that is reject, work against, undermine, and seek to destroy the divinely instituted authority. What will the owner of the vineyard do to these tenants when he comes? We must not, especially in regards to the young, lead others astray, sew confusion in the vineyard, and cause them to question and turn them against religious authority. For one to do so would be to wish to be thrown into the sea with a great millstone hung round his neck (Mark 9: 42). Jesus is telling us in this parable that it is better to be honest, like the 1st son, to say I will not, to declare openly your disobedience to religious authority, and then to quietly obey, rather than to be like the 2nd and declare your obedience, and then live in disobedience…. live a lie.
We are called first to be holy, true disciples of Jesus. We are called to be his universal, catholic witnesses to all. We are called to witness to people of all nations and languages, to people of all races, to believers of all denominations and to the unbelievers, to all people of all occupations, and all ages, …to the old, but especially to the young who we are responsible to form in the Faith. We are called to witness as one, humble and obedient followers of the apostles, of the same mind, with the same love, united in heart, thinking one thing (Philippians 2: 2).
This is the big picture. This is living as a sign of Faith, living as sacrament, as an outward sign of the Church. The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic. It is not easy. We need the Holy Spirit to live it. It takes humility …… and Jesus is our example. Listen to the words of St. Paul: Have in you the same attitude that is also in Christ Jesus, Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to grasped. Rather he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, …he humbled himself becoming obedient… (Philippians 2: 5-9). Even Jesus, who is the Son of the Living God, followed the plan and submitted to human authority. We must do no less.
This is a homily a good friend of mine and permanent deacon for the Diocese of Duluth, Dr. Philip Mayer, gave last Sunday. Enjoy.
What are we to make of Jesus’ words today? He seems to be saying to us, “It doesn’t matter as much what you say, as it matters what you do.” But is it really that simple? It is always wise, when reading the Scriptures, especially the parables of Jesus, to consider their setting. To whom is Jesus addressing his message, and what is the situation of the discussion? This will often shed light on a very specific teaching he has in mind for us. Jesus is not trying to make it difficult, to mystify us with vague ambiguous stories. He wants us to understand as clearly as we are able, the Father’s plan for our lives and how we are to live in it. We make it difficult when we take things out of their context and try to simplify or generalize. So, lets take a good look.
Who is Jesus talking to? The chief priests and elders (Mt. 21: 23), the religious leaders of the people. That is very important. Note, also, the 13 verses immediately following today’s Gospel (Mt. 21: 33-43), where he tells the parable of the wicked tenants. This parable, for those who don’t remember (it will be the Gospel for next weekend), is about a landowner who leases a vineyard to tenants. These tenants prove to have very little respect for authority because when the landowner sends his representatives to collect his share of the harvest; they seize them, beat one, kill another, and stone the third. He finally sends his son thinking, “They will surely respect him.” They, in fact, show their utter disdain for his authority. They kill his son. Jesus poses the question, What will the owner of the vineyard do to these tenants when he comes? (Mt. 21: 40)
The parable of the two sons is taking place in the context of a discussion Jesus is having about authority, human authority. How do we live with authority? How do we react to the authority in our lives? Are we like the 2nd son and the tenants? Do we enter into agreements like the tenants, then break them? Do we pretend to be law-abiding citizens and then lie on our taxes? Do we vow to love and honor our spouses, then use and abuse them at our whim? Or are we more like the 1st son, willful, yet honest, rejecting authority then ultimately doing what it requires and living according to it? Keep in mind, the parable says nothing about the two sons’ reasons for what they do or the justice in what their father is ordering them to do. It only speaks about their response to human authority. It seems a little empty to me. Interpreting it as such; it doesn’t fit in a way that is satisfying with the parable of the tenants that follows. It is incomplete or inadequate in some way. Lets look further. Lets see what comes before….
The verses immediately preceding today’s parable record Jesus’ miraculous cures, his triumphant entry into Jerusalem and his casting the merchants from the temple. After these events, he is challenged. Again note, by the chief priests and elders who ask him, What authority do you have for acting like this? Who gave you this authority? (Mt. 21: 23) Jesus, who knows their hearts responds, And I will ask you a question, just one; if you tell me the answer to it, then I will tell you my authority for acting like this. Was John the Baptist’s authority from heaven or was it human? (Mt. 21: 24-25) The gospel then explains to us how for political expediency the chief priests and the elders back off and claim not to know. Interesting…
With that in mind, should the parable of the two sons be boiled down to “it is more important what we do … than what we say… to authority in our family, government or in our business obligations?” I fear that to leave it at that is to miss a lot, perhaps, to miss entirely Jesus’ point. This parable is told in the context of a dialogue that Jesus is carrying on with the local religious authorities, the chief priests and elders, and it is a dialogue with people who have religious authority… about religious authority. More importantly, it is a challenge to them to see that there is a new age dawning, the dawn from on high is breaking upon them (Lk. 2:78). The Father’s plan for their salvation and their own role in that plan is unfolding afresh before their very eyes. There is a new order upon them. Christ’s Church is laboring to be born into their very midst. It is foreshadowed in the Baptist’s call for repentance. It can only be accepted by a humble, repentant heart. Jesus, in his love for them, is challenging them to see it, to reflect on how they are responding to this new authority and how His Father will view their response.
The context of our parable is essentially a dialogue about: 1) who has religious authority, was the Baptist’s authority from heaven or human? … 2) how do we respond to it, ….are we like the 2nd son who claims to honor it or more like the 1st ?… and 3) what are the consequences of setting ourselves outside or above religious authority, like the tenants did with the landowner and his representatives? All of chapter 21 of Matthew’s gospel is fundamentally a dialogue about who speaks for God and how we answer to them.
This was a difficult discussion for the chief priests and elders. Their role in their religious community was changing. They could feel it. They could sense their authority slipping away. They had questions…. legitimate ones. They needed to know was this of God? It was their duty to find out. But they also, for very human reasons, did not wish to lose their status, power and influence. Jesus knew this was not easy for them, so he made it as clear as he could. He, also knew they would not receive his message well. He was in a situation very much like a CEO who has to inform his managers that the company is reorganizing. They are no longer in charge. There is new personnel a-coming. Are they going to be onboard? You see, Jesus was already in the process of establishing His Church on earth. He had already selected His Apostles. He had already given Peter the Keys to the Kingdom, the power to bind and loose. Jesus knew what was coming next, that His Church would be born when the water and blood burst forth from His side on the cross, that it would know itself in His Resurrection, that it would breathe its first breath of life from the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, that it would be with us always until the end of time.
Now, understood as a parable about religious authority this is, also, very difficult for us to hear, but for different reasons. In Jesus’ time religious authority was readily accepted. What made it difficult for them to understand was the fact that it was changing. In our day, it is quite different. Religious authority is readily challenged. What makes it difficult for us is that it will not change!!! It will last until He comes again in Glory!! Jesus established authority in His Church around Peter and the Apostles. He declared Peter a rock; a solid, grounded, stable foundation upon which the Church is built. In case we worry about how sturdy that foundation might be, Jesus tells us the gates of hell will not prevail against it (Mt. 16:18). Peter and the Apostles are present to us today in our Holy Father and the Bishops who are in communion with him. Jesus has made this as clear as he possibly can for us!!
Now, the gospel for today, how are we responding to the religious authority in our lives, the authority in the Church? Maybe we acknowledge that the Church is established by Jesus, yet, we find ourselves not accepting or serving her authority? Challenged by her teaching, we cry out, as the prophet Ezekiel observed, The Lord’s way is not fair! (Ez. 18:25). This is part of the human condition; our intellects are fallen and our wills are weak. We, as most parents of teenagers know, are prone to rebellion. However, we must be very careful that we do not, like the 2nd son, say, ”Yes, I am a disciple in His Church,” then publicly deny what the Church definitively teaches, especially in matters of faith and morals. We must not dissent, that is reject, work against, undermine, and seek to destroy the divinely instituted authority. What will the owner of the vineyard do to these tenants when he comes? We must not, especially in regards to the young, lead others astray, sew confusion in the vineyard, and cause them to question and turn them against religious authority. For one to do so would be to wish to be thrown into the sea with a great millstone hung round his neck (Mark 9: 42). Jesus is telling us in this parable that it is better to be honest, like the 1st son, to say I will not, to declare openly your disobedience to religious authority, and then to quietly obey, rather than to be like the 2nd and declare your obedience, and then live in disobedience…. live a lie.
We are called first to be holy, true disciples of Jesus. We are called to be his universal, catholic witnesses to all. We are called to witness to people of all nations and languages, to people of all races, to believers of all denominations and to the unbelievers, to all people of all occupations, and all ages, …to the old, but especially to the young who we are responsible to form in the Faith. We are called to witness as one, humble and obedient followers of the apostles, of the same mind, with the same love, united in heart, thinking one thing (Philippians 2: 2).
This is the big picture. This is living as a sign of Faith, living as sacrament, as an outward sign of the Church. The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic. It is not easy. We need the Holy Spirit to live it. It takes humility …… and Jesus is our example. Listen to the words of St. Paul: Have in you the same attitude that is also in Christ Jesus, Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to grasped. Rather he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, …he humbled himself becoming obedient… (Philippians 2: 5-9). Even Jesus, who is the Son of the Living God, followed the plan and submitted to human authority. We must do no less.
A Democrat on His Party
Georgia Senator Zell Miller (D) has strong words for his party and how 2002 looks a lot like 1972.
Georgia Senator Zell Miller (D) has strong words for his party and how 2002 looks a lot like 1972.
More for the Baghdad Boys
E.J. Dionne Jr. of the Washington Post has some advice for Baghdad Jim and Baghdad Bonior.
E.J. Dionne Jr. of the Washington Post has some advice for Baghdad Jim and Baghdad Bonior.
NYTimes Letter Watch
Today's installment: Iraq Idiocy.
Both letters are full of red herrings and strawmen. The first alludes to the fact that we "made Saddam," and then concludes that this somehow argues against going to war. Huh? It seems to me that if we are responsible for the present state of affairs in Iraq, then it is that much more important for us to fix the situation; if you make the mess, you clean it up.
The second letter-writer wishes for a debate. So do I. But I don't see any sign of debate in his letter. As others have pointed out, those who call for a debate never actually make a contribution to such a debate. If you want a debate, wouldn't you make a case for your position, in some way? Any way? Kinda wierd, if you ask me.
Today's installment: Iraq Idiocy.
Both letters are full of red herrings and strawmen. The first alludes to the fact that we "made Saddam," and then concludes that this somehow argues against going to war. Huh? It seems to me that if we are responsible for the present state of affairs in Iraq, then it is that much more important for us to fix the situation; if you make the mess, you clean it up.
The second letter-writer wishes for a debate. So do I. But I don't see any sign of debate in his letter. As others have pointed out, those who call for a debate never actually make a contribution to such a debate. If you want a debate, wouldn't you make a case for your position, in some way? Any way? Kinda wierd, if you ask me.
Thursday, October 03, 2002
Good stuff at NRO today
A good piece by political philosopher Robert P. George on New Jersey's Supreme Court fiasco.
A terrific piece by theologian Father Matthew Lamb, who echoes George Weigel and Father Richard Neuhaus on the central role which theological dissent has played in the priest sex-abuse scandal.
Both are worth your time.
A good piece by political philosopher Robert P. George on New Jersey's Supreme Court fiasco.
A terrific piece by theologian Father Matthew Lamb, who echoes George Weigel and Father Richard Neuhaus on the central role which theological dissent has played in the priest sex-abuse scandal.
Both are worth your time.
I'm going to be sick
Via Drudge, I found this "editorial" from England's "The Mirror", in which the writer drools over Clinton and how "he spoke yesterday with an extraordinary passion, vision and clarity" at a Labour party conference in England.
This is how the piece opens: "What a performance. What a politician. What a superstar." I'm sure this is completely true... Clinton is a performer, consummate politician (in one sense of the word), and a (pop culture-esque) superstar. But you know what he isn't, Mirror writer? A Leader.
Via Drudge, I found this "editorial" from England's "The Mirror", in which the writer drools over Clinton and how "he spoke yesterday with an extraordinary passion, vision and clarity" at a Labour party conference in England.
This is how the piece opens: "What a performance. What a politician. What a superstar." I'm sure this is completely true... Clinton is a performer, consummate politician (in one sense of the word), and a (pop culture-esque) superstar. But you know what he isn't, Mirror writer? A Leader.
Wednesday, October 02, 2002
Everybody loves Patricia
Cool entry by Kathryn Lopez at The Corner quoting Patricia Heaton (Ray Romano's tv-wife on "Everybody Loves Raymond") on being a pro-lifer in Hollywood, from Heaton's appearance on The O'Reilly Factor. This one is my fav: "it will not be Barbra Streisand I'm standing in front of when I have to make an accounting of my life." Blam!
Cool entry by Kathryn Lopez at The Corner quoting Patricia Heaton (Ray Romano's tv-wife on "Everybody Loves Raymond") on being a pro-lifer in Hollywood, from Heaton's appearance on The O'Reilly Factor. This one is my fav: "it will not be Barbra Streisand I'm standing in front of when I have to make an accounting of my life." Blam!
Russell Shaw on Iraq
Catholic writer Russell Shaw addresses the Iraq question. Great stuff. He points out that "there are large, serious questions here that, up to now, the public debate has hardly touched, much less answered." I agree, and I don't think such a debate will be had until everyone involved reads Kenneth Pollack's book, The Threatening Storm, which I linked to Monday.
Catholic writer Russell Shaw addresses the Iraq question. Great stuff. He points out that "there are large, serious questions here that, up to now, the public debate has hardly touched, much less answered." I agree, and I don't think such a debate will be had until everyone involved reads Kenneth Pollack's book, The Threatening Storm, which I linked to Monday.
JPII on Real Ecumenism
John Paul II addressed a group of Brazilian bishops recently, and in so doing spoke of real ecumenism. Good article.
Point of clarification: ecumenism, properly speaking, deals only with the drive for unity among Christians. Scholars in the field refer to common activities between Christians, Jews, and Muslims as inter-faith dialogue, while talks with other religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.) are referred to as inter-religious dialogue.
Not trying to be picky. Just clear.
John Paul II addressed a group of Brazilian bishops recently, and in so doing spoke of real ecumenism. Good article.
Point of clarification: ecumenism, properly speaking, deals only with the drive for unity among Christians. Scholars in the field refer to common activities between Christians, Jews, and Muslims as inter-faith dialogue, while talks with other religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.) are referred to as inter-religious dialogue.
Not trying to be picky. Just clear.
At least the Hamburgers are with us
According to this (London) Times article (link via Instapundit), Germany is getting every closer to making a U-turn in its Iraq policy. Apparently the tift with the Bush Administration is taking its toll.
But my favorite thing about this article is the news (to me) that the city of Hamburg took out an ad in the NY Times declaring, "America--Hamburg stands by you."
Now we need a similar declaration from Bavaria.
According to this (London) Times article (link via Instapundit), Germany is getting every closer to making a U-turn in its Iraq policy. Apparently the tift with the Bush Administration is taking its toll.
But my favorite thing about this article is the news (to me) that the city of Hamburg took out an ad in the NY Times declaring, "America--Hamburg stands by you."
Now we need a similar declaration from Bavaria.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 01, 2002
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?
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?
Monday, September 30, 2002
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.
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 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?
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?
Friday, September 27, 2002
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 18, 2002
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.
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!
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!
Thursday, August 29, 2002
Wednesday, August 21, 2002
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, August 15, 2002
Monday, August 12, 2002
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
Sunday, August 11, 2002
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.
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.
Saturday, August 10, 2002
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
Friday, August 09, 2002
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, August 08, 2002
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 07, 2002
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 31, 2002
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 30, 2002
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.
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.]
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.
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.
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.
Monday, July 29, 2002
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, July 27, 2002
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Saturday, June 29, 2002
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.
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.
Friday, June 21, 2002
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...
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...
Tuesday, June 04, 2002
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.
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.
Monday, June 03, 2002
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.
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.
Sunday, June 02, 2002
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.
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.
Saturday, June 01, 2002
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)