New Catholic Carnival!
Find it at just another day of Catholic pondering.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Monday, August 14, 2006
It is better to be than to not-be
At Mass this Sunday, Father Al began his homily with a few comments on Jesus' words in John 6:44: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day" (the Gospel reading was John 6:41-51). Father noted (and I'm paraphrasing here) that at this point in his life, he understands most "mysterious" things, with a few things excepted. One of those exceptions was this: if God knows from all eternity those souls who will finally refuse his gift of grace and salvation and choose eternal separation from Him instead, why did He create them?
Here is my meager attempt at a possible response.
Taking Genesis 1 as the point of departure ("and God saw that it was good"), it is a basic principle of Catholic theology and philosophy that God created all things good, and this fundamental goodness remains, despite the effects of the Fall of humanity in the garden. (Philosophically, this notion is expressed in the axiom that being and good are convertible.)
In other words, insofar as something exists (i.e. has being), it is good.
Consider, then, those who are damned (who count among their number the fallen angels and any human beings who persist in refusing God at the moment of their death). On a moral level, they are rightly described as evil. But on a metaphysical level, the fact that they continue to exist in some way, however diminished, means that they are good, and hence that their being adds some goodness to the cosmos.
And here lays my possible answer to Father's query: by the sheer fact of their being, the existence of even the damned "adds" some measure of goodness to creation. In other words, the universe is better off with them than it would have been without them.
Thoughts?
At Mass this Sunday, Father Al began his homily with a few comments on Jesus' words in John 6:44: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day" (the Gospel reading was John 6:41-51). Father noted (and I'm paraphrasing here) that at this point in his life, he understands most "mysterious" things, with a few things excepted. One of those exceptions was this: if God knows from all eternity those souls who will finally refuse his gift of grace and salvation and choose eternal separation from Him instead, why did He create them?
Here is my meager attempt at a possible response.
Taking Genesis 1 as the point of departure ("and God saw that it was good"), it is a basic principle of Catholic theology and philosophy that God created all things good, and this fundamental goodness remains, despite the effects of the Fall of humanity in the garden. (Philosophically, this notion is expressed in the axiom that being and good are convertible.)
In other words, insofar as something exists (i.e. has being), it is good.
Consider, then, those who are damned (who count among their number the fallen angels and any human beings who persist in refusing God at the moment of their death). On a moral level, they are rightly described as evil. But on a metaphysical level, the fact that they continue to exist in some way, however diminished, means that they are good, and hence that their being adds some goodness to the cosmos.
And here lays my possible answer to Father's query: by the sheer fact of their being, the existence of even the damned "adds" some measure of goodness to creation. In other words, the universe is better off with them than it would have been without them.
Thoughts?
It's not all about "No"
Pope Benedict recently gave a television interview to a panel of four German journalists in anticipation of his visit to his homeland in a few weeks. The english translation of the transcript can be found here. Right now, there's one passage I want to call attention to:
Pope Benedict recently gave a television interview to a panel of four German journalists in anticipation of his visit to his homeland in a few weeks. The english translation of the transcript can be found here. Right now, there's one passage I want to call attention to:
- And when you have so little time you can't say everything you want to say about "no." Firstly you have to know what we really want, right? Christianity, Catholicism, isn't a collection of prohibitions: it's a positive option. It's very important that we look at it again because this idea has almost completely disappeared today. We've heard so much about what is not allowed that now it's time to say: we have a positive idea to offer
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Wright on von Balthasar on Protestants and Catholics
Nazarene pastor John Wright has a nice post up on twentieth century theologians Hans Urs von Balthasar (Catholic) and Karl Barth (Reformed Protestant). Wright comments on some passages in von Balthasar's book examining Barth's thought, and a couple of those passages express something I've been trying to get some Net pals to understand.
Here's a key section of Pastor Wright's post:
Nazarene pastor John Wright has a nice post up on twentieth century theologians Hans Urs von Balthasar (Catholic) and Karl Barth (Reformed Protestant). Wright comments on some passages in von Balthasar's book examining Barth's thought, and a couple of those passages express something I've been trying to get some Net pals to understand.
Here's a key section of Pastor Wright's post:
Yet Balthasar says important things that accurately, and negatively, define Protestants relationship to Roman Catholics, even after over 50 years that he has written. He writes, 'Protestants are convinced that they have seen through Catholicism once and for all; and if it should so happen that they discover a presentation of Catholic views that they do not find absurd, this must surely be due to the Catholic habit of countenancying "Jesuitical' arguments, hiding the Church's true esoteric features behind politically shrewd and seductive masks" (p. 17). He concludes his observations, "And the result is that, if sloth and inattention hinder conversations on the Catholic side, mistrust and suspicion cripple it on the Protestant" (p. 18).
Yet Balthasar states that "perhaps today we are beginning to move beyond the era of stale antithese -- Reformation and Counter-Reformation -- with Catholics trying to be more catholic and not 'anti-Protestant' and the Protestants more biblical and 'evangelical' and not 'protesters'" (p. 19).
Hey Al: practice what you preach.
Here's an article detailing how Al Gore doesn't live the eco-friendly lifestyle he's been telling the rest of us we need to live.
Big surprise there.
(HT: American Papist)
Here's an article detailing how Al Gore doesn't live the eco-friendly lifestyle he's been telling the rest of us we need to live.
Big surprise there.
(HT: American Papist)
Friday, August 11, 2006
What, precisely, is Thomism?
Just over two years ago I blogged on a book I'd just read: Dr. Tracey Rowland's Culture and the Thomist Tradition: After Vatican II. As I blogged then, it's an outstanding book, and I encourage anyone remotely interested in the issues it addresses to read it.
Since then, I've kept my eyes open for reviews of the book, and as I've read those, one criticism is found in multiple reviews, that being that Rowland seems to stretch the definition of Thomism beyond legitimate bounds. The review in Modern Theology by Joseph Wawrykow of Notre Dame posited that Rowland's definition of Thomism "is in fact too broad, so loose that it covers anyone who has been associated with classical Christianity, not simply those who would identify with Aquinas and his particular approach to Christian truth." He proceeds to wonder "why Rowland does not refer simply to ‘creedal Christianity’ or ‘classical Christianity’" instead of "Thomism".
Now, I consider myself a Thomist, and I recognized Rowland as such as well. So this criticism of her work led me to wonder: what, exactly, makes one a Thomist, and what, exactly, constitutes Thomism, beyond the tautology that these terms refer to one who "follows" the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas, and to his thought, respectively. In other words, what is the definition of Thomist/m? Clearly, if Scholar A argues that Scholar B is not a Thomist, Scholar A has some operative definition of Thomist/m. So what is that definition?
This question turns out to be somewhat difficult to answer. The best answer I've seen comes from the Dominican priest and scholar, Fr. Romanus Cessario, in his book, A Short History of Thomism. In that book, he offers a short list of what constitutes a Thomist perspective, but like others, he also notes that the doctrinal content of Thomism is not exactly well-defined... his list functions more as a lowest common denominator than as an attempt at a comprehensive definition.
Having said that, I'd be curious to hear what others think about this, and how they might answer the question, "What does it mean to be a Thomist and to subscribe to Thomism?"
Update: only after publishing this post did I check Wikipedia and the resources it links. While the Wikipedia entry on "Thomism" falls prey to the common trend to view Thomism more as a philosophical than a theological school, its list of philosophical positions distinctively Thomistic was helpful. More helpful, though, was the link provided to the 1907-12 Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on Thomism. Again, there are some assertions which could be questioned in light of more recent scholarship, which rightly tends to wonder if neo-Thomism incorrectly distilled Thomas' thought, but the lists (both philosophical and theological, and of both Thomism and the Thomist school) remain somewhat helpful.
I remain curious as to the thoughts of readers on this question, though.
Just over two years ago I blogged on a book I'd just read: Dr. Tracey Rowland's Culture and the Thomist Tradition: After Vatican II. As I blogged then, it's an outstanding book, and I encourage anyone remotely interested in the issues it addresses to read it.
Since then, I've kept my eyes open for reviews of the book, and as I've read those, one criticism is found in multiple reviews, that being that Rowland seems to stretch the definition of Thomism beyond legitimate bounds. The review in Modern Theology by Joseph Wawrykow of Notre Dame posited that Rowland's definition of Thomism "is in fact too broad, so loose that it covers anyone who has been associated with classical Christianity, not simply those who would identify with Aquinas and his particular approach to Christian truth." He proceeds to wonder "why Rowland does not refer simply to ‘creedal Christianity’ or ‘classical Christianity’" instead of "Thomism".
Now, I consider myself a Thomist, and I recognized Rowland as such as well. So this criticism of her work led me to wonder: what, exactly, makes one a Thomist, and what, exactly, constitutes Thomism, beyond the tautology that these terms refer to one who "follows" the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas, and to his thought, respectively. In other words, what is the definition of Thomist/m? Clearly, if Scholar A argues that Scholar B is not a Thomist, Scholar A has some operative definition of Thomist/m. So what is that definition?
This question turns out to be somewhat difficult to answer. The best answer I've seen comes from the Dominican priest and scholar, Fr. Romanus Cessario, in his book, A Short History of Thomism. In that book, he offers a short list of what constitutes a Thomist perspective, but like others, he also notes that the doctrinal content of Thomism is not exactly well-defined... his list functions more as a lowest common denominator than as an attempt at a comprehensive definition.
Having said that, I'd be curious to hear what others think about this, and how they might answer the question, "What does it mean to be a Thomist and to subscribe to Thomism?"
Update: only after publishing this post did I check Wikipedia and the resources it links. While the Wikipedia entry on "Thomism" falls prey to the common trend to view Thomism more as a philosophical than a theological school, its list of philosophical positions distinctively Thomistic was helpful. More helpful, though, was the link provided to the 1907-12 Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on Thomism. Again, there are some assertions which could be questioned in light of more recent scholarship, which rightly tends to wonder if neo-Thomism incorrectly distilled Thomas' thought, but the lists (both philosophical and theological, and of both Thomism and the Thomist school) remain somewhat helpful.
I remain curious as to the thoughts of readers on this question, though.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Scientists aren't intrinsically objective
One of the hallmarks of the Enlightenment worldview is a belief (an act of faith?) that science is the (only) path to true, objective knowledge, and scientists are likewise objective in their reporting of the facts they discover. For this mentality, science functions as a de facto religion, and scientists are the priests, prophets, and oracles of said religion. (NB: this is not a critique of science or scientists per se, but of a mentality which regards them erroneously.)
In fact, scientists are fallible human beings just like the rest of us, and they are no more impervious to allowing their biases and subjectivities to cloud their judgment and reasoning than anyone else.
Pat Lee and Robert George offer an example of this in their recent critique of a letter in the journal Science and the reasons for which the letter was hurriedly published. I encourage you to read it.
One of the hallmarks of the Enlightenment worldview is a belief (an act of faith?) that science is the (only) path to true, objective knowledge, and scientists are likewise objective in their reporting of the facts they discover. For this mentality, science functions as a de facto religion, and scientists are the priests, prophets, and oracles of said religion. (NB: this is not a critique of science or scientists per se, but of a mentality which regards them erroneously.)
In fact, scientists are fallible human beings just like the rest of us, and they are no more impervious to allowing their biases and subjectivities to cloud their judgment and reasoning than anyone else.
Pat Lee and Robert George offer an example of this in their recent critique of a letter in the journal Science and the reasons for which the letter was hurriedly published. I encourage you to read it.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Catholic teaching and Philosophy
Josh is a new LCMS seminarian with recently-completed grad degree on mathematics. He's had a blog for years, and enjoys poking a little fun and his fellow Christians who don't happen to be Lutherans. Some might confuse his style as mean-spirited, but I'm pretty confident that it's usually just light-hearted jabbing.
Josh has read some Catholic theology (e.g. Ratzinger's Spirit of the Liturgy), but he still has some, erroneous ideas about the Catholic distinctives. For example (do a Find for what follows):
On the other hand, Catholic doctrine is completely theological, and the employment of philosophical terminology and concepts serve only to explain or elaborate the theological doctrine (usually because it's under attack). Now, it might take some study to see how a particular Catholic teaching is more than mere human philosophical discourse, but such a study will be fruitful.
Josh's particular favorite kicking boy on this is the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Josh thinks it's an unbiblical, Aristotelian attempt to explain the Real Presence. To some degree, that's true (minus the "unbiblical" part). But as I've noted in conversations with Josh, there's little difference between the employment Greek philosophy to "explain" the Real Presence and the employment of Greek philosophy to "explain" the Trinity. Some object here, that in the latter case (that of Trinitarian doctrine) philosophy is only employed to explain what God is, while in the case of transubstantiation, philosophy is employed to explain how the Real Presence occurs. According to this line of thinking, a doctrine which employs philosophy to explain how is illicit, while a doctrine which employs philosophy to explain that is licit.
I don't accept that. It seems to me that every doctrine in some what is both a that and a how doctrine, even though it might be more clearly one or the other in some cases. For instance, it could rightly be argued that transubstantiation is necessary to explain in as full and complete manner as possible the truth that Jesus is really, truly present in the Eucharist. And it could also be rightly argued that Nicaea's trinitarian doctrine explains how we can speak of God as three an one simultaneously.
While the following is essentially a bald assertion, it's worth making it: Catholic doctrine is fundamentally and essentially biblical (and hence theological), and those who argue otherwise will see the error of their ways if they are able to postively engage Catholic teaching without an a priori hermeneutic of suspicion.
Parenthetically, this whole misunderstanding is a macrocosm of the stereotypical view held by many (Catholic and others alike) of St. Thomas Aquinas: he is seen as a philosopher who employs Aristotle to create useless and meaningless distinctions about the faith. In fact, Thomas was first and foremost a biblical theologian, who spent a significant chunk of his lectures and writings in commenting on Sacred Scripture. In other words, the same misapprehension is made regarding Catholic doctrine as a whole as is made regarding the Common Doctor.
Josh is a new LCMS seminarian with recently-completed grad degree on mathematics. He's had a blog for years, and enjoys poking a little fun and his fellow Christians who don't happen to be Lutherans. Some might confuse his style as mean-spirited, but I'm pretty confident that it's usually just light-hearted jabbing.
Josh has read some Catholic theology (e.g. Ratzinger's Spirit of the Liturgy), but he still has some, erroneous ideas about the Catholic distinctives. For example (do a Find for what follows):
- I think the conversation with the Roman Catholics is kind of useless since they keep avoiding bringing divine judgment into the language of morality. It's all just natural philosophy (and which natural philosophy is the right one is sufficiently obvious that they don't feel obligated to defend it). I want to know how God thinks about it.
On the other hand, Catholic doctrine is completely theological, and the employment of philosophical terminology and concepts serve only to explain or elaborate the theological doctrine (usually because it's under attack). Now, it might take some study to see how a particular Catholic teaching is more than mere human philosophical discourse, but such a study will be fruitful.
Josh's particular favorite kicking boy on this is the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Josh thinks it's an unbiblical, Aristotelian attempt to explain the Real Presence. To some degree, that's true (minus the "unbiblical" part). But as I've noted in conversations with Josh, there's little difference between the employment Greek philosophy to "explain" the Real Presence and the employment of Greek philosophy to "explain" the Trinity. Some object here, that in the latter case (that of Trinitarian doctrine) philosophy is only employed to explain what God is, while in the case of transubstantiation, philosophy is employed to explain how the Real Presence occurs. According to this line of thinking, a doctrine which employs philosophy to explain how is illicit, while a doctrine which employs philosophy to explain that is licit.
I don't accept that. It seems to me that every doctrine in some what is both a that and a how doctrine, even though it might be more clearly one or the other in some cases. For instance, it could rightly be argued that transubstantiation is necessary to explain in as full and complete manner as possible the truth that Jesus is really, truly present in the Eucharist. And it could also be rightly argued that Nicaea's trinitarian doctrine explains how we can speak of God as three an one simultaneously.
While the following is essentially a bald assertion, it's worth making it: Catholic doctrine is fundamentally and essentially biblical (and hence theological), and those who argue otherwise will see the error of their ways if they are able to postively engage Catholic teaching without an a priori hermeneutic of suspicion.
Parenthetically, this whole misunderstanding is a macrocosm of the stereotypical view held by many (Catholic and others alike) of St. Thomas Aquinas: he is seen as a philosopher who employs Aristotle to create useless and meaningless distinctions about the faith. In fact, Thomas was first and foremost a biblical theologian, who spent a significant chunk of his lectures and writings in commenting on Sacred Scripture. In other words, the same misapprehension is made regarding Catholic doctrine as a whole as is made regarding the Common Doctor.
Watch out for the Inquisition!
There's an ex-Catholic fundamentalist who emailed a bunch of us at the diocesan offices out of the blue back in January or so, with an anti-Eucharist rant.
I engaged the guy in civil dialogue, and found out that he attended the local Catholic high school back in the day, and he even -- you guessed it -- thought about becoming a priest. It turned out though, that he'd never heard the Gospel preached until one day a few years later, when he was listening to a preacher on the radio. He accepted Jesus at that moment, and left the Romanist, papist heresy (my words, but his sentiment).
Our conversation was all across the board, but there was one thing I kept trying: to find out his name, so that we could pray for one another. He ignored my requests continually.
When the twins came along in February, this convo got put on the burner farthest in the back. A couple weeks back, he (still anonymous) sent another mass email to the offices, but I ignored it.
Then yesterday, I found an anti-Catholic tract (from Mike Gendron's "ministry") in our Cathedral's beautiful adoration chapel, with this guy's email address. I contacted him again, and asked him a couple questions. First, though, I stressed that his anonymous approach was rather unlike that of Jesus', and I implored him to share just his first name, that we might pray for one another.
It was his response to that request that, well, floored me. I'll reproduce it here:
I'm still in shock.
There's an ex-Catholic fundamentalist who emailed a bunch of us at the diocesan offices out of the blue back in January or so, with an anti-Eucharist rant.
I engaged the guy in civil dialogue, and found out that he attended the local Catholic high school back in the day, and he even -- you guessed it -- thought about becoming a priest. It turned out though, that he'd never heard the Gospel preached until one day a few years later, when he was listening to a preacher on the radio. He accepted Jesus at that moment, and left the Romanist, papist heresy (my words, but his sentiment).
Our conversation was all across the board, but there was one thing I kept trying: to find out his name, so that we could pray for one another. He ignored my requests continually.
When the twins came along in February, this convo got put on the burner farthest in the back. A couple weeks back, he (still anonymous) sent another mass email to the offices, but I ignored it.
Then yesterday, I found an anti-Catholic tract (from Mike Gendron's "ministry") in our Cathedral's beautiful adoration chapel, with this guy's email address. I contacted him again, and asked him a couple questions. First, though, I stressed that his anonymous approach was rather unlike that of Jesus', and I implored him to share just his first name, that we might pray for one another.
It was his response to that request that, well, floored me. I'll reproduce it here:
- No, I dare not tell you my name, as I am familiar with the history of the inquisition and the current office of The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." Matthew 7:6
I'm still in shock.
Friday, July 28, 2006
the one book
This meme is making it's way around the blogosphere and I've been tagged. So here goes:
1. One book that changed your life:
Henri de Lubac, The Splendor of the Church.
2. One book that you’ve read more than once:
Tom Clancy, Red Storm Rising.
3. One book you’d want on a desert island:
The Roman Missal.
4. One book that made you laugh:
Janet Evanovich, One for the Money.
5. One book that made you cry:
J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. (I'm with Joel on this.)
6. One book that you wish had been written:
A comprehensive examination of the Catholic worldview.
7. One book that you wish had never been written:
Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code.
8. One book you’re currently reading:
Benedict Ashley, OP, The Way toward Wisdom.
9. One book you’ve been meaning to read:
John Milbank & Catherine Pickstock, Truth in Aquinas.
10. Tag five others:
Disputations
Carl Olson
The Curt Jester
Lex Communis
Endlessly Rocking
This meme is making it's way around the blogosphere and I've been tagged. So here goes:
1. One book that changed your life:
Henri de Lubac, The Splendor of the Church.
2. One book that you’ve read more than once:
Tom Clancy, Red Storm Rising.
3. One book you’d want on a desert island:
The Roman Missal.
4. One book that made you laugh:
Janet Evanovich, One for the Money.
5. One book that made you cry:
J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. (I'm with Joel on this.)
6. One book that you wish had been written:
A comprehensive examination of the Catholic worldview.
7. One book that you wish had never been written:
Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code.
8. One book you’re currently reading:
Benedict Ashley, OP, The Way toward Wisdom.
9. One book you’ve been meaning to read:
John Milbank & Catherine Pickstock, Truth in Aquinas.
10. Tag five others:
Disputations
Carl Olson
The Curt Jester
Lex Communis
Endlessly Rocking
Friday, May 26, 2006
LCMS "vs" ELCA Confessional Lutherans re: Catholicism
In my personal experience as well as my theological research, I've generally found that among confessional Lutherans (i.e. those who accept the Book of Concord), LCMSers tend (there are plenty of exceptions, of course) to be more aggressive toward (Roman) Catholicism, and I'm really not sure why that is. It's not that they're anymore "really Lutheran", because as I noted, there are ELCAers who confess the BOC just as fervently. The latter tend to be more interested in figuring out exactly why we Catholics do and believe the things we do, while the former seem to prefer the polemical style of judging from afar (again, these are general tendencies, not across the board stereotypes). This is in no way to question the theological acumen of either camp, nor their good will... it's simply something I've observed.
So what's the deal, guys?
In my personal experience as well as my theological research, I've generally found that among confessional Lutherans (i.e. those who accept the Book of Concord), LCMSers tend (there are plenty of exceptions, of course) to be more aggressive toward (Roman) Catholicism, and I'm really not sure why that is. It's not that they're anymore "really Lutheran", because as I noted, there are ELCAers who confess the BOC just as fervently. The latter tend to be more interested in figuring out exactly why we Catholics do and believe the things we do, while the former seem to prefer the polemical style of judging from afar (again, these are general tendencies, not across the board stereotypes). This is in no way to question the theological acumen of either camp, nor their good will... it's simply something I've observed.
So what's the deal, guys?
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Katrina and an Inept Press
We've heard plenty about the ineptitude of the feds with regard to Katrina, but who's watching the watchers? Some one is, and it looks like it's a good thing.
We've heard plenty about the ineptitude of the feds with regard to Katrina, but who's watching the watchers? Some one is, and it looks like it's a good thing.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Opus Dei spokesman dissects Ron Howard's hysterics
If you have any interest in the Catholic Church, Opus Dei, and The Da Vinci Code, you've got to read this tour-de-force of a response to Ron Howard from the international spokesman for Opus Dei.
In responding to the "it's just fiction" canard, he states the following:
If you have any interest in the Catholic Church, Opus Dei, and The Da Vinci Code, you've got to read this tour-de-force of a response to Ron Howard from the international spokesman for Opus Dei.
In responding to the "it's just fiction" canard, he states the following:
Imagine a film that says that Sony was behind the attacks on the Twin Towers, which it promoted because it wanted to destabilize the United States. Or a novel that reveals that Sony paid the gunman who shot the Pope in St. Peter's Square in 1981, because it was opposed to the Holy Father's moral leadership. They are only invented stories. I imagine that Sony, a respectable and serious company, would not be happy to see itself portrayed in this way on the screens, and that it would not be satisfied with an answer such as "Don't worry, it's only fiction, it mustn't be taken too seriously, freedom of expression is sacred."
- those who have taken part in the film's project have no reason to be concerned. Christians will not react with hatred and violence, but with respect and charity, without insults or threats. They can continue to calculate tranquilly the money they will make on the film, because the freedom of financial profit seems to be in fact the only sacred freedom, the only one exempt from all responsibility. They will probably make a lot of money, but they are paying a high price by deteriorating their prestige and reputation.
Friday, May 12, 2006
The latest NSA contoversy
Should we be concerned that the NSA has obtained phone records about calls made in this country by millions of innocent Americans? I'm not sure... it doesn't bother me, but I understand why others are.
However, it does seem clear that what the NSA did was not illegal, that it violated neither FISA nor the Fourth Amendment (see this article). So the usual suspects who are throwing fits of hysteria need to chill a bit.
Should we be concerned that the NSA has obtained phone records about calls made in this country by millions of innocent Americans? I'm not sure... it doesn't bother me, but I understand why others are.
However, it does seem clear that what the NSA did was not illegal, that it violated neither FISA nor the Fourth Amendment (see this article). So the usual suspects who are throwing fits of hysteria need to chill a bit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)