I Was Wrong

 A fair while back, I did my best to reassure any rad-trad readers and others who love the Traditional Latin Mass that there was no reason to fear Pope Francis was going to be hostile to the liturgy they loved.

Clearly, I was wrong. See here.  I apologize.  Traditionis Custondes is surprisingly contrary to subsidiarity, further limiting the liberty of priests, and expanding the authority of bishops.  But I still say we should pray, hope, and don't worry, and that we should be open to how the Spirit will use Pope Francis.

And yes, I am going over my blog today.

The Vital Issue, Redux III

 This issue becomes more important with every election, especially in the United States post-Dobbs.  I've published this post twice before, here and here, but as it's fallen off the front page, and it's an election year, I think it's time to post it again.

The foremost issue in every election is this: should the strong kill the weak?

I say, NO. I say that our government should always prohibit the strong from killing the weak. If the government fails to protect the lives of ANYONE within its jurisdiction, it has failed us all. It has diminished our humanity. If the government draws a line to separate one group, which can be killed legally, from the rest, then be assured that the government can move that line at any time, to include any other group in the list of who can be killed, for any reason or no reason at all.

It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they are brawnier than their victims, the strong should not kill the weak.

It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they are angrier than their victims, the strong should not kill the weak.

It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they have better weapons than their victims, the strong should not kill the weak.

It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they outnumber their victims, the strong should not kill the weak.

It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they have more money than their victims, the strong should not kill the weak.

It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they have more votes than their victims, the strong should not kill the weak.

It doesn't matter if the killers are of the preferred race and their victims are not, the strong should not kill the weak.

It doesn't matter if the killers are given legal privileges that their victims are not, the strong should not kill the weak.

It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they are healthy and their victims are not, the strong should not kill the weak.

It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they are legally competent and their victims are not, the strong should not kill the weak.

It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they are photogenic and their victims are not, the strong should not kill the weak.

It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they have no genetic or developmental abnormalities and their victims do, the strong should not kill the weak.

It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they have been born and their victims have not, the strong should not kill the weak.

Believe it or not, this is NOT a settled question at this time. In the previous century, numerous governments have adopted a variety of positions on the issue.

All governments have prohibited the strong from killing the weak in SOME cases. But that is not the full story.

Some governments have prohibited the strong from killing the weak in all cases.

Some governments have sometimes merely inhibited the strong from killing the weak.

Some governments have sometimes permitted the strong to kill the weak.

Some governments have sometimes aided the strong in killing the weak.

And some governments have actually REQUIRED the strong to kill the weak.

If you think the last ended with the fall of the Third Reich and the liberation of their death and concentration camps, you are in error.  Both Stalin and Mao demanded that their political opponents be slain; in Mao's case, by their neighbors when enforcing the One Child Policy. 

You can escape that lowest tier here in the US if you're very careful to delve deeply into the coverage provided by your healthcare insurance company, and you have enough money to opt out.  Regardless of whether your plan covers abortion, if any of the plans offered by your insurer do, you are contributing to that coverage.  And certainly if your state's Medicaid coverage includes abortion, then your state government is helping the strong kill the weak.  This is why local elections areas or more important than national elections.

And when you vote, remember that the most important issue is whether your governments will prevent the strong from killing the weak.

The Gods of the Copybook Headings

 Ludwig von Mises once said, "Rulers do not like to admit that their power is restricted by any laws other than those of physics and biology. They never ascribe their failures and frustrations to the violation of economic law."  My entire series, "Supply, Demand, and Price" is a catalog of sad examples of our rulers creating failures and tragedies by ignoring the laws of economics.

Unfortunately, these days our rulers are no longer content with pretending that only the laws of economics are subject to their control and revision.  They are trying to make the laws of biology subject to their will, as well.  And, like ignoring laws of physics and economics, this leads to tragedy and disaster.

Copybooks were the manuals used to teach children writing.  Back when Kipling wrote the poem referenced in my title, the exercises were basic moral doctrines.  

Should the strong kill the weak?

I've discussed this issue before. 

The foremost issue in every election is this: should the strong kill the weak?

I say, NO. I say that our government should always prohibit the strong from killing the weak. If the government fails to protect the lives of ANYONE within its jurisdiction, it has failed us all. It has diminished our humanity. If the government draws a line to separate one group, which can be killed legally, from the rest, then be assured that the government can move that line at any time, to include any other group in the list of who can be killed, for any reason or no reason at all.

It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they are brawnier than their victims, the strong should not kill the weak.

It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they are angrier than their victims, the strong should not kill the weak.

It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they have better weapons than their victims, the strong should not kill the weak.

It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they outnumber their victims, the strong should not kill the weak.

It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they have more money than their victims, the strong should not kill the weak.

It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they have more votes than their victims, the strong should not kill the weak.

It doesn't matter if the killers are of the preferred race and their victims are not, the strong should not kill the weak.

It doesn't matter if the killers are given legal privileges that their victims are not, the strong should not kill the weak.

It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they are healthy and their victims are not, the strong should not kill the weak.

It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they are legally competent and their victims are not, the strong should not kill the weak.

It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they are photogenic and their victims are not, the strong should not kill the weak.

It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they have no genetic or developmental abnormalities and their victims do, the strong should not kill the weak.

It doesn't matter if the killers are strong because they have been born and their victims have not, the strong should not kill the weak.

Believe it or not, this is NOT a settled question at this time. In the previous century, numerous governments have adopted a variety of positions on the issue.

All governments have prohibited the strong from killing the weak in SOME cases. But that is not the full story.

Some governments have prohibited the strong from killing the weak in all cases.

Some governments have sometimes merely inhibited the strong from killing the weak.

Some governments have sometimes permitted the strong to kill the weak.

Some governments have sometimes aided the strong in killing the weak.

And some governments have actually REQUIRED the strong to kill the weak.

If you think the last ended with the fall of the Third Reich and the liberation of their death and concentration camps, you are in error.  Both Stalin and Mao demanded that their political opponents be slain; in Mao's case, by their neighbors when enforcing the One Child Policy. 

You can escape that lowest tier here in the US if you're very careful to delve deeply into the coverage provided by your healthcare insurance company, and you have enough money to opt out.  Regardless of whether your plan covers abortion, if any of the plans offered by your insurer do, you are contributing to that coverage.  And certainly if your state's Medicaid coverage includes abortion, then your state government is helping the strong kill the weak.  This is why local elections areas or more important than national elections.

And when you vote, remember that the most important issue is whether your governments will prevent the strong from killing the weak.

the Doom of DOMA

I could have put this post up at Capes 'n' Babes, but that's not what Chris Flick's website is for, and he'd have every reason and right not to post it. He has the site mainly to sell his artwork, and my countercultural Catholic argumentation could reasonably alienate his customers. I couldn't wish that on him. I'm going to ask my two readers not to go and gunk up his site with a flamewar, either.

But as to why that's not good, I think we could learn from the lesson of Chesterton's Gate -- the idea that, before we go to reform an institution, we ought to understand why it is the way it is. I don't think gay marriage advocates have any understanding of why marriage was the way it was. Nor have they found or built any structures to do what marriage was originally meant to do.

The function of marriage has historically been to protect the children which are its natural result. It provides them with a bond with their father, and a incentives for him to protect them. If your spouse dies, then finding and marrying a replacement can be better for your children than staying a widow/er, which is why it's reasonable to allow people to remarry after the death of a spouse. Even if a woman has aged to menopause, it's easy to see how her entering marriage can be good for any children involved.

The giant blows against marriage were contraception and divorce. Divorce especially does grave harm to children, and remarriage is very hard on them, probably far harder than in cases of widowing. Much worse is when Mom just shacks up after divorcing Dad. Children are at greatest risk of sexual assault from mom's live-in boyfriend.

Homosexual marriage does not naturally result in children. Its advocates, like those for divorce and contraception, seem to either not consider the harm that their pet project does to children (which would include being in denial about it), or may actually hate children. Their arguments against these concerns vary from "What could it hurt?" to "Shut up."

I really don't think the SCOTUS considered these things when they struck down DOMA. I think there's compelling government interest in protecting marriage -- doing so gives children the best chance going forward that they can have. In addition to affirming DOMA, they could consider doing away with contraception (which promotes infidelity, which is ALSO very bad for the children) and divorce (which is the result of contraception, and even worse for children). They are far more important than the easy access to the benefits of marriage for gays (and to which they have alternative means of access).

Blogrollin' #109 (I checked)

I found Charming Disarray's traditionalist post on Papa Francis through Pentimento. The great bit is at the end:

But I will say that if we have a pope who will demonstrate through example that appearance matters less than internal disposition, then it stikes me that that is exactly what our current image-obsessed culture needs. And people think God doesn't know what He's doing.

I'm not a traddie myself. I have sympathy for them, and I think they're doing good things for the Church -- the liturgy IS important. I also think that while the Extraordinary Form probably isn't important to Papa Francis the way it is to Papa Ben, he has no history of hostility towards it, and I don't see any reason why he'd approve of any either. I offer the concerned traditionalists some advice from St. Padre Pio: "Pray, hope, and don't worry. Worry is useless. God is merciful and will hear your prayer." And from myself: be open to how the Spirit will use Papa Francis.

Blogrollin'...and TERRORISM!!

Well, it would appear that my government may well regard me as a terrorist. (Salute to the Pittsford Perennialist for the link.) I have strong political views, I dissent from the policies of the regime, and there are those who may find me intimidating. We've come a long way from the original usage of the word, which was the means the Revolutionary French government of the 18th century tried to intimidate its people into complete and utter submission.

Vive l'Eglise! Vive la Justice! Vive la Liberté!

Lifeteen Has Some Awesome Stuff

For example, Why You Should Care About Religious Freedom

Fr. Mike trots out the Jewish Deli analogy, which I find to be a tad weak, but he also mentions that fully 1/6 of all hospitalized persons are treated in Catholic hospitals. And the HHS mandate will shut them down.

I suspect that they'll be seized shortly thereafter, or perhaps before; it wouldn't be too much of a legal stretch for Eric Holder's Justice Department to say that failure to provide contraceptives makes the hospital building and property complicit in crime, so that they can be sued (as in, Department of Justice v. 100 McGregor Street, Manchester, which happens to be the address of the Catholic Medical Center). While I have not written extensively about civil asset forfeiture on this blog, it's definitely on my mind from time to time, and ranks as one of the more naked forms of plunder by law practiced today.

Here's another: Gay, Catholic, and Doing Fine

And a third, which is truly excellent: What the Confessional is Like for a Priest

Right now, every page on Lifeteen redirects to a fundraising appeal page. If those redirects are still in effect when you get there, hit Alt-left arrow or the back button on your browser to get back to the pages I'm linking to.

A pithy quote

Salute to the Creative Minority Report Reader.  From USA Today:

In essence, the Obama administration's message to these Catholics, despite a cosmetic compromise, is akin to telling Austin's bohemians that they can dress like hipsters on the weekends so long as they behave like corporate shills Monday through Friday. 

I think this is one of the best encapsulations of what's being done to us with the HHS Mandate. Only, we're not being asked to sell out our beliefs, man, but to betray our God and Creator. 

Assembly Not Required

Salute to Mark Shea.

Behold the People's Rights Amendment:

Section 1.  We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.

Section 2.  People, person, or persons as used in this Constitution does not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected state and federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.

Section 3.  Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people's rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, and such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.

Did any of you notice what was missing from Section 3?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  Source

Most forms of "peaceable assembly" are corporations.  What this amendment allows the government to do is to presume that once you're standing with others in any sort of legally organized body or structure (other than government, itself), you do not have the rights of people.  Here's the article.

The Top 10, Plus Truth

Behold! The Top 10 Arguments For the Mandate, Refuted By Truth!
Salute to Frank Weathers of YIMCatholic, who consistently writes better stuff than I do.

EDIT: More truth,from The Crescat: Sex Is Not a Medical Emergency! Salute to Thomas L. McDonald of God and the Machine at Patheos.

A piece of truth

Salute to Mark Shea, the Anchoress, Frank Weathers of yimcatholic at patheos, etc. etc. etc.

Sign Frank's Petition!

Frank Weathers, of YIMCatholic at Patheos, has created a petition to ask that the vile HHS mandate to require Catholic institutions to directly fund gravely evil acts in contradiction of religious liberty. Go and sign. Yes, you have to create an account. Be not afraid!!

Petition page here

Incidentally, Frank has yet another one of those Catholic blogs far superior to mine.

Dolan's Jan 25 op-ed

I searched around the internets, and found Abp. Dolan's Jan 25 WSJ op-ed, without hacking my way through the Wall Street Journal's paywall. Go and read it.

One thing he points out, which far too many people neglect or allow themselves to disregard, is this:

The rule forces insurance companies to provide these services without a co-pay, suggesting they are “free”—but it is naïve to believe that. There is no free lunch, and you can be sure there’s no free abortion, sterilization or contraception. There will be a source of funding: you.

There is no free lunch, anywhere. Somebody always pays for whatever you may be given. In far too many cases, it is you, in ways you will not be able to see.