More Blogrollin'

Salute to the Western Confucian, as he does it again: I sincerely hope that each and every law enforcement officer and member of the armed forces would take this oath, and defend these principles.

Needless to say, I'm cross posting this to the Catholic Cavemen and adding them to the blogroll.

A Splendid LOL!

In case I haven't made it clear, LOLSaints has become one of my favorite blogs. This post should make it clear why; to get the joke, pay close attention to the color coding.

Still No Material of My Own

Salute to The Western Confucian

I hope everyone reads this article by Walter E. Williams, and then writes their state legislators, urging them to follow his suggestions. I have been trying to imagine how we could put some teeth into the Ninth and Tenth Amendments for some time. They are vital safeguards of liberty, but our courts have made them dead letters in American jurisprudence for far too long.

Further Blogrollin'

I'm not playing b/c downloading the 3.1.0 Patch to Wrath of the Lich King is a demanding enough from my processor that I'm unwilling to try playing at the same time. As a result, I'm catching up on lots of blogs.

This two-hour video, suggested by the Western Confucian, is something I'd like to see -- IF I could download it via torrent. My family isn't crazy about somebody using all the bandwidth for extended periods of time. If you know where a bit torrent seed can be found, please mention it in the comments.

Kudos to Fr. Longenecker

I want you to go and read this excellent post by Fr. Dwight Longenecker, explaining and defending Christian Patriarchy. It's really long, but the payoff is most certainly worth it.

Kudos to Eegah

EEgah, Inc. has produced a supremely timely post about the culture of death. Who would have thought so lousy a film as Cherry 2000 could be so prescient?

The Best of 2008

Clearly I've been having a dry spell. I won't go into the reasons for it. But I suppose I can once again make my first post of the year, a review of the year that's just past.

Last year didn't have many posts, so I'm not aiming for a top ten list. I'm just going to put up a link list for the best posts, in my own opinion, in reverse chronological order.

The Vital Issue
First Principles
Salvation for ET?
On Serving
The Blegroll
Too Funny To Not Post
Paying to Starve the Poor
Abortion
Spiritual Malaise

And, just because: The Best of 2007

Just Look

This article is taken, lock, stock, and barrel, from Edward Cardinal Egan's column of 23 October, 2008. While I haven't taken the time to get permission from him or Catholic New York Online, I trust they won't mind; if they do, a post in the combox will suffice to get me to cease and desist.

The picture on this page is an untouched photograph of a being that has been within its mother for 20 weeks. Please do me the favor of looking at it carefully.



Have you any doubt that it is a human being?

If you do not have any such doubt, have you any doubt that it is an innocent human being?

If you have no doubt about this either, have you any doubt that the authorities in a civilized society are duty—bound to protect this innocent human being if anyone were to wish to kill it?

If your answer to this last query is negative, that is, if you have no doubt that the authorities in a civilized society would be duty—bound to protect this innocent human being if someone were to wish to kill it, I would suggest—even insist—that there is not a lot more to be said about the issue of abortion in our society. It is wrong, and it cannot—must not—be tolerated.

But you might protest that all of this is too easy. Why, you might inquire, have I not delved into the opinion of philosophers and theologians about the matter? And even worse: Why have I not raised the usual questions about what a "human being" is, what a "person" is, what it means to be "living," and such? People who write books and articles about abortion always concern themselves with these kinds of things. Even the justices of the Supreme Court who gave us "Roe v. Wade" address them. Why do I neglect philosophers and theologians? Why do I not get into defining "human being," "person," "living," and the rest? Because, I respond, I am sound of mind and endowed with a fine set of eyes, into which I do not believe it is well to cast sand. I looked at the photograph, and I have no doubt about what I saw and what are the duties of a civilized society if what I saw is in danger of being killed by someone who wishes to kill it or, if you prefer, someone who "chooses" to kill it. In brief: I looked, and I know what I saw.

But what about the being that has been in its mother for only 15 weeks or only 10? Have you photographs of that too? Yes, I do. However, I hardly think it necessary to show them. For if we agree that the being in the photograph printed on this page is an innocent human being, you have no choice but to admit that it may not be legitimately killed even before 20 weeks unless you can indicate with scientific proof the point in the development of the being before which it was other than an innocent human being and, therefore, available to be legitimately killed. Nor have Aristotle, Aquinas or even the most brilliant embryologists of our era or any other era been able to do so. If there is a time when something less than a human being in a mother morphs into a human being, it is not a time that anyone has ever been able to identify, though many have made guesses. However, guesses are of no help. A man with a shotgun who decides to shoot a being that he believes may be a human being is properly hauled before a judge. And hopefully, the judge in question knows what a "human being" is and what the implications of someone's wishing to kill it are. The word "incarceration" comes to mind.

However, we must not stop here. The matter becomes even clearer and simpler if you obtain from the National Geographic Society two extraordinary DVDs. One is entitled "In the Womb" and illustrates in color and in motion the development of one innocent human being within its mother. The other is entitled "In the Womb—Multiples" and illustrates in color and in motion the development of two innocent human beings—twin boys—within their mother. If you have ever allowed yourself to wonder, for example, what "living" means, these two DVDs will be a great help. The one innocent human being squirms about, waves its arms, sucks its thumb, smiles broadly and even yawns; and the two innocent human beings do all of that and more: They fight each other. One gives his brother a kick, and the other responds with a sock to the jaw. If you can convince yourself that these beings are something other than innocent and living human beings (perhaps "mere clusters of tissues," as one national newsmagazine suggests), you have a problem far more basic than merely not appreciating the wrongness of abortion. And that problem is—forgive me—self—deceit in a most extreme form.

Adolf Hitler convinced himself and his subjects that Jews and homosexuals were other than human beings. Joseph Stalin did the same as regards Cossacks and Russian aristocrats. And this despite the fact that Hitler and his subjects had seen both Jews and homosexuals with their own eyes, and Stalin and his subjects had seen both Cossacks and Russian aristocrats with theirs. Happily, there are few today who would hesitate to condemn in the roundest terms the self—deceit of Hitler, Stalin or even their subjects to the extent that their subjects could have done something to end the madness and protect living, innocent human beings.

It is high time to stop pretending that we do not know what this nation of ours is allowing—and approving—with the killing each year of more than 1,600,000 innocent human beings within their mothers. We know full well that to kill what is clearly seen to be an innocent human being or what cannot be proved to be other than an innocent human being is as wrong as wrong gets. Nor can we honorably cover our shame (1) by appealing to the thoughts of Aristotle or Aquinas on the subject, inasmuch as we are all well aware that their understanding of matters embryological was hopelessly mistaken, (2) by suggesting that "killing" and "choosing to kill" are somehow distinct ethically, morally or criminally, (3) by feigning ignorance of the meaning of "human being," "person," "living," and such, (4) by maintaining that among the acts covered by the right to privacy is the act of killing an innocent human being, and (5) by claiming that the being within the mother is "part" of the mother, so as to sustain the oft—repeated slogan that a mother may kill or authorize the killing of the being within her "because she is free to do as she wishes with her own body."

One day, please God, when the stranglehold on public opinion in the United States has been released by the extremists for whom abortion is the center of their political and moral life, our nation will, in my judgment, look back on what we have been doing to innocent human beings within their mothers as a crime no less heinous than what was approved by the Supreme Court in the "Dred Scott Decision" in the 19th century, and no less heinous than what was perpetrated by Hitler and Stalin in the 20th. There is nothing at all complicated about the utter wrongness of abortion, and making it all seem complicated mitigates that wrongness not at all. On the contrary, it intensifies it.

Do me a favor. Look at the photograph again. Look and decide with honesty and decency what the Lord expects of you and me as the horror of "legalized" abortion continues to erode the honor of our nation. Look, and do not absolve yourself if you refuse to act.


Edward Cardinal Egan

Archbishop of New York

The Vital Issue

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.

We are not yet to that last, here in these United States of America, but an Obama presidency could change that. He could easily sweep aside a doctor's right to refuse to perform abortions or even euthanasia on the basis of conscience by executive order. But have no doubt, we are required at times to help pay for abortions. Never mind that every federal dollar that goes to Planned Parenthood allows them to divert a dollar from a different source to abortion. Check the health care budgets of your state, county, and municipality.

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

First Principles

The election nears. Early voting has been going on for a couple of weeks. I've been interested in politics for over a decade. And I'll admit it, my priorities have changed significantly since the last election.

The first principle of government is that it should protect our rights, particularly to life, liberty and property. I have believed this for over 15 years. I was certain that, in these United States, at least, the right to life was guaranteed and faced no political opposition. So, markets free of taxes, subsidies, guarantees, and regulations were what I was concerned about.

But between that day and this one, one of the Evangelical members of the online political/social disputation community (mentioned in the Obligatory Journey Post) complained about how Catholics worship the Blessed Virgin.

When I see so patently mistaken a position, I feel obligated to refute it. I was generally aware of the bases for the belief that Catholics worship Mary. So I explained that when we say Mary is "full of grace," we are careful to not say she is a source of grace, and that all grace, including hers, comes from God. I described prayer to Mary as a prayer request, and not worship. Then I went to explain her title, "Mother of God."

Let's look at the meaning of the word, "mother."

When a child is conceived of a given woman's oocyte (the technical term for what is often called an "egg cell"), then she is that child's mother. This describes Mary's relationship to Jesus; the Bible says that the Holy Spirit "caused her to conceive," not that it caused conception within her.

When a given woman carries a child through pregnancy and gives birth to that child, then she is that child's mother. In fact, in some jurisdictions, this takes precedence over the genetic relationship. And again, this describes Mary's relationship to Jesus.

When a given woman rears a child to adulthood, we often regard her as a surrogate mother or mother figure, regardless of whether the child is naturally hers or not. Again, this describes Mary's relationship to Jesus.

So, we should be able to agree that genetically, biologically, physiologically, and socially, Mary was Jesus' mother. Now, was there any part of the Incarnation for which Jesus was not God?

I knew that would shut him up. You cannot deny Christ's full and complete Godhood without denying salvation through Him.

It was probably the most important post I ever made there, because immediately after posing that question for my evangelical friend, another came to me: "Was there any part of the Incarnation for which Jesus was not human?"

You cannot deny Jesus' complete and full humanity without denying salvation through Him. And I could no longer regard abortion as merely a tragedy, but as a grave evil -- the intentional slaying of a human person.

If Jesus became human when He became a zygote, then so too did we. So too did all the zygotes put in freezers by IVF doctors. So too do all the zygotes to be cloned and sold like pork bellies for obscene profits and butchered in embryonic stem cell research so that we can grow tumors in lab rats and mice. So too are all the blastulae dumped out onto tampons and sanitary pads by the birth control pills that make it impossible for them to implant in the uterine endometrium. So too are all the embryoes poisoned and ejected by pharmaceutical abortafaecients, and those vacuumed out by curettage. So too are the foetuses ripped apart by D&E, and those that were stabbed in the head so that their brains could be vacuumed out, and the one shot to death in utero less than a month before it was due by its own mother.

I still say that the only reason that we should have government is that we may help each other secure our rights to life, liberty, and property. But of these, life alone cannot be restored once it is taken. This is why a government which does not act to secure the rights of us all -- born or unborn, in good health or terminally ill -- is not and can not be a legitimate government.

The End of Feminism

This post, on Catholic Exchange, is just chock full of interesting insights. The author, Genevieve Kineke, makes this point:

The National Organisation for Women (NOW) has tipped its hand in this debate since the success of Sarah Palin in the national arena. Truly, she seems to have embodied their long-standing mission statement, “Our purpose is to take action to bring women into full participation in society-sharing equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities with men, while living free from discrimination” This ripe claim worked as long as Hillary Clinton was in her ascendancy, but the reality of applying it to the Republican vice presidential nominee rankled NOW to its core, and their keyboards must have overheated.

The result was a hot new mission statement, parading down the feminist runway: “NOW works to end discrimination and harassment in the workplace, schools, the justice system, and all other sectors of society, secure abortion, birth control and reproductive rights for all women.” This new creation — wobbling on shaky syntax and wrapped in a hasty cobbling of goals — nevertheless reveals the feminist view of men, who discriminate, impregnate and otherwise harass women as a matter of course.

In other words, modern feminism is not so much about freeing women as it is about hating men. Nor is she alone in this observation. Rush Limbaugh has been saying so for years. But I have to say that where he goes with this -- ridicule and mocking -- is counterproductive. Those women who hate men do so because they have been grievously hurt by them, and what they need is authentic Christian love.

Voting For Catholics

The USCCB has finally made it clear how a faithful Catholic decides where to cast his vote. One starts with these five issues:

abortion
euthanasia
embryonic stem cell research
human cloning
homosexualism

A Catholic is going to vote for the candidate who opposes all of these. If there is no such candidate, you vote for the one who will do the least harm on as many of these issues as possible. Only when there is no difference between the candidates on these five issues do you choose on the basis of ANY other issue.

It isn't rocket science, people. Read your candidates' websites and campaign literature. See who NARAL and HLI endorse.

Sacraments

My view of the Rite of Reconciliation and the Blessed Sacrament is inverted from what I so often see practiced. I am eager to make use of the confessional and approach the Eucharist with fear and trembling.

The Divine Mercy is what most strongly shapes my attitude towards confession. If I am repentant, I will be forgiven, and my penance will be a means by which I can gain greater holiness and avoid further sin. I am always grateful for the unburdening of my soul.

The Blessed Sacrament is my Lord and my God! What person of sense does not approach the Almighty with fear and trembling? If I have any doubts that I might receive unworthily, then I will take a blessing and avoid eating and drinking judgement upon myself. It shocks me that Senators John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, and Speaker Pelosi, can sin so grievously for so many years and still claim to be in communion with Him and His Church. I fear and pray for their souls, and all those like them.

Plans and Suffering

God has a plan. Sometimes, His plan is to let us fail. It accounts for those who choose spiritual wilderness and even damnation, though such is not His desire. He just loves us too much to impose His will upon us without our consent.

It was a Protestant preacher I first heard this from (I paraphrase): "The tool with which God shapes us into what He wants us to be is suffering." Look at those who are most thoroughly aware of God's blessings. They have gained that awareness through suffering. I certainly wouldn't be thankful for all the wonderful things in my life if my dad hadn't thrown me out of his house.

Lois McMaster Bujold is one of my favorite writers. This wisdom she put in the mouth of one of her characters (again, I have to paraphrase): "A test is a gift. It isn't so important whether you pass or fail. But if you refuse the test, you refuse the gift."

We don't know everything. We don't know why we suffer. But we ought to know our suffering has a purpose and that God's grace, goodness, and mercy are infinite. Remember who the fools and villains are in the book of Job -- the ones who told him things like "You have brought this on yourself" and "Curse God and die."

God knows what we need for our salvation. One of the challenges of a Christian life is to trust Him when it seems so far removed from our own desires.

Liberator Online

From Ask Dr. Ruwart in the Liberator Online

QUESTION: In a libertarian society where everything from housing, to health care, to education, to adoption is privatized, how would the minority population -- namely anyone not white, male, straight, and Christian -- be guaranteed equal rights?

For example, being a lesbian, I am afraid that a Catholic hospital (the only one for miles in my small town) will be allowed to deny me treatment, even for a broken bone, just because I'm gay. Personally, I'm of the opinion that if you can't be a doctor to everyone, maybe you should have chosen a different line of work.

MY SHORT ANSWER: Majority rule, which is more or less what we have now, ultimately translates into legalized minority persecution. For example, prior to the success of the civil rights movement, blacks in the U.S. were forbidden, by law, to marry whites, share facilities, patronize the same businesses, etc.

These laws were passed after the Civil War, precisely because blacks were beginning to marry with whites, share facilities, and patronize the same businesses. A few enlightened whites were demonstrating how all could live together peacefully.

Their example frightened the majority who quickly passed laws mandating discrimination. In a libertarian society, these laws could not have been passed because they forced people -- at gunpoint, if necessary -- to stop voluntarily associating. The only legitimate use of force in a libertarian society is self-defense.

Today, same-sex couples find themselves facing the same laws against intermarriage as blacks and whites once did. In a libertarian society, such laws wouldn't be possible. Marriage would be a private contract between two willing individuals who could set the terms to suit themselves.

Your concern, a legitimate one, is that some service providers -- for example, doctors or hospitals affiliated with some religious denominations -- might refuse to treat gay people in a libertarian society. Sadly, they might, even though Christ regularly healed those who did not live by society's norms and were therefore called "sinners."

However, in a libertarian society, we wouldn't have today's morass of medical regulations which limit the number of health care practitioners and facilities. Instead of a single hospital in your neighborhood, you'd likely have more and better facilities to choose from. Most would probably do their best to help anyone who walked through their doors.

Prejudice doesn't end by legal decree. Indeed, people become more resentful towards groups that they are forced to tolerate, associate with, or treat. Consequently, laws which seem to protect minorities often harm them instead.

You suggest that perhaps a doctor who won't treat everyone shouldn't be a doctor. But legalizing that opinion opens the door to legalizing others -- such as "if you aren't marrying to procreate, you shouldn't be allowed to wed." Where would that leave the gay community?

We want freedom of choice, but we don't want others to have it. We can only have freedom if we are willing to give it to others. Ironically, when we honor our neighbors' choices, they are much more likely to honor ours.

Dr. Ruwart, prudently, declines to suggest which religious denominations would require the hospitals affiliated with them to refuse treatment on the basis of same-sex attraction. Not me. I would expect this from Wahhabi Muslims.

Catholic hospitals exist to care for the sick. This is an act of corporal mercy which the Church expects all believers to extend to all who might obtain salvation -- which certainly includes the entire GLBT community. How could we expect to bring this woman to the light of Christ if we do not exemplify His love?

Now, if she wanted a Catholic hospital in a libertarian society to hire her, or provide her with any sort of reproductive therapy outside of a natural marriage, then she would should expect be disappointed. In a libertarian society, nobody would be trying to prevent Catholics from being Catholic.

Dr. Ruwart also declines to comment on the public-good aspect of natural marriage. There is significant public good in children growing up in a natural family, all of them with the same mother and father (and only one of each), all living together. Because this IS a public good, it ought to be encouraged, even by the State. The same cannot be said of any other family structure.

Population Control

Population control and eugenics are inseparable. They are two sides of the same coin. If you want to breed people like sheep, you must be able to control who reproduces and who does not. If you wish to limit population growth, somebody must decide who breeds and who doesn't. There is no escaping the truth of these statements. You can try to hide their truth, but they remain true and their truth will describe what is actually done when anyone seeks to implement population control and eugenics, regardless of which of the two goals actually motivates them.

Margaret Sanger and Adolph Hitler both sought eugenics. (See The Truth About Margaret Sanger.) Hitler sought to use guns to eliminate those he didn't think should breed. Margaret Sanger preferred the Big Lie to convince them not to breed, and to get them to pay her and Planned Parenthood to keep them from so doing. Otherwise, their evils are comparable.

"The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics."
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood

Stone Soup

While reading sinfest, I ran across a google ad link to the Stone Soup Unitarian Universalism blog. If I've ever seen a better simile for Unitarian Universalism than stone soup, I can't remember when. Basically, it's about starting with nothing of your own, accepting whatever other have that seems good to you, and just adding to the mix until you like what you've got.

But it's not Christianity. It completely ignores St. Paul's commandment to "Test everything, [and] hold on to the good." (1 Th 5:21)

God has not left us on our own. As I've said before, God has made sure we have continuing guidance from Him.

Salvation for ET?

Sr. Mary Martha has her own post on this. The ruminations it spawned are just waaay to big for her combox, so instead I'm posting a link to this, once I have it up.

EDIT: If you prefer my take on this to John C. Wright's, what's wrong with you?

Being the devotee of science fiction that I am, I've given thought as to whether aliens would have human rights. The reason humans have rights is that we are made in the image and likeness of God. At least one SF author suggested this means humanoid form (i.e., bipedal, two upper limbs for manipulation, binocular vision, etc), but I don't buy that, because God, both as Father and Spirit, has no form whatsoever. So what does "image and likeness of God" mean?

Well, what are the most significant things we have in common with God?

God is Love. By this, I mean that He wills and seeks the greatest possible good for His beloved. We love in this manner also, and it's considered a very serious defect when a human is not able to love. So aliens, to have human rights, ought to be able to love, and hopefully they normally would love.

God is creative. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Certainly we echo this aspect of His being, and create things all the time. It is this particular lack that convinces me that cetacea are not human, and don't have human rights: they do not create.

And finally, God is rational. He never contradicts Himself. Reason is a means of learning the truth, and it is a gift from God. Far too much of our doctrine is arrived at by reason for us to discard it as not from Him. An alien race not able to use reason would not have human rights. I think that this would include language; if you can't communicate, or think symbolically, I don't think you can reason.

The next question that any Christian would have to ask once he discovered another race made in the image and likeness of God would be, "Do they need salvation?"

Do they sin? We misused our freedom to disobey God, and are still suffering the consequences. They might have never made such a mistake, and might even avoid following our example once they meet us.

If they do sin, has God have provided a savior for them? Or, was Jesus' sacrifice enough for only Earth, or for all of Creation? The former suggests its insufficiency; the latter imposes some really intense problems in travel and communications technology for us to overcome. Both do sort of suggest that the entire universe does exist for us. THAT is reason for some profound gratitude, as God had no need for us or any of the rest of it. It is not waste, however; God has no limits on His resources, after all. He could have even made the infinite multiverses that atheists propose entirely without any evidence beyond the need for more time for a universe so improbable as to support human life to arise.

Regardless, it's only a matter for idle speculation until such time as we meet such extraterrestrials -- if we ever do.

The Art of Manliness

I just discovered the Art of Manliness; salute goes to Jay Anderson of Pro Ecclesia. I have barely scratched its surface and already added it to my blogroll and bookmarks. It is a delightful antidote to the sort of PC stupidity that is currently held up as better than manliness, as well as the immature oafishness exemplified by the pornographic culture. Even more so than Waiter Rant or Ask Sister Mary Martha, I am motivated to read everything posted there. It's that good; everything about manliness I hope to promote by my (occasional) focus on heroism is promoted in nearly every aspect of life there. And it is my guess that the vast majority of women would love to have the sort of man that the good men at the Art of Manliness hope to help us become.

Cognitive Dissonance in the Black Community

Which is worse: this, or this? Which gets more attention? Which gets more media play? Which is the huge concern of the Democratic Party? Why do all those portrayed as friends and political allies of the Black community worry so much more about the former than the latter? And why does the Black community let them get away with it?