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?

On Serving (because it's annoying me)

I've been reading Waiter Rant, a blog written by an anonymous fine dining waiter in New York. He's an excellent writer, if regularly more spicy with the language than is family-friendly. It's easiest to start at the beginning and click forward through his 430+ posts one at a time.

Part of the reason I enjoy the blog so much is that the Waiter is a very good writer. But part of it is also because I can relate. I waited tables for a half-dozen or so years. And as a result of reading all that the Waiter had to say, bunches of things have been burbling through my mind while I'm at work, relating to a job I haven't held for six or seven years.

Working for Tips:

I'm of the opinion that those service professionals who work for tips prefer it to a fixed wage. I certainly did. I wasn't a fabulous waiter, but I was fairly good and I did enjoy it. There is satisfaction in knowing you are helping others have a better time, in knowing you are doing a good job, in being a sales professional, and in knowing you have earned the money you've made.

The whole point of working for tips is this: it gives the service pro a direct and powerful incentive to put his patron's wishes first. This is good business sense for both the server and the owners. Any business does best by developing continuing relationships with loyal customers. Such relationships are made by providing good service and good products. Putting the server's compensation directly in the hands of those they serve makes it far more likely that the server will seek to provide good service.

The reason that good service deserves a 20% tip in fine dining restaurants is that the server is required to tip the barkeep and the bussers, and sometimes the hostess and the cooks, for at least 5% of his sales, regardless of what you leave for him. I worked in family restaurants with no bars, so for me that wasn't an issue and 15% was regarded as a solid tip, but in many other places that's not how it will be.

Evangelizing servers:

I have a deep Christian faith, and I laud anyone who is trying to win souls for Christ. I have never, ever seen a tract left for the server do so. I understand your mindset; what could be better for your server than salvation and resting eternally in the Beatific Vision? But it fails because you are leaving two witnesses, which are contradictory.

On the one hand, the tract tells the server, "I love you and want the most wonderful of things to happen for you!" Yet every tract I've ever seen left for a server has always come with either a stingy tip or no tip at all. And so the witness of the tract is contradicted by the witness of the tip.

With a stingy tip, you tell your server these things:

• I do not value your work, no matter how sasisfying you find it to help people enjoy the blessings of God's creation.
  
• I do not value your service, no matter what Jesus said about how his followers should become servants.
  
• I do not value you, either.
  
• It is stinginess that is next to Godliness, not generousity.
  

With that witness, you give scandal. You lead your server to the sin of holding Christ and His followers in contempt. You give your server reason to think that Christians are all sanctimonious hypocrites who can mouth prayers one minute, treat others badly the next, and never feel a twinge of conscience. You convince him that Christians are not known by their love. I do not know a single service professional who would not rather serve a generous pimp than a stingy preacher.

Sometimes, the tract is printed to resemble a large, folded bill. That is infuriating enough, but such tracts nearly always chide the server for wanting money, as if the worker was not worthy of his wage! It adds insult to injury.

If you truly wish to have the witness of your tract bear fruit, make sure that your generousity to those not saved shows in your tip.

Advice to Servers:

You're actually a sales professional. As such, it behooves you to not antagonize those whom you depend upon to provide your product and serve your patrons. This particularly includes everyone in the back of the house.

One thing you can do to reduce friction is to remember this: if your patron asks, all annoyed, "Why is it taking so long?", they do not care why their food is taking so long. What they really want to know, and what you should ask the cook, is this: "Table X wants to know, how long for their food?" With that information, you can tell your table what they really want to know, which is when they will eat. Patrons get be much less stressed when you calmly tell them, "We are having some difficulties in the kitchen, and I am sorry, but you should have your food in X minutes."

I would help the cooks any way I could if they were in trouble.

I avoided cussing. There was a cook I worked with, and he used foul language like punctuation in ordinary conversation, and most of us couldn't tell when the cussing went from punctuation to expressions of frustration. On the other hand, I had merely to snarl, "Dog's blood!" and two or three of my coworkers asked me what help I needed.

Finally, a sales professional gets wealthy by developing and cutlivating a regular clientele. Your goal is to wow your customers with such fabulous service that they return often, ask for your section, and tip heavily each and every time. Some customers will never be generous, no matter how good you are. As long as they aren't making things bad for other patrons, consider being as good to them as you can, as an expression of Christian charity or an act of penance.

Testing for God

Jennifer F. has been taking part in a series of interviews on The Cynical Christian. In the second interview, she laments the lack of logical proofs used to evangelize atheists, but also says that she doesn't think that there is much anyone can say to convince an atheist. In this post she speaks more about effective witness, and how it is more important to live a life of charity than to marshal effective arguments.

I would say, rather, that no argument from reason will be convincing if not made with love. But if your heart and life are conformed to Christ, you might suggest one of the Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To, in this case, "God, Prove to me that you exist."

Here is how I think it ought to be set up: "You're a person of reason, right? So among other things, you have to admit that you don't know everything and could be wrong, and you want to know the truth, no matter what it is, right? You've asked me to prove God's existence to you, and you're right, that I can't. But God can.

"Well, let's presume that the God that the Catholic Church proclaims is real. That is, He loves us all without limit or exception, knows everything, can do whatever He wants, and made us to know Him as well as we are able, and love Him as much as we can. Now, if all of those things are true, you can test for His existence.

"Silently, within the vaults of your mind, say to Him, 'God, I've heard the claims that the Catholic Church has made about you, and I don't believe it. It's utterly ridiculous. Prove to me that I am wrong.'

"Now, if He does not do this for an honest seeker of the truth, it means one or more of the following things:

• He doesn't care.
• He doesn't know.
• He can't prove it.
• He doesn't exist.
• Or, the seeker doesn't really want Him to prove His existence to you.

"If you have been proclaiming with complete certainty God's non-existence for years, my money would be on the last one. See, to be sincere in such a request, you would have to overcome years of certainty of non-existance and approach the test with the expectation that you could be wrong. And if He loves you without limit, that means He would not compel you to believe without your consent. Further, if He is omniscient and omnipotent, there's no reason to think that He would provide you with a proof to convince everyone, but rather only you. It's not like doing so would be a strain on His resources, and He ought to provide you with a proof that cannot be used to compel belief in others."

If this test would be convincing, it would be from God's work, and not my own.

Because It's Annoying Me

A short and random list of television shows I just can't wait to miss.

• Nip/Tuck
• Rescue Me
• Dirt
• Dexter
• It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia
• The Jerry Springer Show
• Weeds
• The Tudors
• Queer As Folk
  
• The Shield

How about that ... I think I've included every single F/X Original Series I know of.

I would like to miss Charmed, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, and Smallville a lot more than I do, but I rarely get to choose what is on the telly. If I did, it would nearly always be "Nothing."

The Blegroll!

Many of you may be familiar with the term, "blegging," which refers to the practice of putting a paypal donation button on one's blog. It's generally regarded as something like a busker putting out a bowl or leaving open his instrument case so that appreciative passers-by can leave tips.

I have avoided the practice. I write this blog with the intention of educating people and converting them to my opinions. I've already made my material public domain, with no effort to protect it in any way (see the sidebar piece labeled "Licensing and Attribution"). Blegging has always seemed a bit too much like self-promotion.

Anyway, my talents and skills are by God's grace, and for God's service. While I may be poor by US standards, I want for little if anything. On the other hand, my conscience has been nagging me for years about tithing. Certainly I am not able to help all the causes, missions, apostolates, and so forth that I think are deserving of money.

But I can encourage you to do so. Hence, the Blegroll, which shall be a series of links (using images if I can find them) for any worthy causes which come to my attention. Please give generously!

edit: If you know of anyone else who deserves our money, is a good steward, and will use it for God's work, let me know in the comments.

Regarding Art

Jennifer F. has written yet another fabulous post; this one regards the purpose of art and the nature that it has when its form follows its true function. Read and enjoy!

Up the Revolution!

Today is Tax Day, the day most likely to spark a new American revolution. I shall be brief: the difference between taxes and extortion is this: one involves being threatened by armed men when you don't give up your money. The other is illegal.

Check out Tom Purcell's tax day column!

International Treaties

Once upon a time, I wrote an essay conveying my concerns about how treaties that give legislative authority to extranational bodies were a grave threat to our sovreignity; the Constitution makes a ratified treaty superior to all other laws of the land. I had fretted that this could authorize the UN (or worse, a committee of appointees) power to legislate for us, and supersede our government in so doing. I had imagined that we needed a constitutional amendment to require ratification of every act of a body given authority over us by treaty. Fortunately, I was wrong. Today on Catholic Exchange, I found this:

As the treaty provision at issue was not "self-executing" — in other words, it did not become automatically binding upon ratification by Congress — it could not bind states without further Congressional action. The U.S. Constitution requires action by the legislative, not the executive, branch to transform a non-self-executing treaty obligation into domestic law.

Mafia Discourse and the Church Militant

This post is going to ramble. Once again, I've seen a number of things online that just seem to tie together.

This article was on the front page of Catholic Exchange today; in it, Dr. Stanley Williams takes Sean Hannity to task for his use of what Eric Scheske once called "mafia discourse tactics" (and on Fr. Thomas Eutener, at that)! It seems to me that all too often, such tactics are used to avoid the truth.

Then I found a link to this post by Adoro te Devote. She goes on at length about what it means to be a confirmed Catholic -- it means we've volunteered to be part of the Church Militant, to go into spiritual and rhetorical battle to defend and promote the Faith. But she also expounds on the way we are to do this: with caritas. St Paul tells us that without caritas, all other gifts of the Spirit are nothing.

I don't mean to suggest that there is no place for all-out warfare. There are cases where our opponents clearly intend nothing less than our complete destruction, and doing whatever it takes to stop them is called for by the Church. (The Caveman makes the case for executions here, and provides an example of when warfare is so justified.) But such cases are rare. I think the Church is better served by initially giving others the benefit of the doubt, and not presuming hostility before it has been demonstrated.

More blogrollin'

Catholic Analysis has just joined both my personal blogroll and my recommended blogs, on the strength of this post. In truth, what gets me is not the point that Mr. Sorbino is trying to make (which is valid, in my opinion), but the strength and versatility of the image he uses to make it.

It's a very blunt image, and he makes apologies beforehand to the squeamish. This seems prudent to me, by the way; as I am about to use this image,

I suggest strongly that the squeamish stop reading.

The point Mr. Sorbino is making is that contracepted sex does not consummate a marriage. But the image he uses is this: a woman using contraception turns herself into a condom: a disposable thing which, once used for pleasure, becomes a piece of waste. So too do all who engage in sterile sex.

Try to Not Faint

Yes, unprecedented output from yours truly: three posts in one day. I've selected a new template, as you can no doubt see. There's just ONE problem: in too many places, type is rendered in ALL CAPS. That is just really annoying to me, and I can't figure out what to change to fix it. Any help in this matter would be most appreciated. Post it to the comment box or email me: arkanabar at lycos dot com (be sure to put "your site" in the subject of the email so I can tell it isn't spam.)

Too Funny to Not Post

So the Whapsters have posted a bunch of Catholic-specific two cows jokes. I've compiled them here, along with those from their comment box. I was laughing myself silly, reading these.

Franciscan: You have two cows. Moved by the beauty of sister cow, you unleash them. Your ensuing lack of milk allows you to glory in the poverty of Christ.

Capuchins: You have the two cows unleashed by the Franciscans. Your proprietorship of the cows proves that you are closer to the spirit of St. Francis. You put long hoods on your cows.

Franciscan Friars of the Renewal: You have two cows. They are grey, more like the cows St. Francis owned. You write a rap somehow rhyming "lactation" with "transubstantiation." It's cool.

Carmelite: By concession of Pope Innocent IV, you have two cows. You don’t eat them between Sept. 14 and Easter.

Discalced Carmelite: You have two cows. You feed them by arduously dragging hay to their trough, but then you deliver it by truck. Ultimately, abundant hay falls effortlessly from the sky.

Benedictine: You have two cows. You use one to preserve the art of animal husbandry for all time. You kill the other and make intricate, colored markings on its hide.

Dominican: You have two cows. You feel as if you should share one with the Franciscans, but can’t bring yourself to trust them with it.

Dominican, ver 2: You had two cows. Then you had a good meal. Now you have a new book written on vellum.

I also looked in my Dominican library, and found Aquinas' work:

Summa Taurologica: (De Res)

Article 1: Whether the bovine essence is always expressed as two individuated cows?

Objection one: The Musician often asked for "more cowbell." Yet he does not ever ask for more than one cowbell. Therefore bovinity is expressed in one individuated being.

Objection two: The Announcer argued at every game that there was a "Holy Cow!" This is because cowness is sufficient in itself and does not need multiplicity.

Objection three: The Boy also argues that one should "Not have a cow." We witness again the singularity of bovinity.

Sed contra: The Prophet Amos warns us: "Listen, you fat cows of Bashan!" (Amos 4:1). He argues in the plural, thus speaking to more than one.

I argue that, while bovinity can indeed be expressed in an individuated essence, the true completeness of the bovine is best expressed in two cows: namely, an older cow for milk and all your regular carnivore expressions of butcher cuts, and a young cow for veal. Thus, the perfection of the cow is best expressed in two individuated cows, yet each cow contains the essence of cowness, or the potential for succulence.

Reply to objection one: This is because there was only one musician worthy of the skill of playing the cowbell in the band at any one time. If a trio of skilled cowbell musicians were assembled, we'd have more cowbells.

Reply to objection two: Although the Holy Cow is one, it covers a multiplicity of events on the diamond, from a home run to a triple play, so analogically, we could argue for different cows, expressed equivocally in the word "cow."

Reply to objection three: The Boy is speaking metaphorically.

Cistercian: You have a more extraordinary method of procuring milk.

Carthusian: You should have two cows, but they never made it to the Grand Chartreuse as they kept mixing up the difference between "Cistercian" and "Carthusian."

Carthusian, ver. 2: You have two cows. Each has its own little barn. They moo only on Sundays, between 3.00pm and 5.00pm.

Trappist: You have two cows. You do not appreciate their mooing, yet require their milk to craft high quality fudge. You assign them to a novice.

Society of Jesus: You have two cows, but everyone from Louis XIV to Pastor Luke at 1st Community Baptist believe you control the cattle industry. Admittedly, you founded many farms in the bovine tradition, but struggle with what bovinity means in the 21st century.

The De LaSalle Christian Brothers: You have two cows. You sought them out and adopted them after the Jesuits threw them out of their educational field. Ideally, the cows will realize their milk is a gift from God, and their vocation is to share that milk with others for the common good of society.

Opus Dei: You have two donkeys, and tend to them very carefully. You never admit that you engage in this work, but are delighted to meet other covert donkey owners.

Opus Dei, ver. 2: You have two cows. You put one cow in a barn, the walls of which you decorate with pictures of the cow's father and its other ancestors. You send the other cow on the street and tell it to try to "blend in". The second cow comes back to the barn every week in order to get milked by the first cow.

Communion and Liberation: You have two cows, and bring them to huge annual gatherings. You speak to them only in the present tense.

St. Egidio: You gather two cows together in a very old barn and reflect on Scripture. Other cows begin to come, too. You sell their milk for third world debt relief.

Augustinian: Posthumously, two cows claim you as their owner. One of them burns down the northern half of the barnyard.

Salesian: You have no cows, but work to improve the welfare of calves orphaned by factory farming. You are a visionary when it comes to cattle futures.

Salesian, ver. 2: You have two cows. You teach them to stop swearing and to juggle. In turn, they find more cows, teach them to stop swearing and to juggle, then bring them back to you so you can share the love of Christ with all the cows and their calves.

Priestly Society of St. Peter (FSSP): You have two cows. While acknowledging the legitimacy of modern farming methods, you prefer your own cows to develop organically.

Mercedarian: You had two cows. Long ago they were captured by infidels. They began to convert to avoid being made into shawarma. A ransom consisting of coins and a few novices was sent and the cows came back. Nowadays you teach their descendants.

Society of St. Pius X: You have two cows. You raise them precisely according to USDA standards, c. 1950. One cow denies that the USDA exists and runs off to take care of itself.

CMRI: There have been no true cows since 1958.

Sede vacantist: You have a cow and an ass. You dress the ass as a cow, and proclaim him as the only true cow. You spend the rest of your time insulting your cow.

Knights of Columbus: You have two cows. You teach your cows the secret handshake and they carry prolife sandwich boards at the next march. Later, they will be popular at the annual barbecue.

Norbertine (Premonstratensian, or "White Canon): You have two cows. You and all your confreres refer to them as "kine." You are baffled when other people have no idea what you are talking about.

Neocatechumenal Way - you have two cows that you nurture to a very high degree, then you send them to missionary barns in foreign countries.

Oratorian: You have two cows. You stand them up in a field and tip them over periodically.

Knights Templar: You have two cows. Forward the bovinary!!

Knights of the Garter: You have two cows, of such surpassing beauty, pomp, and elite grace as have never been seen before. All other cows aspire to belong in this herd.

Knights Hospitaler: You have two cows, which are the only source of food for holy pilgrims. Prepare to defend them from the surrounding envious infidels.

Knights of the Swan: You have two cows. They are almost but not quite as beautiful and gracious as those of the Knights of the Garter. They are unfortunately not waterproof...

Usus Antiquior fans: You have a bos taurus. You have two of it. Their barn is facing east. You must light six candles (maybe seven!) when you milk them.

Holy Cross: You have two cows. One of them was recruited by the farms Michigan and Penn State run, but stuck with you because he wanted a high-quality education. The other is planning to go to Uganda after spending a few years at your farm in order to spread the message and spirit of your farm to less fortunate cows.

Congregatio a Sancta Cruce: You see two cows. You work on their footwork and put them on the offensive line.

Legionaries of Christ: You have two cows. You groom them meticulously and feature them in glossy publications to attract more cows to your farm. And don't you say anything bad about the farm's founder.

Catholic Worker: You don't have two cows. And even if you did, you wouldn't consider them yours.

Womenpriests International: You have two bulls. You have a ceremony on a boat and tell everyone that they're really cows now. No milk, but plenty of bull....

"Spirit of Vatican II": You are two cows. One strums a guitar while the other shakes a tambourine. Rearrange the pews.

Death and the Eucharist

From Lifesite News:

[Francis Cardinal] Arinze said that he is regularly asked if a person who votes for abortion can receive Holy Communion. He replies, "Do you really need a cardinal from the Vatican to answer that?

"Get the children for first Communion and say to them, 'Somebody votes for the killing of unborn babies, and says, I voted for that, I will vote for that every time.' And these babies are killed not one or two, but in millions, and that person says, 'I'm a practising Catholic', should that person receive Communion next Sunday? The children will answer that at the drop of a hat. You don't need a cardinal to answer that."

Indeed, it's so obvious that any child can answer it. It takes a self-deluding, self-appointed alternate magisterium, "I am my own personal Pope" type of pride to deny that such a person has abandoned Christ and His teachings.

Paying to Starve the Poor

I've regarded biofuel subsidies as malignant and evil for months, perhaps even a year. Biofuel producers aren't really capable of making a profit, unless they're given half or more of the money they use to buy their corn, and that money is taken from the public treasury. Because it's not their money, they're willing to bid the prices for these things way up. Not only was this driving up the price of tortillas, cornbread, and dog food, but also eggs and dairy products, and to a lesser extent beef and chicken, because those farmers depend on corn to feed their livestock.

But I had no idea, until I read this column by David Warren (whose commentary I highly recommend), just how much misery and evil we were creating. We can look at the food riots in Egypt, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Mexico, and food rationing in Pakistan and China, and proudly proclaim, "This is our tax dollars at work."

Abortion

I can at times get inured to the horror and evil of abortion. And then I'm noodling around on Catholic Exchange, and find a link to Men and Abortion. And right on the front page was this video by Flipsyde:



I wept. The Piper brings home, most poignantly, the loss of fatherhood that comes with an abortion. I thank God I never advocated an abortion to anyone, even when I was too self-blinded to see it for the homicide that it is.

Still, I was reminded of another video that made the rounds of St. Blog's last year.



Mes Aïeux - Dégénération

It was the distinctly pro-life second verse that got people's attention. I had just enough French left over from high school to follow the lyrics in the original with the help of the subtitles. That brought home to me just how weak the translation was. It is highly accurate, but the prose used sucks all the impact out of the original language. It was a crying shame. So, fancying myself a bit of a wordsmith, I created English lyrics for the second verse, based on the French, but not directly translated from it. Don't ask me why, but they work better if a French accent is used.

Your great-great-grandmother, she had fourteen enfants/

Your great-grandmother, she had about the same amount/

Your grandmother had three, and found that sufficient/

Your mother just had you, and you were an accident/

And as for you my girl, you go from man to man/

And when things go wrong, you get an abortion/

Sometimes you wake in tears, and cry until the dawn/

On nights you'd dreamt of home, all full of your children....