Examining the underlying errors of modern(ist) philosophy August 20, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, Christendom, disaster, error, General Catholic, reading, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society, Tradition.
add a comment
I’ve been reading a very good book on philosophy by Edward Feser called The Last Superstition. This book is a defense of Aristotle, Aquinas, and the gloriously whole and valid philosophy/theology known as Scholasticism, against the rank errors of modern philosophy (“modern,” in this sense, being anything since about 1500). Like Christopher Ferrara’s Liberty: The God That Failed, Feser’s book demonstrates not only the massive errors of modernist, and especially endarkenment, philosophy, he also shows that modern philosophy and all its various antecedents; conceptualism, nominalism, rationalism, etc., were all devised with one primary intent in mind: to free man from the “tyranny” of being a creation of the living God, and to put religion in its right place – that is, somewhere between an annoying hobby and a impolitic set of beliefs forbidden in “polite” society. The excerpt is long, I may have to break it into two parts, but here goes, from Chapter 5, Descent of the Modernists, from The Last Superstition:
But it is not only contemporary secularist progressives who regard this traditional [Catholic] worldview with horror; many early modern thinkers did too. Consider that by the time Bacon, Hobbes, Descartes., et. al., were writing, Luther had already greatly extended Ockham’s individualist tendencies in religion and politics, replacing not only ecclesiastical authority but also (what he regarded as) the stifling and unbibilical system of Aristotelian Scholasticism with the primacy of individual conscience. In his defense of divorce, he had (together with Henry VIII) inaugurated a revolution in social mores, undermining one of the traditional bulwarks of the stability of the family. [And we see, by the same inexorable illogic Luther and Henry VIII used, the continuing unraveling of marriage and advance of horrific immorality all around us today. It is a straight line from Luther's politically convenient (and motivated) embrace of divorce, and today's neo-Sodom] John Calvin’s brand of protestantism had replaced the traditional emphasis on the spiritual dangers of wealth and benefits of poverty with a new affirmation of industry, thrift, and acquisition as Christian “virtues.” Intentionally of not, the Reformation thus ushered in a new worldliness the practical results of which – increased wealth and an new sense of individual freedom – led to a desire for more of the same. At the same time, its fragmentation of Christianity into hostile camps and the bloody conflicts that resulted made religion come to be seen as a dangerous source of social unrest; and its pitting of faith and the Bible against reason and philosophy increasingly made religion come to seem rationally unfounded as well. So, while the ancients pursued wisdom and virtue for their own sakes, and the medievals applied ancient learning to shoring u p the claims of religion and directing man towards his destiny in the hereafter, the moderns, naturally enough given the new cultural climate that shaped their values and perceptions, sought to reorient intellectual endeavor to improving man’s lot in this life, and to defusing post-Reformation religious tensions by sowing a general skepticism about the possibility of attaining much in the way of religious knowledge, so that there’d be little left to fight over. Hence Bacon’s conception of a new science that would give us mastery over nature, the promise of new technologies, and hope for making this world a fitting habitation for man. Hence Locke’s aim of drawing definite limits to what was strictly knowable where religion was concerned, so as to put all conflicting creedal claims on an equally low epistemic footing and thereby to lay the predicate for his doctrine of religious toleration. [Which was really nothing but the promotion of indifference, and with his idea of the secular (or officially agnostic) state, the use of state force to help curtail deep religious belief, especially as acted in the public sphere. From Locke's original and deliberate knee-capping of religion, we have advanced today, inexorably, to mass atheism and the rise of neo-paganism, as surely, and as predictably, as the rising of the sun. And yet Locke is the paramour for the modern republican secular state, including our very own United States]
“And what is wrong with all that?” many readers will ask. Well, there might be nothing at all wrong with it; and then again, there might be something very deeply wrong with it. But the point for now is not to determine whether this project was good or bad, [It has been an unmitigated disaster from which Western Civilization, and possibly all of mankind, may never recover] but rather to emphasize that to a very great extent it was a desire to further the project, and not an actual refutation of Aristotle on particular merits, that moved modern thinkers away from his metaphysics. The agenda determined the arguments rather than the other way around. In particular, it determined an new conception of what science could and should be: not a search for the ultimate causes and meaning of things (as Aristotle and the Scholastics understood it) but rather a means of increasing “human utility and power” through the “mechanical arts” or technology (Bacon), and of making us “masters and possessors of nature” (Descartes). Usefulness would replace wisdom, and pampering the body in this life would push aside preparing the soul for the next. Hence modern science, far from refuting Aristotle’s metaphysics, was simply defined in such a way that nothing that smacked of Aristotelian formal and final causes and the like would be allowed to count as truly “scientific.” There was no “discovery” here; there was only stipulation, naked assertion, and insistence on forcing every object of scientific investigation into a non-Aristotelian Procrustean bed, and – if necessary – simply denying the existence of anything that couldn’t be wedged in. For the Aristotelian Scholastic categories led, in the view of thinkers like Locke, to a dangerous “dogmatism” in religious and philosophical matters. (In other words, if we accept these categories, we’ll have to admit that the entire Scholastic system is more or less rationally unavoidable). And in the Baconian view, they distract us from the one thing needful. (In other words, if Aristotle is right, then we’ll end up spending more time contemplating first principles and the state of our souls and less time thinking up new gadgets and further ways to gorge and sex ourselves). While the early modern philosophers and their contemporary successors quibble over this or that argument of Aristotle, Aquinas, etc., then, what they really don’t like are the conclusions. Admit formal and final causes into the world, and at once you are stuck – rationally stuck – with God, the soul, and the natural law. The modern, liberal, secular project becomes a non-starter. So, “reason” must be redefined in a way that makes these conclusions impossible, or at elast severly weakened. The classical metaphysical categories, espeically Aritotelian and Thomistic ones, must be banished from science and philosophy altogether, by fiat. The game must be rigged so that Aristotle and St. Thomas cannot even get onto the field……
You don’t have to take my word for it. As philosopher Pierre Manent has put it, for the early modern philsophers, “in order to escape decisively from the power of the singular religious institution of the Church, one had to renounce thinking of human life in terms of its good or end” and the “pagan (classical Greek) idea that nature is naturally legislative.” Hence it is the teaching of Aristotle, which was essentially adopted by Catholic Doctrine, that Descartes, Hobbes, Spinoza, and Locke will implacably destroy.” [And even more, they deliberately set out to do so]
I am very much out of time, but I hope the quote makes sense. What it means, and there are numerous other quotes from contemporary philosophers and thinkers of other stripes which confirm the existence of the “project,” the project being to deliberately “escape” from the tyranny of God by rejecting the underlying philosophy – Scholasticism – which so finally and unavoidably proves His existence. There is a reason the 12th and 13th centuries were a period of high flower for the Church and millions of souls, and that is because the people of that time accepted Scholasticism and understood that God, most certainly exists. It must also be restated that Aristotelian Scholasticism has never, in any fundamental way, been “refuted” or shown to be false. There are minor quibbles around the periphery, but the main arguments, the ideas of formal and final causes, have never been refuted. They have been ignored and shoved aside in pursuit of the great, humanist project of liberalism (and note how, even 500 years ago, liberals used the same dirty rhetorical and argumentative tricks they are so fond of today).
The goal of modern philosophy and “science,” then, has been to prevent the Divine Foot from ever having a chance to enter the door of men’s minds. And that goal has been thoroughly achieved.
Maybe more tomorrow. The takeaway is, the entire liberal/modernist/rationalist/indifferentist project is one founded in error and in deliberate rejection of the greatest philosophical truth ever divined by man. And that is why liberalism is generally so opposed to the good of souls. It is also why modern man feels so profoundly lost and detached, that so many people feel their existence is random and devoid of meaning, because they have accepted too many of the claims of modernist liberalism. It is a very straight line from Luther and the other early modern promoters of error, and the dire straights in which the culture staggers along today. It is a very straight line, conceptually, from rejection of Scholasticism and Catholic Truth to “gay marriage” and freezing eggs to be grown in plastic decanters.
Priests in Name Only and Not in Deed August 20, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, Latin Mass, priests, scandals, secularism, sexual depravity, Tradition, Virtue.
add a comment
A very good sermon from a priest I’m sure some will recognize by voice. It’s not very long, it is only 9 minutes.
This sermon was given in 2004 in the wake of the priest boy rape scandal. I call it that, because over 80% of the victims were pubescent boys. The priest alludes to Pope Pius XII and his instruction that men found to have problems of unchastity should be removed from the priesthood. How much great suffering would have been avoided had that dictate been upheld! From an official Vatican document of 1961: “Among the priests and signs of a divine vocation the virtue of chastity is regarded as absolutely necessary. Should superiors find a student unequal to the task of keeping ecclesiastical celibacy and practicing priestly chastity, then completely ignoring any other outstanding qualities they must bar him from the religious life and the priesthood. Advance ment ot religious vows and ordination should be barred to those afflicted with evil tendencies [towards sodomy] since doing so would constitute serious dangers”
It is actually a great work of charity by the Church to bar such men from the priesthood, because admitting them to that holy and august office would expose them both to much greater temptation, and would also mean that they would be judged so much more severely by God for having taken on such an vital role in the Church.
See what you make of the rest. I think it’s very, very good, and still timely 10 years later. I fear the problem, so to speak, has only gone further to ground:
Please Pray for Father Michael Rodriguez! August 20, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, Basics, General Catholic, Latin Mass, manhood, martyrdom, mortification, persecution, priests, scandals, secularism, sickness, Society, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
A little birdie has communicated to me that Father Michael Rodriguez’ situation in the Diocese of El Paso may be increasing in difficulty. There is nothing certain or public, of course, but due to his steadfast proclamation of the Truth and his firm attachment to all Holy Mother Church believes, he has become a veritable pariah among his brother priests in that Diocese. There is a new bishop in El Paso, Mark Seitz, and Bishop Seitz has done a good thing or two in his short time there, but Father Rodriguez’ position remains quite awkward. He is still serving in the furthest possible extremity of the Diocese in Presidio, Candelaria, and his “home” in Shafter.
Probably many readers have a list of priests they pray for. Or perhaps you pray for all priests. And I’m also confident many of my good readers already maintain Fr. Rodriguez in your prayers, but on the off chance you don’t, please pray for this good and holy priest who has done so much to bring the great Tradition of the Church to many starving souls. I cannot go into detail, but some of the things I’m being told are quite dark, quite worrisome. So please keep him in your prayers!
Thank you and God bless you!
Below, a few videos from Father Rodriguez. He hasn’t been making any lately, and there is, of course, a reason for that.
I do miss hearing from good Father Rodriguez! Maybe he could join the Fraternity (but I won’t hold my breath):
By the way, you can help Father Rodriguez, JMJHF productions, and many other good Catholic resources by supporting the Saint Vincent Ferrer Foundation. They provide a great deal of assistance to Father Rodriguez, some Carmelite monks associated with his apostolate, and other good works. This is a tax deductible foundation.
Blessed Pius IX on change in the Church August 19, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, error, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, paganism, Papa, scandals, secularism, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
Frequent commenter DotDO sent me a link to Fr. Carota’s blog over the weekend. Good Father Carota qoutes Blessed Pope Pius IX as below, considering doctrinal “change” and ideas, very prevalent in the mid 19th century as they were in the mid-20th, that the Church should open Herself up to the world and all its “marvels” and “progress.” Blessed Pius IX, a truly titanic Pope, would have none of that (emphasis in original, my comments):
I am dreadfully short on time this week, being virtually forced to devote essentially all my time towards improving the speed and reliability of the internet I have a much better claim to inventing than Al Gore, but wouldn’t you know Eliot Bougis would come through with a great post on VII for me. It’s more than just a discussion on Vatican II, EB asks some very trenchant questions regarding famous hermeneutics and inexplicable conspiracy theories. I add a lot of emphasis (because of the general awesomeness) and a few comments:
When the spirit of a council dictates, almost from day one, how the documents of a council are to be read and applied, then that spirit is the true fruit of the council, regardless what the documents may say. Luckily, the Church has never fallen into this trap, so keep calm and party on, right? [heh]
This is the conservative paradox: the same people who are blamed for “hijacking The Council” are those to whom pious submission must be given in the implementation of The Council. [Can it be said Paul VI hijacked Vatican II? But if you read some actual history, rather than opinion of the same, it becomes clear very quickly that Paul VI was a major proponent of that "spirit."] Conspiracy theories are generally taboo among conservatives, but The Tale of Those Nasty Liberals Who Hijacked Poor Ol’ Vatican Two is one conspiracy theory still very much in vogue. The documents have borne the fruits we see (and will probably keep seeing, for a long time to come) because the seeds of said fruit are embedded in the documents themselves. This is why, as Bp. Schneider reminds us, the documents must be subjected to a thorough magisterial pruning, so that the vigor of the Pastoral Mandate can be matched by the tradition of doctrinal security.
Meanwhile, the unrelenting cry for MOAR COUNCIL has a bizarre way of leading to the very abuses which The Council is supposed to have saved us. [Like, for instance, an insidious and deep-seeded tendency towards clericalism, shut up and do as your told, etc. Certainly, some avenues have opened for more lay involvement, but either question those or step outside the new boundaries, and one finds a clericalism that its seems hard to imagine could have been much worse in the bad old pre-conciliar days] The Council cannot be a final harbor. It was a milestone, but the Church keeps moving, and I think the Church needs to either enforce the documents with a zeal that any “rad trad” would admire, or needs to admit that The V2 Experiment has failed. The Church will–and must–go on, but, pragmatically speaking, The Spirit of The Council is the clear winner these days. It is heroic of laymen to hold the magisterial line, but it is properly the duty of the episcopal college to get the led out and get our house in order. No “pastoral” strategy is guaranteed infallible immunity. [It's frankly a sad joke for laymen to try to "uphold" Doctrine. How can we? We can cajole, scream, embarrass, shame, but we have no power whatsoever. We are a flea on an elephant's butt. But I do wonder, somewhat in disagreement to the above, whether it might not be better to shun this non-dogmatic, pastoral Council?]
At the same time, I’m floored that unflinching defenders of Vatican II at least admit that the V2 documents shouldn’t but in fact can be read in a discontinuous, heterodox way. Can the same be said of any prior council? [Yes, yes, YES! That's the other million dollar quote. I can't think of any other Council that is full of texts so ambiguous, open to interpretation, and available to be abused as so many of the documents of Vatican II, even - or perhaps especially - the more "official" ones like Apostolic Constitutions, etc. In fact, the texts from other Councils from Trent to Nicaea are remarkable for their clarity, and precision. Compare Trent or the Syllabus to significant parts of Vatican II, and it's like night and day. That fact alone makes Vatican II an entirely novel departure from the preceding Magisterium. ] And even if it could be, it was the purpose of a later council authoritatively to rectify such problems. No one in the hierarchy is seriously calling for such a correction. Everything Is Awesome. Except, darn it, this time we need to really implement The Council. There’s that creeping conspiracy theory again. [Yes, it certainly does seem that Vatican II, for all its awesomeness, is the most difficult to implement Council in the history of the Church. One main problem being, there remains massive disagreement over what such an implementation would even look like, due to the vagaries of the texts themselves. Modernists thrive on ambiguity and lack of clarity, they detest precision and hard definitions.]
[I really shouldn't steal so much, but it's just so darned good......] I don’t see how we can have it both ways. If V2 is to be judged not as a dogmatic intervention but as a pastoral endeavor, and should therefore not be held to such rigorous intellectual standards as prior councils, then the manifest deterioration and disorientation of the Church in certain ways should suffice to show how the pastoral endeavor has been derailed on its own terms. [Indeed.] Rather than being read in an orthodox sense, the conciliar ambiguity in question reverses the entire hermeneutic by subjecting past teaching to endless debate and doubt in the superdogma event horizon that V2 has, despite its intended “humility”, become. [Everything is read through the prism of Vatican II or anything post-conciliar. Therefore, Casti Connubbi gets frequently cast aside in favor of Humanae Vitae. The Mass of Ages replaced by a manufactured (and clumsily, at that) product. Everything that existed prior to VII, from vestments to the role of laity to Dogma (in practice) to music to the Liturgy, etc., ad nauseum, had to be re-examined, "renewed," and generally reshaped, often from the ground up, in light of the Vatican II supercouncil. Just a brilliant summation.] To cite prior councils is to be labeled a rad trad, which is pretty astounding a charge. As Brunero Gherardini had persuasively argued, what is need is not a declamation of continuity, but a demonstration of it, and the only possible resources for such a demonstration reside in the very things that get one labeled a rad trad. [That is, reference to all the other ecumenical Councils and everything "pre-conciliar"] V2 is the most self-referential council in the Church’s history, which is why, like any spiraling mass, it sucks everything else into its gravitational pull, and contorts it all into a shape of its own making.
Just fantastic, Mr. Bougis. Have mercy on me for going well beyond fair use.
I cannot help but note but it was the dawning realization of so much of the above, especially as evident in their willingness to honestly examine the work of Monsignor Brunero Gherardini, that led to the sacking of the Franciscans of the Immaculate. Apparently, the ultimate super-dogma of the day, the new first and highest commandment, is: “Thou shalt not question, doubt, or cast umbrage on any sacred jot and tittle of Vatican II.” And viewing Vatican II as the super-dogmatic prism through which all else must be viewed is the fundamental assumption of those who defend that sacking and insist that the founder and previous leadership were deadly threats not just to the “poor, deluded souls” who made up the vast majority of the the membership of the FIs, but the entire Church Herself.
Which gets back to a theme I’ve been pressing of late, which is that the “new” Church, the “post-conciliar Church,” gives every indication of being something radically different from, and irrepressibly hostile towards, the “old” or “pre-conciliar” Church. This is evidenced in 100,000 different ways and is something, I have said, that must simply be acknowledged, accepted, and then dealt with as best as we can in our individual states in life.
I’m not saying I have an answer or a solution, other than to pray that someday (soon!) we have a Pope that is “beyond” the Council, if you will, that was not directly involved in it or predominately shaped by that “spirit,” and who is willing to examine and clarify its many, many claims against the great guide God has given us in the Magisterial Tradition of the Church. That’s the only way doctrinal orthodoxy and catechetical clarity can ever really be restored in the Church.
Catholic Bioethics discussion tonight! August 19, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, catachesis, contraception, Dallas Diocese, fun, General Catholic, North Deanery, scandals, secularism, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
add a comment
There will be a presentation by a Catholic bio-ethicist at Prince of Peace parish in Plano tonight, Aug 19, from 7p-8:30p. The talk will be in the Saint James Hall. The talk is being sponsored by the Prince of Peace Young Adult Ministry which is administered by my friend Josh Schwartz. See below for all details. A bit about the speaker:
Our presenter, Brandon P. Brown, studied political philosophy as an undergraduate at the University of Dallas. He completed his MD and MA through a joint degree program in philosophy and medicine at Indiana University. He is a past fellow of the Indiana University Center for Bioethics, and performed research on brain death at the Pontifical University Regina Apostolorum in Rome, Italy. He is actively involved in undergraduate and graduate medical education in Indiana, serves as faculty in the School of Medicine, and has spoken on topics including beginning of life ethics, personhood, embryo adoption, and medical education.
Dr. Brown practices pediatric radiology at Riley Hospital for Children in Indianapolis, IN where he specializes in prenatal imaging. At IU, he is Assistant Professor of Radiology, Medical Humanities, and Philosophy.
I know nothing of the presenter other than the above, but I do know Josh is very solid and has been doing some very good work in local parishes. It was Josh and Father Rangel who organized the Good Friday Procession from downtown Dallas to north Plano this year, passing and praying outside some local mills and strip joints along the way. I really hope to participate next year! And I love Father Rangel!
Anyway, if you’re interested in bio-ethics or have questions about in vitro and all the Frankensteinian behavior of the medical community today, it might not be a bad presentation to attend.
While we Catholics argue over how to get a local priest to offer a sermon against contraception, the cultural calamity of fifty years ago, the culture keeps moving on and on and on. It is difficult to imagine that women willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars to have some eggs frozen (so they can continue contracepting a few more years, until they finally desire that child on demand) are going to be very open to many of our arguments regarding contraception. Of course, miracles do happen, but there generally has to be openness to Grace. It’s now such a “thing” there are even egg freezing parties in New York and other elite coastal cities, I guess to make the process a little more swinging and a bit less Frankensteinian:
Egg freezing has become such a popular procedure that according to a recent New York Post report, parties are now being thrown for it.
A startup known as EggBanxx recently invited young professional women in NYC to an informational party at New York City’s NoMad hotel to discuss egg-freezing.
During the $45-a-ticket event called “Let’s Chill,” over 70 female attendees socialized and learned about the egg-freezing process from fertility professionals, The Post reported.
The party was thrown to drum up business for EggBanxx, which says it’s trying to make the once-rare and pricey practice cheaper. EggBanxx prices for freezing and storing eggs for the first year range between $6,500 and $7,500 — about half the price it claims its competitors offer.
And it does seem to be a growing market for maternal women of a certain age. [How is a woman "maternal" if she is committed to several more years of "consequence-free" sex using contraception while hedging her bets on being able to conceive once she finally settles down?] More women over 30 are choosing to have children outside of marriage, according to The Daily Beast, which also said that the birth rate for unmarried women aged 30-34 “substantially surpassed” those of a younger age for the first time in 2012. [That is a moral catastrophe, a nation of bastards. Oh, but Uncle Sugar will always be there to play daddy, and then incarcerate the poor youth for life after their third felony]
No wonder that the response has been “overwhelming,” Gina Bartasi, CEO of FertilityAuthority, the parent company of EggBanxx, told Business Insider. “Phones have been ringing off the hook. We know the interest is high.”
Bartasi told us that EggBanxx will throw another party in New York in September, eventually rolling out across the country in cities like Boston, San Fransisco, and Los Angeles in the near future. She said the company is aiming to target women 25 to 38 years old, and would discourage women over the age of 38, as “fertility is very low” at that point. [Is the term "boutique baby" too harsh?]
Bartasi looks at egg freezing as a positive step for the modern, professional woman. “Before, you had your career and you might have ended up with infertility treatments and years of heartache and lots and lots of expense and IVF cycles,” she told us. Now, egg freezing is “an insurance policy. It’s about having no regrets.” [No, it's about being willing to stoop to an endless level of depravity in order to have your cake and eat it, too, insisting in spite of nature and reason that a woman should be able to have a child on demand after years of chemically or otherwise frustrating her fecundity.]
A bit of an aside to the above, but what is the divorce rate for women who have had 10 or more lifetime partners? Is not a big part of what is sold to women today as the “ideal lifestyle” the concept of uninhibited gratification with a large number of (frequently nearly random or anonymous) partners at night while being a careerist lioness during the day?
These “parties” are just the latest development in an ongoing and accelerating trend towards female self-abasement. Men do it too, don’t get me wrong, but women have traditionally been the societal guardians of virtue and when women begin, en masse, to shuck both their feminine instincts (given them by God) and virtues, cultures tend to go very downhill, very fast. We appear to be heading in this world towards two opposite and hellish ends regarding female behavior (the readers of this blog obvious, I would pray, exceptions) – either severe islamic repression and treatment of women as absolute chattel, or severe progressive repression and treatment of women as nothing but objects of lust, the latter both in how they view themselves and in how they are treated by men (but all dressed up in fake language of “empowerment”). The diabolical nature of feminism is revealed as a movement founded on allowing women to overcome being treated as mere sex objects now encourages women to behave as mere sex objects. The worst characteristics of men are trumpeted as liberating and the greatest virtues of women are rejected as stultifying and inhibiting.
Amazing. It is the literal antithesis of God’s intent for women (and men), and yet people are simply utterly blind to that fact, and to the destruction the collapse in moral virtue is having on the entire culture, economy, and structure of western society. We are headed towards a fast and hard collapse that could well make the Fall of Rome look like a picnic. And there will be marauding, extremist muslim hordes to prey on the decaying corpse of Christendom, as well, just as happened back in the post-Roman days of the “dark ages.”
But, God willing, through the suffering, the Church will be renewed, and “we” will build again.
Pope Francis supports intervention to stop ISIS….. August 18, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disconcerting, Ecumenism, episcopate, General Catholic, Glory, Holy suffering, martyrdom, Papa, persecution, sadness, scandals, sickness, Society, Spiritual Warfare.
…….but believes any such intervention should proceed through the UN, which……..Ah pbmit mah ton owff
I would just say the United Nations, as a venue for achieving conflict resolution, has, over its 7 decade history, shown itself to be amazingly ineffective and generally ordered to just accepting whatever the new status quo is after some people gets devastated by another. They are then happy to sit down with the victors and perhaps admit them to the Security Council within a few years.
I exaggerate, but not much.
The first paragraph is good, helpful Catholic just war theory. It’s wonderful to stop an unjust aggression without using force, but often that is simply not possible. The kinds of groups/nations/whatever that would resort to an unjust aggression are not the kind that tend to listen to verbal reason. They only know one language, force. The United States could fit into that category in many minds.
Second paragraph, perhaps, but I don’t think there have been too many colonial wars of conquest in the past century or so, at least with first world powers as the aggressors. I think appealing to the US invasion of Iraq in 20033 as a war of conquest would be a pretty far reach, but I have no clear idea if that is what is being referred to.
Para 3 is a bit muddled and seems more like personal opinion – one could even interpret from the language that the nation or group suffering unjust attack must wait a judgment from the UN that such attack is indeed unjust before responding! There is nothing in Catholic just war doctrine that a nation under attack must achieve some kind of balance of world opinion or a majority vote declaring the depredations being committed against it unjust. In the time it can take to achieve such a consensus many nations have been wiped out, so I find this more than just slightly strange. But it is very consistent with a progressive world view. I would agree the arguments seem directed against the US acting alone, but, once again, history has shown that by the time one can get the bloated, almost inevitably corrupt UN to act, it is very often far too late to do anything but evacuate the few survivors and pick up bodies from the rubble.
This is another transcript of a famous airplane interview, so who knows. I think it important to note this is not a doctrinal document. I’ll admit to being torn on this matter of US intervention, I am scandalized and sorrowful by the ongoing atrocities in the Mideast against Christians (and others) and want it to end now, and I know there is not really another nation that can do any intervening with the level of effect the US can achieve, even alone, but I am pretty reticent to see another Mideast conflict involving the US, especially with the current leadership. I do not have much confidence any real long term results can be achieved; at most, I can see perhaps a temporary reduction if not elimination of the suffering.
I do get the sense from the statement above, with the usual caveats for “translation errors” and all that, that Pope Francis is torn himself. There is reality, and then there is the great ecumenical/interreligious project, and the two don’t always align very nicely.
Nevertheless, I pray these words hearten the suffering Iraqi and Syrian Catholics and encourage them to resist this horrific onslaught with whatever means they can find, and with whatever help is given them. I pray this ISIS nightmare be utterly crushed and returned to the pit from whence it came.
I wrote a rather strongly worded post last week in which I stated my rather firm belief that the postconciliar Church is a radical new construct implacably hostile to the “bad, old church.” Another data point in that direction emerged recently from Pittsburgh, where, via CMR, the diocese appears ready to sell a parish it can no longer afford to anyone so long as they are not those damnable schismatics in the SSPX:
By fall of 2013, as the diocese was laying off employees due to a $2.3M deficit in their budget, the price of St. Michael’s had dropped down to $150,000 despite the readiness of our checkbook. At that time a local reporter contacted the diocese about the sale of St. Michael’s and asked why the diocese had previously sold churches to the Lutherans and Baptists while they would not sell to the SSPX. The response that was posted in the newspaper was, “those groups [Lutherans and Baptists] are not schismatic in the eyes of the Church.” What a losing battle this was! There was no use trying to reason with the diocese. It became clear that they might sell this church for Protestant “worship” or to a developer for making apartments, but not to a group that would use it according the purpose for which it was built—the Mass of All Time and the perennial teaching and sacraments of the Church.
Patrick Archbold notes that the SSPX agrees with far more of the sainted Council than does any lutheran or baptist. That may or may not be true, as there are heretic baptists and lutherans as much as their are Catholics, the lutherans in particular having gone pretty heavy into sexular pagan indifferentism, but I get the point. There is a special enmity reserved for the Society, as they are the living embodiment of what newchurch absolutely cannot countenance, which is the way things were. It is interesting to note how much tolerance there is in the postconciliar Church for every kind of error, novelty, destructive trend, etc., imaginable, save for that most hated of enemies, the pre-conciliar religion.
None of the above is to say that there are not legitimate concerns over the SSPX and their conduct in given locales at times, but the same could be said of any organ within the Church. Jesuits used to be known as heavy-handed and possessed of a superiority complex, too. It might seem difficult for diocesan administration to consider allowing such a transfer of Church property, but the willingness to sell to destructive heretics over alleged schismatics (the schism being far from clear, especially officially, and even more especially since 2007) is, I think, more than just a bit revealing.
So is the willingness to turn down good money when it comes from just one particular organization, but should an even more problematic organization from within the Church, like some group of heretic female religious offer to buy the place, I would imagine the diocese would find a way to make it happen. And what if the Orthodox desired to buy the parish? Are they not schismatic “in the eyes of the Church?” But do you think a very public row would be allowed to play out against our “ecumenical partners?”
So we see, once again, that there is an unfathomable animosity against the terrible old pre-conciliar Church and its supporters, once again. Yes there are legitimate problems with the SSPX, but the above smacks more than just a little bit of a huge double standard.
3x as much spent on “War on Poverty” than all US wars combined August 15, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, catachesis, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society.
This is pretty interesting. And it dates from 2010, I’m sure the imbalance is even worse now.
According to a study performed by the Congressional Research Service – the best of all the Congressional accountability organizations, by far, and the least politicized – the United States government spent $20 trillion between 1965 and 2010 on the “War on Poverty” – socialistic wealth transfer payments, subsidies, etc. Far, far less has been spent on all the real wars this nation has ever fought:
“Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, government has spent $19.8 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars) on means-tested welfare. [NOTE: This does not include Social Security, or Medicare, nor disability. Just direct payments to non-elderly individuals capable of work. That works out to $444 billion each year, in FY2011 dollars, for each of the 45 years.] In comparison, the cost of all military wars in U.S. history from the Revolutionary War through the current war in Afghanistan has been $6.98 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars).* The War on Poverty has cost three times as much as all other wars combined.”
I have said it before and I will say it again, the entire defense apparatus, DoD, the services, everything, could be shut down and this nation would still run a multi-hundred billion dollar a year budget deficit. Actual combat is expensive, as is the defense establishment, but it is small potatoes compared to the ongoing and massive transfer of wealth from productive to non-productive sectors of the economy.
Of course some of that is necessary, and in some cases a charitable good. But it is also a system that breeds abuse, corruption, vice, and multi-generational dependence. Briefly reformed in the late 90s and early 2000s, the welfare estate is utterly out of control again under Obama.
Each year of the Iraq War, that “horribly expensive, unsustainable” war cost less than 1/3 as much as was spent on welfare in the same year.
Just a little perspective before your weekend. Perhaps something to keep in mind as we consider a whole slew of issues.
You sure don’t hear those kinds of figures from the USCCB!