What's Wrong with the World

Cade, my 17 year old stepson, and I met to celebrate his enlistment in the US Army. The discussion, naturally enough since Cade is a senior in high school, turned to his plans for the future. Cade wants to be an archaeologist which requires him to first study history or anthropology. His goal in studying these fields is to discover , he says, "What's wrong with the world?"

I couldn't resist answering with GK Chesterton's reply to The Times when asked to write on essay on the same subject, "I am". Cade smiled, thinking it a joke. So I repeated myself, unsmiling, "I am what's wrong with the world."


I think Alexander Solzhenitsyn summed it up nicely, "If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds and it were necessary only to spearate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"

The Socratic notion that who knows the good, does the good fails miserably, especially when we try to live it as individuals. Time after time we deny the common good in pursuit of personal desires.

I, Cade, am what's wrong with the world.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

The Order of Mercy at Gethsamane

Take a read of this and let me know what you think. Is this the courage of one's convictions or lunacy?

Whichever you think, please pray for Mr Doe and his family.

http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6802&Itemid=48

If that doesn't work, go to InsideCatholic.com and read the article entitled "Rescue Me?" by John Zmirak.

Til next time, all the best, Joe.

Hail and Farewell

I took the summer off, partially for good reason and partially out of sloth. I apologize for not announcing my intention to do so prior to disappearing, but it doesn't seem as though I've been missed much. The internet seems to have continued buzzing along just fine without me.

It's been an eventful summer. There's been a sparation from one whom I love deeply and a reunion with several persons for whom my love has continued unchecked during our spearation. It is doubtful that either of these parties reads what I post here, but I want to let them know how my heart droops and soars at their departure and return.

If I may cite from Julius Caesar here, I think from his Commentaries, and I ask the reader to bear in mind that I'm working from memory here, so please don't call me out on a misquote.

"If a man were to know the end of this day's business 'ere it end, but it suffices that this day will end, and then the end will be known. Then, if we should meet again, we will smile. And if not, the this parting was well made."

Hail and farewell, my friends.

And to my readers, til next time, all the best. Joe

Chestertonians to Academe: We Are Here and We Are Not Leaving!

Chestertonians to Academe: We Are Here and We Are Not Leaving!

Shared via AddThis

Happy Independence Day!

Today we celebrate the foundation of the United States of America. The founding document, The Declaration of Independence, bears careful reading. The full text is available here: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html .

How some people sleep after reading this, I have no idea.

An interesting discussion of the influence of Catholic thinker St Robert Bellarmine on Thomas Jefferson is available here: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6607&CFID=9647080&CFTOKEN=44014111

God bless the United States of America!

Until next time, all the best. Joe

The Dark Night

I've been quiet here lately. In fact, I've been quiet everywhere lately. I don't know what I should attribute this to. I know that I've made some things more important than writing. I've actually been wasting a lot of time, especially with computer games. That's something that's got to stop, it's a sure fire way to kill a muse.


Here's some news to catch you up:

Last November, in my post entitled "Unseen Contradictions", I wrote of my young friend whom I named "Charles" (not his real name) and his journey towards Catholicism. Charles called me on the vigil of the Feast of Trinity Sunday with the news that he has resolved to "cross the Tiber" this summer. While this news delights me, I know Charles all too well, right down to hus remarkable penchant for procrastination, so I coninue to pray for his perseverance, and would ask prayers from you as well. To those who know Charles and have been praying for him I extend my deepest gratitude. This news arrived at an auspicious moment, wedged as it was between the feast of St Charles Lwanga (whose intercession I have been pleading) and that of the Holy Trinity. A special thanks to, and wish for many blessings on, Denis, who actually made Charles' conversion his special prayer intention at the Mass celebrated at the Shrine of the Ugandan Martyrs during his pilgrimage there on the feast day.

St Charles Lwanga pray for us.

I've become an official product reviewer for the Catholic Company. My next post will probably be a review of one of the products they offer, "Magnificat Magazine".

More will follow. As always wishing you all the best. Joe

This is a test. This is only a test.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

"Duty, Honor, Country"

"Their story is known to all of you. It is the story of the American man at arms. My estimate of him was formed on the battlefields many, many years ago, and has never changed. I regarded him then, as I regard him now, as one of the world's noblest figures; not only as one of the finest military characters, but also as one of the most stainless."

"His name and fame are the birthright of every American citizen. In his youth and strength, his love and loyalty, he gave all that mortality can give. He needs no eulogy from me, or from any other man. He has written his own history and written it in red on his enemy's breast.
But when I think of his patience under adversity, of his courage under fire, and of his modesty in victory, I am filled with an emotion of admiration I cannot put into words. He belongs to history as furnishing one of the greatest examples of successful patriotism. He belongs to posterity as the instructor of future generations in the principles of liberty and freedom. He belongs to the present, to us, by his virtues and by his achievements."

"In twenty campaigns, on a hundred battlefields, around a thousand campfires, I have witnessed that enduring fortitude, that patriotic self-abnegation, and that invincible determination which have carved his statue in the hearts of his people.
From one end of the world to the other, he has drained deep the chalice of courage. As I listened to those songs of the glee club, in memory's eye I could see those staggering columns of the First World War, bending under soggy packs on many a weary march, from dripping dusk to drizzling dawn, slogging ankle deep through mire of shell-pocked roads; to form grimly for the attack, blue-lipped, covered with sludge and mud, chilled by the wind and rain, driving home to their objective, and for many, to the judgment seat of God."

"I do not know the dignity of their birth, but I do know the glory of their death. They died unquestioning, uncomplaining, with faith in their hearts, and on their lips the hope that we would go on to victory. Always for them: Duty, Honor, Country. Always their blood, and sweat, and tears, as they saw the way and the light."

"And twenty years after, on the other side of the globe, against the filth of dirty foxholes, the stench of ghostly trenches, the slime of dripping dugouts, those boiling suns of the relentless heat, those torrential rains of devastating storms, the loneliness and utter desolation of jungle trails, the bitterness of long separation of those they loved and cherished, the deadly pestilence of tropic disease, the horror of stricken areas of war."

"Their resolute and determined defense, their swift and sure attack, their indomitable purpose, their complete and decisive victory - always victory, always through the bloody haze of their last reverberating shot, the vision of gaunt, ghastly men, reverently following your password of Duty, Honor, Country."

Thus, General Douglas MacArthur's recollection of the American soldier from his famous address at West Point. I've always thought it a masterpiece of American oratory, and arguably the finest spoken tributes to fallen comrades ever.

My prayers today for those who have fallen in the defense of freedom. Set a place today for "absent friends", raise a toast to their memory. God grant them rest and May God bless the United States of America.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

ND Response Transcripts

Transcripts of speeches and videos of the ND Response demonstration at Notre Dame University last Sunday are now available at http://johenz-topmeadow.blogspot.com/ . Espcially interesting, in my opinion, is Father Raphael's speech.

Til next time...all the best. Joe

A Thunderous Silence

The day before President Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame, TIME Magazine ran the following story by Amy Sullivan stating that the Vatican had remained completely silent on the issue.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599189875600

This is not the case. At least two American members of the Roman Curia, the body of cardinals and bishops which functions as the Pope's cabinet, have spoken out on the issue. I fact, Sullivan quotes one, James Francis Cardinal Stafford, in her article.

Sullivan totally ignored the remarks of Archbishop Raymond Burke on the matter. Archbishop Burke is the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, an office roughly corresponding to a combination of Chief Justice and Attorney General for matters pertaining to Canon Law. In remarks to the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in Washington, DC on May 2, Archbishop Burke said:


"In a culture marked by widespread and grave confusion and error about the most fundamental teachings of the moral law, our Catholic schools and universities must be beacons of truth and right conduct. Clearly, the same is true of our Catholic charitable, missionary and healthcare institutions. There can be no place in them for teaching or activities which offend the moral law. Dialogue and respect for differences are not promoted by the compromise and even violation of the natural moral law. The profound granting of an honorary doctorate at Notre Dame University to our President who is as aggressively advancing an anti-life and anti-family agenda is a source of the gravest scandal. Catholic institutions cannot offer any platform to, let alone honor, those who teach and act publicly against the moral law. In a culture which embraces an agenda of death, Catholics and Catholic institutions are necessarily counter-cultural. If we as individuals or our Catholic institutions are not willing to accept the burdens and the suffering necessarily involved in calling our culture to reform, then we are not worthy of the name Catholic. "

Archbishop Burke reiterated his position on the EWTN news program The World Over in a taped interview conducted by Raymond Arroyo, which was broadcast on Sunday.

If that is silence, it is a most thunderous silence indeed.

So-called "liberal" Catholics and the toady media outlets are currently gloating over Monday's editorial in L'Osservatore Romano applauding the President's words at Notre Dame encouraging dialogue on the abortion issue, but have totally ignored the statements made by these prelates of the Church. They fail to notice that the Vatican newspaper and its editorial staff are not part of the Curia. If we compare the relationship of newspapers to members of the cabinet to the Vatican newspaper and members of the Curia, we must ask an important question, "Is an editorial in the New York Times as authoritative as the statements of the Attorney General made in an open forum?"

Further evidence of the Vatican's displeasure with the views of the Obama administration lies in the fact that the Holy See has rejected three candidates proposed thus far for the post of ambassador to the Holy See based upon the "pro-choice" views of the candidates. (BTW, Mr President, if you're reading this, I'm available). This would seem to me to underscore the Vatican's viewpoint that there is no room for "dialogue" on life issues.

If Ms Sullivan thinks that this is silence she would do well to think again. The Pope himself does not need to address this issue individually, it has been addressed in such Church documents as Ex Corde Ecclesiae, which outlines the role of Catholic institutions in the world, and those documents remain in force.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

A Day Spent in the Company of Heroes

I spent yesterday at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, IN attending the ND Response rally countering the University's invitation to President Obama to be the commencement speaker and receive an honorary law degree. The demonstration was thoughtful, well planned and organized, and, above all, deeply Catholic.

As with all Catholic demonstrations, this one was centered on Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, providing overnight Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, Benediction with the Blessed Sacrament (which packed the tiny chapel in Alumni Hall to overflowing), and Mass on the South Quad.

The event was well attended by a well behaved crowd of several thousand including such Catholic heavyweights as Bishop John D'Arcy, Father Frank Pavone, Father John Corapi and Dr Charles Rice. The speakers for the event were thoughtfully chosen. Especially touching was the address of Lacy Dodd, who took the stage accompanied by her nine year old daughter, Mary. Lacy is a 1999 graduate of the University who found herself pregnant three months before her graduation and rejected the abortion option favored by her child's father. Most inspiring, though, was the address of Fr John J. Raphael SSJ, the black principal of St Augustine High School in New Orleans, LA, who took the podium to refute the ridiculous charges of racism levelled at the organizers of this demonstration. Father Raphael laid the racist charges back at the feet of the Presidential Administration, pointing out that nearly a quarter of all abortions take place among the black community which comprises on 13% of the US population. His address brought the crowd to its feet and left them there for the duration. Keep checking http://www.ndresponse.com/ for transcripts of the speeches.

The Rosary in the Grotto was a beautiful event, with meditations on the Glorious Mysteries provided by Father Frank Pavone, president of Priests for Life.

Father Jenkins, since you have an spare Laetare Medal laying around around gathering dust, why not present it to ND Response for putting the Catholic principles they learned at Notre Dame into action?

I spent yesterday in the company of true Catholic heroes. My congratulations and best wishes to the Class of 2009. God bless you all, you are the hope of the American Church!

More thoughts on this event to follow. Til next time, all the best. Joe

Christianity: Narcotic or Cure?

My friend, my very old friend, wrote a while back to me after noticing some of the posts to my Face Book account asking "Have you lost your mind? I just can't believe in this overly simplified, pre-packaged narcotic for reality...while I remain basically spiritual in my outlook on life, I can't buy the myth of organized Christianity...to quote Jimmy Buffet 'the god's honest truth is it ain't that simple'..."

Perhaps I have lost my mind. But, if that is so, then the disease, to borrow a phrase from Edgar Allen Poe, has "sharpened my senses, not dulled them or destroyed them". Then again, perhaps the illness is not mine. I think that for the first time in years I now see more clearly. Perhaps, just perhaps, the medication is a cure and not a narcotic. Does the possibility exist that the medication, the "pre-packaged" therapy, which my friend so decries is a cure for my ills? Is it possible that the places where I have sought solace before, that the cures of the world, are what induces narcosis?

I think it not only likely, but highly probable. I've tried finding solace in the things of the world, and they availed me nought. My drinking didn't work, my sexual escapades got me nowhere. You know about that. Talk about pre-packaged. Whatever makes me feel better. Forget the common good. Forget the intrinsic dignity of every human being. There's no need to worry about others. Self-restraint, self-discipline, self-control count for nothing. There's your narcotic, my friend. Numbness.

Now I feel, and what I feel is something quite different from narcosis. It's not pre-packaged in the sense that you think, it's more a regimen, and as part of that regimen, I'm required to feel outside myself. My spirituality requires me to feel faith and hope and love. Faith in a God who has made and keeps His promises; hope for the world He has made and redeemed; love for Him and for those He has put into this world with me.

Most of those with whom I argue see Christianity as anything but simple, and I'm inclined to agree. Greater minds than mine have grappled with its truths and been left stuttering. St Thomas Aquinas, the capo Di tutti capo of Catholic thinkers, after a lifetime of thought and writing of Christianity admitted at the end that his writings were as but straw compared to the Truth. Take a read of Augustine, John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, John Paul II and tell me then that you don't begin to see the marvelous and beautiful tapestry that is Christianity. If this is a drug, then I implore you to pump my veins full of it and more! Let me pop some Chesterton and snort some Faustina Kowlaska, pour me a long draft of CS Lewis and let me drink it to its dregs, then perhaps a blunt of Richard J Neuhaus spiked with JRR Tolkien for good measure. And still I'd not be sated.

Now I see, my friend. Dimly, though, as through a glass and darkly. I see that though I suffer, others suffer more. It is through that suffering I see that all this is real, for no man would wish suffering to be if he could will it not to be so. But I see a God who suffers with us to bring about the redemption of those whom He loves. In my suffering, in our suffering, we can unite ourselves to Him in pursuit of that goal. There is no deadening of the pain; in fact, it is felt more acutely. There is hope, though, and in the end "he who has hope lives differently."

Let me know what you think, my friend, and til next time, all the best. Joe

Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan

Anyone catch Archbishop Dolan's installation to the Archdiocese of New York the other day. The Big Apple's gotta winner there. You can plainly see that he is a man of the people..all the people. My favorite passage from his homily:

"[T]he Resurrection goes on, as His Church continues to embrace and protect the dignity of every human person, the sanctity of human life, from the tiny baby in the womb to the last moment of natural passing into eternal life. As the Servant of God Terrence Cardinal Cooke wrote, “Human life is no less sacred or worthy of respect because it is tiny, pre-born, poor, sick, fragile, or handicapped.” Yes, the Church is a loving mother who has a zest for life and serves life everywhere, but she can become a protective “mamma bear” when the life of her innocent, helpless cubs is threatened. Everyone in this mega-community is a somebody with an extraordinary destiny. Everyone is a somebody in whom God has invested an infinite love. That is why the Church reaches out to the unborn, the suffering, the poor, our elders, the physically and emotionally challenged, those caught in the web of addictions."

Follow this man, New York.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

The Day After

While there must be a million or so reflections available on the Passion event of Good Friday, and probably even more on the glorious Resurrection event of Easter Sunday, I've never read many reflections on Holy Saturday. It's never really puzzled me before, but for some reason this year it's really kinda nagging at me.

During morning prayer this morning ( well, earlier this afternoon actually), my mind kinda kept going back to that Saturday in 30 AD when the world held its breath. My imagination replayed what that day may have been like.

For the followers of the itinerant upstart preacher, Jesus of Nazareth, fear and panic. Scattered and in hiding, stunned, expecting the tramp of boots onto their doorstep at any second accompanied by the shouts of soldiery they thought were probably on the way to round them up. Debating what was next for them, wondering exactly what their role in the culture might be now. They must have thought their decision to throw in with this Jesus character a big mistake. I would think that they decided that they would probably just live the easier teachings of their rabbi quietly, personally, and stay under the radar, They figured it'd be much safer not to engage the culture with the challenging things they'd heard from their Master.

Their leader, Simon Peter, had denied the Master. Perhaps he thought the Teacher was just that, a teacher and nothing more. Certainly he was not, as Peter had earlier thought, "the Holy One of God".

Even the youngest, John, the beloved one, must have had his doubts. Not only that, he now had responsibility for supporting a mother, he had to consider that. What a heavy responsibility for a young teen.

Only the Mother, Mary, although inconsolable over the death of her only Son, held onto hope. Her only words through her constant tears were in disagreement with the others. He would fulfill His promises.

Other Jews celebrated the Passover Sabbath. Certainly the dinner conversation turned around the events of the previous day. The consensus would have been that the high priest had upheld the Law. The Law had been vindicated, Judaism was safe from another heretical upstart. But what a row that had been. King of the Jews, indeed! How dare He!

Still, there were some who wondered if maybe He could have been the One. Joseph of Arimithea must have been one. Simon the Cyrene had looked into the eyes of the condemned as he helped to bear the awful burden of the Cross and must have seen something there. Veronica gazed at the image on her apron and wondered. It certainly wasn't a peaceful Passover. Little did they realize that the Passover had been fulfilled. The journey out of Egypt was over.

Among the Romans there was talk as well. I can imagine a Roman Richard Dawkins crowing over the silliness of the whole "God Delusion", saying that all religions, even the religions of Rome were merely superstitions, that their only purpose were to enslave and to hold Man in thrall to the State and that Man could accomplish his own salvation if only we all embraced the unity ofPax Romana. Pax Romana, that is the doctrine that saves. All that foolishness about a God was unneeded, everything could be explained away as coincidence and mass hysteria.

But, even among the Pagans of Rome a seed had been planted. Not far from Jerusalem a centurion heard the news of the events of the previous Friday, scratching his head in puzzlement as he watched a young servant, recently recovered from a life threatening illness carried out his duties about the house. And deep in the fortress of Antonia, in a barracks room in the heart of the Roman garrison, a grizzled veteran of the garrison sat with his commander and stared with wonder at the lance with with the soldier had pierced the Condemned and wondered.

Jerusalem, although a relative backwater of the empire, was still the commercial center of the Judean region, especially during the Passover season. Greek merchants and other Gentiles flocked to the city for trade, sensing a quick profit. Among them too word of the goings on of the previous day spread, and that had their opinions. The forerunners of Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens could be found among them. These men would say that there was no need for religion, it just poisons everything, and besides this Jesus character wasn't so good, he embraced riff raff, prostitutes and the like. We can be saved by the philosophies of men.

"There is nothing new under the sun." Two thousand years after the events of the Friday, we still have those Dawkins and Dennets, those Harris and Hitchens among us. They've always been there, they always will be, and their message is still the same, that Man is sufficient unto himself. But those of us who examine history with a critical eye can see otherwise. We can see that somehow, we aren't what we were intended to be. Whether it be a "selfish gene" or original sin, something, somewhere, sometime has gone amiss.

We all speak of progress. Progress implies a fixed destination. A destination implies a planner who sets the destination. Planning implies intelligence. No, it's not the selfish gene that's amiss, it's we ourselves. Science and philosophy are not the answers, the answer is tomorrow. The answer is Easter Sunday. The answer is the Resurrection.

Happy Easter! He is Risen!

Til next time, all the best. Joe

The Democracy of the Dead

On 20 July 1997, the USS Constitution, the oldest warship in the US Navy, and the oldest warship still afloat made her first unassisted cruise in 116 years. One of the greatest challenges facing her commander was training a crew to sail her since no one alive had ever sailed a fighting frigate. With the help of a naval training manual published in 1819, it still took nearly ten years of planning and training before a crew was ready to man her for her forty minute cruise. The skills required to safely operate such an antiquated piece of equipment had languished and been forgotten.

On a more personal level, in the early 1990's, while assigned to National Guard unit in Cleveland, I participated in a project to restore portions of an old retaining wall in Wade Park. The wall had been constructed by the Works Project Administration (WPA) in the 1930's as part of Roosevelt's New Deal. The wall was a massive structure, several hundred feet long, terraced, and 20-25 feet high at its highest. The most impressive feature of the wall, though, was the method used in its construction. I can't recall the name of the construction method, but it consisted of lying limestone stones one on top of the other, fitting them together carefully without mortar. We were unable to do much restoration of that wall because the method hadn't been practiced in decades. No one knew how to do it. It was a skill which had been lost since it hadn't been used in decades.

Now you may ask, what exactly do these two incidents have to do with anything? Well, here's my point. The tradition had been broken. People had thought that we had progressed beyond the point of needing to know how to sail wooden fighting ships or build mortarless masonry walls. Nobody thought it necessary that sailing skills, nobody thought it necessary that such masonry skills be handed on to the next generations. Certainly, they thought, we have progressed beyond the need for that. Most likely it was those to whom these traditions were to be handed as opposed to those who were to hand them on who denied their relevance.

For we moderns (or more accurately, I suppose, for we post-moderns), the word "tradition" is laden with all kinds of baggage. It conjures up images of ancient rituals whose origins are lost in the mists of time; we think of rustic folk dances, or perhaps hidebound bureaucrats, maybe the reading room filled with cigar smoking elderly men at an old fashioned gentleman's club. But an examination for the origins of the word itself belies such notions. From the Latin tradere, meaning "to hand on" the word "tradition" shares a lineage with the word "trade". In that sense then, tradition is our legacy. Like heirlooms, traditions are possessions for which our forebears have paid dearly which generally had great meaning for them and which they believed would be of great values to their posterity.

Traditions have found their way into our culture at multiple points. They are to be found in our speech and in our laws, in our music and in our literature. Chesterton says of tradition that it is "...an extension of the franchise. Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead....All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of their birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death."

But, like the sailor and the stonemason, we have decided that the skills and opinions of our forebears are of little account. We have decided that we have progressed beyond the point of needing the opinions of our fathers. We have discarded their hard earned wisdom and disregarded the foundations they established for our benefit. By doing so, we risk much. We will have to relearn that life is valuable, but not a commodity. We will have to rediscover that monogamy is unitive, not bondage. We will have to rediscover that sons are a blessing and daughters are a treasure, not burdens. That's just for starters.

Look around and see those areas where the disregard of the opinions of those who have gone before us have degraded our culture. That disregard is bringing us closer to a precipice that our ancestors saw clearly. The economic straits we currently find ourselves in is just the beginning. More hard lessons lie ahead.

To paraphrase the Bard of Avon, "Ah, the tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive..." ourselves.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

A Man of Honor?

The Catholic blogosphere is all abuzz, and rightly so, over the invitation extended to President Obama to speak at the University of Notre Dame's commencement and to recieve from that University an honorary law degree. The president of the university, Father John Jenkins, has borne the brunt of the anger for the decision of the university to bestow these honors upon the President, and again rightly so. But few have taken the President to task for his acceptance of these invitations. A portion of the balme for this scandal rests with th President.

President Obama is an intelligent man. He knows full well that many of his views and some of the policies he has impemented, particularly those views and policies regarding the snactity of human life, fail to square with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Further, he knows that the University of Notre Dame is the flagship institution of Catholic higher learning in the United States. Honor requires that such knowledge would preclude acceptance of any awards from such an institution. His acceptance of the university's invitation is the equivalent of Francis Cardinal George agreeing to accept the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood.

Unfortunately, it seems that the concensus is that it would be impolite for the university to disinvite the President now that the invitation has been extended and accepted. I disgaree. It's never to late to acknowedge a mistake. There is, however, another honorable way out of this dilemna. The President could prove himself a man of honor, as opposed to a crass politician, and decline the invitation. If he wishes to avoid admitting having made a mistake he could beg off on the grounds of pressing issues of state, it's not like there aren't plenty of those around these days. We'd understand his hesitance to admit error.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

Missing in Action

Sorry I've been away so long, dear readers. I promise not to let that happen again. No excuses, just a promise that I won't let it happen again. A new post is in the works even as we speak.

In the mean time, I urge anyone reading this to let Notre Dame University know the mind of true Catholics on the matter of President Obama delivering the commencement address and recieving an honorary law degree from America's foremost institution of Catholic higher learning by signing the petition at http://www.notredamscandal/.com .

Til next time, all the best. Joe

An "Ah Hah" Moment

I'm loathe to mention this since I just posted a piece on Dori, but I had Mass offered for her at St Mary's, since today is her birthday. The first reading was from Genesis 2:19-25 on the creation of woman. The Gospel was from Mark 7:24-30, the story of the Canaanite woman who grovelled at the feet of Jesus for the sake of her child. Two awesome readings about women. The first about her creation and the sanctity of the union between man and woman, the second about the things a mother will do for her child.

I know that when Dori stands before her God, a member of the "great cloud of witnesses",she will plead for the man she loves, and the children who were the center of her life.

Wow! Just wow!

Til next time. all the best. Joe

My Dark Nights

She's been gone for over three years now, but as the occasion of Dori's forty eighth birthday draws near, I find myself lost in reveries of her. In the dark of the night those memories of our blissful moments together steal over me and I find myself lost in what was and what could have been.

I will not pretend to tell you that our time together was perfect bliss. We had our share of difficulties, and I am sure that, as all who have lost dear ones do, I have built a shrine to her in my memory, exaggerating the good times and minimizing the bad. Such is the nature of our memories, I'm sure. There are those who tried to tell me then, and still tell me today, that two so deeply troubled people had no business being together, and perhaps that was true, but I think not. We were both persons of deep passions, passions which often conlicted with one another. What is true, though, is that we fumbled through our relationship. We were two deeply flawed people looking for a way around the hurts we had suffered previously. The solutions we chose were not always the healthiest soultions, the places we sought solace were not the safest refuges. Unfortunately, our end came just as we started to find our way out of our flawed decisions.

Oddly enough, it was her illness that united us at last. There is something cathartic in suffering, something healing, not only for the one who suffers, but for those who love the sufferer, as I love Dori. There is something is witnessing the suffering of another, especially up close and personal, that calls upon the "better angels of our nature", I think. Suffering calls us to not only work for the benefit of the sufferer, for the alleviation of the suffering, but it calls us to share the pain, to unite ourselves to one another through that shared experience. The suffering itself becomes a bond between us. I witnessed the healing effects not only between Dori and I, but between her and others. I saw some the ties of some friendships strengthened; I saw family bonds strained by dysfunction restored.

Dying, it has been said, focusses the mind wonderfully. I think that's true. Living in the present takes sudden priority over the hurts of the past and the fears of the future that those of us who will go on living have difficulty grasping. Suddenly, one realizes that, as Richard John Neuhaus put it, that "the work of dying well is, in largest part, the act of living well." Dori knew she was dying well before I did; I don't think I ever quite grasped the fact until she did, in fact, die. She did what she could to prepare, still, I think the end surprised her.

This time of year the late winter sunshine streams through the windows in the late afternoon, much as it did in the little house we shared together. It illuminates the corner of the couch which was her favorite napping spot. I'd often walk into the living room to find her dozing there and when she stirred and opened her eyes to see me she'd burst into a radiant smile. It melted my heart every time I saw it. Even when I was angry or cross with her, I never could be for long when confronted by that smile. How I miss that. I'd trade everything I have to see it just once more. She always loved me better than I loved her.

I miss you, baby and I think of you every day.

Til we meet again, my darling, all the best. Joe

Is Abortion a Necessary Evil? Conclusion

Just a short note to let you know that Shan seems to have lost interest in our conversation, and I can't blame him. He had elected to defend an indefensible position, and, while I admire him greatly for his dogged determination to do so, I can understand his frustration. I'll let you know if he responds again, but I'm not hopeful. On to other things.

As always... til next time, all the best. Joe

"What have you to do with us?"

Things have been going slowly in my exchange with Shan and as a result I've decided I should interrupt those postings with some thoughts which have been rattling around in my head.

A Gospel reading at Mass recently was from the first Chapter of St Mark. It recounted the story of Jesus at the synagogue in Capernaum (not by coincidence St Peter's home town) where He is confronted by a demon possessed man. The demon shrieks at Christ, "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us?" This question echoes through the ages to this day; it is still heard from the world, addressed now to those who stand counter to the culture, particularly those who hold to the teachings of Christ as passed on by His Church.

"What have you to do with us?" The culture recognizes Christianity as a force counter to itself. It sees in Christianity a force capable of reforming itself, capable of seizing the reins and redirecting the progress of mankind towards its ultimate goal. This is why it rails against the Church. This is why the Church is under such vehement attack by proponents of the culture at large. Academia distorts her history and philosophy, the media misrepresents her opinions and exaggerates the flaws of her members.

"Have you come to destroy us?" Within the Christian call for discipline, for self-denial, self-restraint and self sacrifice, the culture sees its nemesis. It recognizes a force for change more powerful that its call for individual, for temporal happiness. In its drive for the common good over the good of individuals the Christian ideal is diametrically opposed to that which the society overall values most, the happiness of the individual at the expense of the whole of mankind. The disciplines which allow the Christian to see the suffering of others, to feel that pain, to act outside himself to alleviate that suffering where possible, and where the alleviation of that suffering is not possible, to share in it, are baffling to those involved wholly in the popular culture.

This, though baffling though it may be to many, is exactly what we are called to do. We are possessed of a philosophy and a way of life which has great power. Indeed, it is a way of life capable of reforming the culture. Secure in the knowledge that what we believe is firmly grounded in objective truth, and with a guarantee from He who established that truth that the victory belongs to us, we as His instruments must attempt, as best we can, to live within the confines of that discipline, to demonstrate that life within that discipline is not only possible, not only feasible, but that it is productive and fulfilling both physically and spiritually and is in the best interest of the whole of mankind.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

Is Abortion a Necessary Evil? Part 5

My reply to Shan. He begins by quotin my previous post (in red). My new comments are in italics.

Not at all. Outlawing abortion will certainly not eliminate abortion, but will reduce the number of abortions performed. I believe that since both mother and child are human, the net savings in lives will be appreciable.
This is a valid point to say, however... What value do you place per person? I believe a net saving in mothers would far outweigh a net saving in "children".
A healthy adult with an established life out values a unborn fetus with no assumed presence in the world, in my book.

Why is the mother's life more valuable? Why are her rights more important than that of the child? You have already conceded that the fetus is indeed human. If that is the case, the law requires that we extend to that unborn human the same equality before the law as we extend to the mother.

Now...I'm going to try and not sound like I'm picking through semantics here, however I'm not sure how to respond without changing topic.
The crux of our disagreement would lie there if we were debating the morality of Abortion itself, which I would be glad to do. However, the point I had been trying to make was on abortion being a necessity in society, from YOUR moral standpoint.
Weather I personally condemn or condone abortion, if I play by your rules that a fetus is a child, and that abortion is in fact killing a person, will banning it create a more justified balance of human rights than allowing it?

Yes, banning abortion legally would create a more equitable balance of human rights. Just as you conceded that the fetus is a human life, I hav conceded that banning abortion would not mean that abortions would still not occur. However, the fetus would be extended protection under the law since, when the the life of the fetus was intentionally taken, it would be a criminal act. Not only do laws regulate society, they make a statement about those things which that particular society values. Do we value human life?

We currently have laws in place against armed robbery. Should we, in the interest of reducin the number of persons injured in the commisiion of robberies, decriminalize that act to make robbery a "safer" choice?

From a practical standpoint, let's compare situations. Under the current system, one hundred women "need" an abortion, one hundred abortions take place. If abortion was illegal, one hundred women "need" abortion but due to availability of practicioners willing to violate the law or the prohibitive cost of obtaining an illegal procedure only twenty take place representing a net savings of eighty lives. Hmmmm.....

For my take on that, refer to the top of this email, on a mother being more viable than a fetus.

But the mother is more viable than a newborn, or a six month old, or a three year old. You've conceded that the fetus is human, so you tell me, when do rights attach to that life? At birth? At six months? At three years? The only point in human development which is not arbitary is conception. If there is some other non-arbitrary point at which rights adhere in a human being, please let me know when that point is.

With these rules, deeming abortion an evil, and a dirty subject...I can relate it to this:
You're caught on the edge of a cliff, there are two people hanging from the cliff... The mountain is crumbling away and you only have time to save one of them. Who do you choose? It's a nasty subject that you'd never want to have to decide on, but if you're forced to, who is the more viable candidate to be saved?

First, you have made the admission that abortion is an evil. Is it ever ethical to condone evil, even if a greater good may come of it? I would contend that it is not.

While your analogy is delightful, it is seriously flawed. Both parties are over the cliff due to the irresponsibility of one party, the other is wholly innocent. My emphasis would be to clearly mark the precipice, maybe build a fence around it, make the cliff clearly off limits thereby preventing folks taking themselves and those whose care they have been charged with into the abyss.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

Is Abortion a Necessary Evil? Part 4

Shan's latest reply in our exchange:

Not at all. Outlawing abortion will certainly not eliminate abortion, but will reduce the number of abortions performed. I believe that since both mother and child are human, the net savings in lives will be appreciable.

This is a valid point to say, however... What value do you place per person? I believe a net saving in mothers would far outweigh a net saving in "children".
A healthy adult with an established life out values a unborn fetus with no assumed presence in the world, in my book.

Now...I'm going to try and not sound like I'm picking through semantics here, however I'm not sure how to respond without changing topic.

The crux of our disagreement would lie there if we were debating the morality of Abortion itself, which I would be glad to do. However, the point I had been trying to make was on abortion being a necessity in society, from YOUR moral standpoint.

Weather I personally condemn or condone abortion, if I play by your rules that a fetus is a child, and that abortion is in fact killing a person, will banning it create a more justified balance of human rights than allowing it?

For my take on that, refer to the top of this email, on a mother being more viable than a fetus.
With these rules, deeming abortion an evil, and a dirty subject...I can relate it to this:
You're caught on the edge of a cliff, there are two people hanging from the cliff... The mountain is crumbling away and you only have time to save one of them. Who do you choose? It's a nasty subject that you'd never want to have to decide on, but if you're forced to, who is the more viable candidate to be saved?

Best,
-Shan

Is Abortion a Necessary Evil? Part 3

Here I continue my discussion with Shan. His comments in normal text. Mine in italics. I also sent these remarks to Shan via email. Mine have been edited here for spelling, othe than that, they are unchanged from what he recieved.

Is Abortion a neccesary evil? I believe it is.No matter what your personal beliefs on the subjects are,in today's society, there's no arguing sex and violence are a prominent part. With this, comes casual promiscuity, rape, and the like. Unwanted pregnancies happen.

I agree with ypour contention that current societal trends play a prominent part in unwanted pregnancies. This is a reflection of the culture’s denial of the purpose of human sexuality. When one engages in the sex act, one does so in the full realization that the natural purpose of the act is procreation regardless of their intent. While there may be such a thing as an unwanted pregancy, there is no such thing as an accidental pregancy.

If someone with an unwanted pregnancy, with no way to support a child, knows it's physically possible to have an abortion, what's going to stop them?If you make something controversial illegal, you push it underground.

That’s true. I’ll grant you that laws against armed robbery haven’t eliminated armed robbery. Rape still exists in spite of leagl strictures against it. The same goes for a myriad of other crimes. The important thing is that laws against violations of persons or their property make it known that society values persons and property.

Just as the illegal drug trade thrives underground, through inner city and international violence, so can abortion. This may be slightly off topic, but the analogy fits right in line. With drugs, when you take away the legal market, an illegal market pops up. With dirtier, more dangerous supplies, and a more ruthless industry to spread it. The same can be said for abortion, as a necessary evil. If you take abortion out of the hands of trained medical professionals, you put it into the scenarios of coat hangers in back alleys. This may be an extreme scenario, but so is the topic we discussed earlier, abortion leading to eugenics.

I agree that abortions, when rendered illegal, will continue to be performed by criminals. I think the coat hanger bit is a trifle extreme.

If you take the pro-life stance, when picking the "lesser of two evils", wouldn't having abortions where the mother is far more likely to be in safe position, be preferable?

My preference is for a solution whereby the lives of both the mother and the child are respected.

Would you rather both sides, being the mother and the baby, be in a position to be sacrificed?

Not at all. Outlawing abortion will certainly not eliminate abortion, but will reduce the number of abortions performed. I believe that since both mother and child are human, the net savings in lives will be appreciable.

A foreseeable campaign against this would be promoting alternatives. Such as adoption, which is already promoted in the current legal status. Adoption is still a problematic option when the Abortion option is present. Carrying something for 9 months inside of you can be just as jeopardizing to a career, education, (and everything else that goes along with keeping a steady life of your own a float) as having and caring for a birthed child.

Perhaps the time to “choose” I prior to the moment of conception. Maybe, just maybe, deciding to abrogate our responsibility in the name of “freedom” isn’t the issue.

I don't personally believe in abortion being murder, but if a completely viable alternative to abortion was found, I would support it. But until then, abortion will continue to serve, or plague, society as a nessiscary evil, whether it be in the public eye, or in the back streets. Which legal status is more morally acceptable when regarding human life?

Here is where the crux of our disagreement lies, I think. By consenting to this discussion you admit that abortion is an evil, yet you deny it’s murder. You seem to admit, although in a roundabout way, that the fetus is a person, but that it’s right to life is trumped by the right of the mother to “choose”. As an individual I have no right to take the life of a person who thwarts my plans. I have no right to kill a thirty year old who is inconvenient to me, nor a ten year old, nor an infant. Yet at each of these ages, the human is distinctly different from what it is becoming; its chronological age is an artificial construct, a convenience imposed by us. What makes a child a different thing the day before its birth than it is the day after its birth? Certainly, a newborn is not wholly viable. A newborn requires much attention and support to survive. Should we consider legalizing infanticide on this account? Should the convenience of the mother trump the rights of a newborn? At what age do we draw the line? Two days? Two weeks? Two years? How is a child different at one year, 364 days, than at two years? Tell me the point at which rights inhere in the person and make a case for that point rather than any other.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

Is Abortion a Necessary Evil? Part 2

Shan's first email has arrived. He sent some biographical information and then got down to his case. Here is his first installment unedited. Mine will follow shortly.

Hello Joe. So sorry for the late replies, life's been hectic.

As for introductory info, My name's Shan Cerrone, I live in Northern Virginia, planning to attend BU for photography. And things that might be relevant to this discussion, I was raised in the United Methodist church and was rather active until about 15 when my life's direction started to change. And, (with no disrespect to your beliefs intended) began to take a strong interest in philosophy, and started seeing the flaws of religion, and parted ways. Today I'm a rather optimistic Nihilist, if there is such a thing.

Civilities agreed,Onward!

Is Abortion a neccesary evil? I believe it is.

No matter what your personal beliefs on the subjects are,in today's society, there's no arguing sex and violence are a prominent part. With this, comes casual promiscuity, rape, and the like. Unwanted pregnancies happen. If someone with an unwanted pregnancy, with no way to support a child, knows it's physically possible to have an abortion, what's going to stop them?If you make something controversial illegal, you push it underground.

Just as the illegal drug trade thrives underground, through inner city and international violence, so can abortion. This may be slightly off topic, but the analogy fits right in line. With drugs, when you take away the legal market, an illegal market pops up. With dirtier, more dangerous supplies, and a more ruthless industry to spread it. The same can be said for abortion, as a necessary evil.

If you take abortion out of the hands of trained medical professionals, you put it into the scenarios of coat hangers in back alleys. This may be an extreme scenario, but so is the topic we discussed earlier, abortion leading to eugenics.

If you take the pro-life stance, when picking the "lesser of two evils", wouldn't having abortions where the mother is far more likely to be in safe position, be preferable?Would you rather both sides, being the mother and the baby, be in a position to be sacrificed?

A foreseeable campaign against this would be promoting alternatives. Such as adoption, which is already promoted in the current legal status. Adoption is still a problematic option when the Abortion option is present. Carrying something for 9 months inside of you can be just as jeopardizing to a career, education, (and everything else that goes along with keeping a steady life of your own a float) as having and caring for a birthed child.

I don't personally believe in abortion being murder, but if a completely viable alternative to abortion was found, I would support it. But until then, abortion will continue to serve, or plague, society as a nessiscary evil, whether it be in the public eye, or in the back streets. Which legal status is more morally acceptable when regarding human life?

Best, -Shan C.

Is Abortion a Necessary Evil? Part 1

I was recently involved in a discussion of FaceBook with a young man who contends that abortion is a necessary evil. I, of course, don't believe this to be the case. The gentleman in question, Shan Cerrone, has graciously consented to engage in an email discussion of this issue, and has further consented to allow me to publish our exchange on Top Meadow.

The topic of our exchange will be "Is Abortion a Necessary Evil?". We have agreed to an exchange of three emails, limited to 1000 words. Each response should be answered within 48 hours. The comments option will be disabled until after the exchange is finished. I have asked Shan to furnish any biographical or pertinent information he would like to make known here.

Stay tuned for more information.

As always, until next time, all the best. Joe

The Tangled Web

On Sunday, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, a self-described Catholic, touted the virtues of birth control as a means of reducing the liability for states and municipalites, since, if there are fewer persons born there will be fewer persons requiring government services. The contraception funding was included as part of the conimic stimulus package being considered by Congress. This actually makes sense for fans of eugenics. If we provide family planning service gratis to low income citizens, they will breed fewer low income children, children who will require silly things like education and health care. That's brilliant! Hooray for the eimination of the unfit. Margaret Sanger would be so proud. You can see the interview here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFU_jE9WasM .

Late Monday, President Obama leapt to the aid of the economic stimulus package encouraging Congressional Democrats to delete the family planning funding. What's that about? The most ardent anti-life President ever elected is ditching a program that that further undermines the idea of individual responsibility! A couple of possibilities exists:

1. Nancy Pelosi really is that radical and believes every word she said. The President holds her point of view as well, but realizes that the Democratic Party leadership's Freudian slip is showing, and in an attempt to pull the skirts back down over the slip, he spoke out.

2. Nancy Pelosi really is that radical and believes every word she said. The President holds her point of view as well. he two get on the phone and cook up a plot whereby the President can appear to be the voice of reason and moderation on a hot button issue like eugenics.

3. The President disagrees with Ms Pelosi and is horrified that she could even have said such a thing out loud.

There is no possibility that Ms Pelosi is not a eugenicist. There is little possibility that the President is not either. Call me a cynic, but I'm going with option #2. It's "good cop, bad cop" on a grand scale. Nancy Pelosi is not a stupid woman, she wouldn't put such views on display without good purpose. Watch for more of this type of political theater from the jesters of the art of governance.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

"A More Excellent Way"

If there is anything about which the bulk of humanity can agree, it is the proposition that there is something intrinsically wrong with the nature of man. A survey of ancient literature shows a trend among the ancients to place the blame on the caprice and folly of the gods. They wanted to shift the responsibility onto beings who operated beyond their ken, into a realm beyond their control.

Likewise the moderns, that is the secularists, atheists and relativists, want to shift blame for our broken nature into an equally inaccessible and irreparable material realm. They wish to blame it on "the selfish gene" to borrow a phrase from the great materialist cheerleader Richard Dawkins. They contend that man's basic flaws are contained in the genetic code which drives the organism to act solely out of a desire to preserve its genes in the pool of the species. Although most of those of the materialist mindset deny the existence of our free will, there are some who adhere to this "selfish gene" idea, Dawkins included, who contend that we, as a species, have outgrown the need to follow this basic genetic drive, contending in the process that we should "be good for goodness sake". The methodology by which we are to attain this goodness is left undefined.

There is, however, a middle road. It is, in the words of St Paul, "a more excellent way". It is the way of Christianity. Like all roads to recovery, this route requires that we place the blame squarely where it belongs, not on the capriciousness of inaccessible and petty deities, not on the equally mystical and inaccessible gene, but squarely on the shoulders of man himself.

Further, this middle road proposes a solution to our tendency towards sin, our concupiscence. It is not a one shot solution, it is an ongoing solution, a continuous process, a way of life. As our brokenness came through the will of man, so does our salvation, the realization of what we were intended to be flow from the willing assent of man to conform to the will of our Creator who defined our original nature. Christianity holds us to a higher standard, we are held accountable to a higher authority, our God. We are told that after acknowledging that the fault for our broken nature is our own, we must confess our transgressions, we must make amends to those we have harmed, we must live in the service of that higher authority and our fellow men.

Why is this God necessary? This is the great question the secular humanist asks. Humans do not conform to rules without some method of enforcement and punishment. Just as secular laws require provisions for enforcement and retribution against transgressors, so must the natural law hold these threats.

As Chesterton once observed "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried." Man alone cannot reform himself. The reform of man can only come through the realization that the rift between him and his Maker has been healed, and that by adhering to the will of that Creator we will be able to "put away those childish things" and grow into the beings we are meant to be.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

Is There a Catholic in the Closet?

Did President Obama really say:

"We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."

Let's hold him to his word. If these principles apply to our relations with other nations, then we must adhere to them on the domestic front as well. It is high time we "put away childish things" and accept respomsibility for our actions. Let's hope that the speechwriter who borrowed this language from the pro-life movement has the President's ear.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

God Bless the President of the United States

I'm watching live coverage of the inauguration as I write. Say what you want about the what the next four years portend for our nation, the spectacle is truly amazing. For the forty fourth time in our history, a peaceful transition of power is occurring. The reins of government of the most prosperous and most powerful government is being transferred constitutionally, not by assassination, or at the point of a bayonet. It a spectacle which demands and deserves all the pageantry and pomp we can muster.

I can disagree with the new President, but I must celebrate the event of his Inauguration. So long as the peaceful transition of power occurs in the nation there is hope. Not the hope of political jingoism, but true hope of the spirit. Not the vague promise of change, but the very real promise of conversion.

Let's not mourn or bemoan the installation of the man as president, but rather let's celebrate the event which marks the continuity of our government. Celebrate the day. Celebrate our freedom. Celebrate our nation. We can fight tomorrow.

God bless the President of the United States. God bless the United States of America.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

In the Fooststeps of Lincoln...Really?

And so it begins. Barack Obama, who fancies himself a modern day Abraham Lincoln, embarked this morning on the final leg of his journey to the nation's capital for his inauguration. He departed Philadelphia by train following the last leg of Abraham Lincoln's route to Washington for his inauguation.

The President-elect likes drawing upon Lincoln's legacy. He enjoys making comparisons between himself and the Great Emancipator and there are, indeed, some similarities. Like Lincoln, Obama was narrowly elected on the heels of an unpopular presidency held by the opposing party. Like Lincoln, Barack Obama faces a nation deeply divided over issues of momentous import to the future of the nation. One way or the other, the decisions Lincoln would make during his tenure would determine the course of the nation for generations. Likewise with Obama. Lincoln, presented with a nation whose Union was rapidly disintegrating called upon those in the South in vain to refrain from secession; Obama realizing that the hoopla over his election is not nearly so widespread as the media would have the public believe is also calling for unity.

Now for the differences.

Lincoln ascended to the White House at a time marked by States in open rebellion to the authority of the federal government. More were preparing to make similar moves. He took the reins of a government woefully prepared for a physical threat to its existence. In such a situation he had no option but to take unprecedented and perhaps unconstitutional steps to secure to the Executive powers which the Founding Fathers never intended the President to have. He arrested, and even exiled political opponents, suspended the writ of habeas corpus, ignored the opinions of the Supreme Court. He used extraordinary powers to meet the exigencies of an extraordinary situation. Lincoln faced the business of settling issues left unaddressed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.

Obama seeks another goal. He seeks the recastin gof the Constitution in the light of personal liberty. He seeks the redefinition of Constitutional rights as license, not liberty. He places the attainment of personal wants above the common good. He seems possessed of a view that we need to be protected from our personal resposnibilities and that the federal government is the institution best equipped to shield us from ourselves. Already his supporters clamor to muzzle conservative voices, already he seeks to save us from the responsibility incurred through our misused sexuality.

Lincoln always cast his struggle as one to preserve the Union. The tragedy of the Civil War was not waged, in his estimation, over the issue of slavery, although it played a role in bringing the crisis to a head. The tragedy he was compelled to prevent was the dissolution of the Union. He saw slavery as an intrinsic evil, and if he could save the Union and at the same time eradicate slavery, so be it. Lincoln was, after all, a consummate opportunist.

Abortion is the slavery issue of our time. It marks the great difference between two philosophies of government. On the one hand is government s the enforcer of positive restrictions which reinforce the importance of individual responsibility, on the other the government as savior of those who choose to abrogate individual responsibility. Licoln would have had none of this silliness.

Til next time all the best. Joe

FOCA and Conscience

Traditionally, the new year is greeted with enthusiasm. But for serious Christians, pro-life Christians, this new year, 2009, is being greeted with foreboding and trepidation. The political winds in the nation have shifted and the Culture of Death seems to be in the ascendant. The secularism that has run rampant across Europe spawning the ideals of social democracy seems to have leapt across the moat of the Atlantic and taken root in the United States. Someone has managed to hoodwink America and has convinced us that our hopes can be realized through "freedom of choice". Someone has managed to sell us the idea that real change can be achieved if those of us who act with an informed conscience can be muzzled and made to conform. We are being told that we can hold nothing as non-negotiable, and that if we persist in doing so coercion via the law will be employed.

This is the reasoning behind the "Freedom of Choice Act". Rest assured that it will not end there. After this will come the "Freedom to Die Act". Then perhaps the "Freedom to Choose Unless You Already Have a Child Act", followed by the "Duty to Die Act".

What are we to do? What should our response to this seeming resurgence of the culture of death be?

First, we must heed one of the great messages of the Gospel, we must heed the advice proclaimed by Pope John Paul the Great as the first words of his pontificate. We must "be not afraid". From the time of Abraham to the Ascension of Christ, God tells us seventy three times to banish our fears. We must remember that our God is the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. This is the God who led His people out of Egypt; this is the God who brought His people out of Babylon; this is the God who manifested Himself as Man, who died and rose for the salvation of those He loved. The newly named Archbishop of Detroit, Allen Vigneron, has a set of ten rules for disagreeing as a Christian, the last of which is "The victory is won; my job is to run out the clock with style". We have nothing to fear.

This doesn't mean we should shrink or withdraw from public engagement on the issues of dignity and life in which we believe. On the contrary, I think it's time to engage all the more vigorously. Perhaps it's time for the Church to reconsider her traditional reluctance to name names out of fear of the IRS. In the last election, we saw many priests and bishops courageously speak out on the subject of voting our Catholic conscience. We saw many clerics correcting the dubious interpretations cast upon Catholic teaching by so-called Catholic politicians. That was a good start, but not nearly enough. I think it's high time to speak out against outrageous evil and the IRS be damned. Evil sometimes walks and talks and has a name, let's use that name. Let us leave no doubt in the mind of the world as to what this evil is. Yes, this will entail sacrifice on the part of the Church and her members. But was this not what we were promised by her founder, Jesus Christ? Do we not have His guarantee that the "gates of Hell would not prevail" against her? Let's trust in His word and do what is right.

The federal state, the reins of which have been seized by those who have betrayed the liberal ideal of the equality of all men, is about to attempt to impose a gag upon us. The new majority party in the Congress is about to introduce again legislation under the guise of freedom to choose which will tell us that our conscience is not only irrelevant, but that acting on that conscience is illegal. We must fight that attempt and if we lose the battle to prevent the enactment of that legislation, we must refuse to submit and willingly accept the consequences of that refusal.

I believe that this administration poses the greatest threat to the fight for life and the dignity of life that we have faced thus far in the modern "kulturkampf". I believe that our cause faces serious challenges. But I also believe that the outcome is guaranteed. Running out the clock with style may call for greater sacrifices than we know. Do not be afraid.

Thanks for reading my rant.

Til next time, all the best. Joe

A Hierarchy of Injustice

I make it no secret that I am not a big fan of President-elect Obama. Nor do I conceal the fact that my lack of enthusiasm for the incoming administration is based on the President elect's wholehearted support of the "right" of a woman to terminate her pregnancy at will. In fact, I'm rather outspoken in promoting my view that the right to life is the fundamental right upon which every other right is based.

A man I greatly admire, and whom, in my estimation, ought to know better, recently accused me and pro-lifers in general of being "one issue" voters. This man, my friend, is an ardent Catholic and a member of my parish, St Mary's, in downtown Indianapolis. His particular "hot button" issue is immigration, particularly, the rights of Hispanic immigrants.

A word about St Mary's and my membership there is in order here. St Mary's was founded in 1858 as a parish with a ministry to a particular ethnic group, the Germans. At various times she has hosted different ethnic groups, the Irish and Italians have at various times in her long history called her their own home parish. Currently, St Mary's is approximately 60% Hispanic. I belong to St Mary's by choice, not out of necessity. She is not the nearest parish to me. I am not a native of Indianapolis, so St Mary's is not the home parish of my family, nor does she hold any other emotional attachment for me. I love the pastor there. I love the devotion and enthusiasm of her Hispanic members. The thriving Hispanic culture is actually one of the reasons I selected St Mary's as my home parish.

Now, back to my conversation with my friend. I agree with my friend that there are serious flaws in the immigration system in the United States, particularly where that system is applied with our nearest neighbor to the south, Mexico. I know that the economic disparity between the two nations is remarkable; I know that many children sicken and die for lack of adequate medical attention and the unavailability of basic immunizations just because they live on the wrong side of an imaginary line dividing two nations. I, too, decry these occurrences great social injustices.

But there exists between the issue of immigration and the issue of abortion a gulf. There is a hierarchy of injustice here, with the abortion issue seated above the immigration issue. As such, the abortion issue "trumps" the immigration issue

Abortion is a conscious choice made by an individual to deliberately deprive another of their right to live. Further, the woman seeking an abortion seeks to abrogate her responsibility she incurred by engaging in an act, sex, the consequences of which, pregnancy, she was aware of when she undertook that activity.

My friend argued that a thousand children a day perished as a result of diseases which could easily be prevented via effective immunizations. I have not verified these numbers, but I'll accept them at face value. In the United States, four thousand children a day perish at the hands of the abortionist. You do the math.

The Obama administration proposes to ease or eradicate the restrictions currently imposed by the Mexico City Policy on funds provided to other nations for the purposes of birth control and abortion. More Mexican citizen will have the privilege of dying through abortion due to their efforts. I don't want my tax money to be used for this purpose. On the up side, immunizations may become less of an issue.

Certainly, the Democrats seem to have a better program regarding immigration issues, and when that program benefits the common good I will be rightly supportive of them. I'm an independent politically, affiliated with neither major party. I'd love to be able to be a Democrat, and as soon as I find a Democratic politician who is pro-life and pro-immigration, I will consider supporting that candidate. Until I find that candidate, however, life issues must be my primary consideration.

Until next time, all the best. Joe

Richard John Neuhaus, 1936-2009

Convert, priest, writer. American Catholics have lost a great voice for religion in the public square. Our Babylonian exile has become a bit drearier. Details at http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1280

Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and may perpetual light shine upon him. Amen.

Blogging Lessons Learned

This post marks my thirty second attempt at writing something meaningful. This means that over the period of approximately two months, I've managed a month's worth of writing, a milestone of sorts, I think. That's far better than I thought I'd be able to manage. That's my first "lesson learned", I suppose. Here are some more things I've learned.

I've learned not to title posts until I've finished writing. There's an interesting reason for this. What I intend to write, and what actually ends up on the page are never the same...never. I'm not sure how that happens. Truly amazing! "The best laid plans of mice and men..." I guess.

Right alongside that bizarre occurrence, I find that multiple ideas will often find expression on the same page. This is surely a function of my "attention deficit disorder". I find myself scratching the surface in one post of some subject which deserves its own consideration. Maintaining focus on the subject at hand gets difficult. There seems to be so much that needs to be said all at once. Often the distraction is overwhelming.

Sometimes, too, in the interest of timeliness, I find myself writing in haste and I fail to do justice to the subject on which I'm writing. It's difficult to reread a post and realize how much I've managed to leave unsaid on a particular topic because of my haste. On the other hand, I find myself, from time to time, truncating important thoughts in the interests of brevity.

Another problem I have is that I don't seem to be a very original thinker. Not that I plagiarize the work of others, but I do often find myself feeding off of the thoughts of others. Hopefully, I don't simply regurgitate what I've read or heard elsewhere. Ideally, I develop thoughts off the thinking of others.

Oh, and did I mention punctuation? I seem to have fallen in love with the idea of the comma. I'll stick a comma in a sentence at the drop of a hat. Is it possible to disable one's comma key? This is a technical issue which bears some looking into. Either that, or I could marry the comma. That may be a bit much though. But, if a man can marry another man, or a woman another woman; since "love is love", why should I not be allowed to consummate my love affair with the comma and bring it to its full fruition? This may cause problems with my relationship with the semicolon...but what the hell.

While I'm dwelling on technical issues, God bless the inventor of the spellcheck feature! Not that I can't spell, I can, and quite well. But I cannot type worth a tinker's damn. Without spellcheck, I'm quite certain you'd think me a moron (if you don't already). I also have a penchant for hitting the semicolon key instead of the apostrophe key when writing contractions. It must be a common error since my spellcheck seeems to pick up on it. Truly awesome!

Finally, I find it difficult to accept, and I'm sure that you, dear reader, are amazed to hear as well how little the world seems to care about what Henzler thinks. This realization has left me quite flabbergasted. Thirty one posts in approximately two months and only five comments, three of which are mine. Changing the world is going to be much more work, I see now, than I imagined it was going to be when I founded this little corner of the ether. I imagined so much more interaction. Truly, this has been my greatest disappointment. I really need some affirmation.

So, there it is, my friend. That is everything I've managed to learn is a month's worth of posts. If you, dear reader, have any further observations or comments, please feel free to address them here. I'd be delighted to respond.

And, as always, til next time, all the best. Joe

Determinism

I recently took in the movie Valkyrie, the story of the July 1944 plot against Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime. The movie was mediocre, the story itself riveting. I don't mean to make this post about the movie, but it did set me to thinking about the idea of free will versus determinism.

There are those who would have us believe that everything that we do, that very decision which we make, is determined beforehand by our past. They would have us believe that our will, our ability to make decisions, our choices are mere illusions. They contend that if we could build a computer with enough capacity and could enter into that computer the pertinent data, then that machine could predict our decisions. For the most part those who hold such views are to be found among the atheist or agnostic intelligentsia, the same intelligentsia who rail against the existence of an all-knowing God who refuses to, or elects to seldom, interfere in the affairs of men, and who, oddly enough, complain at the same time of a God who gives us no choice in our actions a la Adam and Eve, or the hardening of Pharaoh's heart against Moses and the Hebrews.

I contend that such thinking has found its way into atheist circles via Calvinism. I surmise that former adherents of Calvinistic Christian denominations who "deconverted" to atheism carried bits of the idea of predestination with them, and that from this seed the ridiculous concept of determinism has sprouted. Not that its origin really matters all that much. What really matters is that such thought makes possible a great moral dodge, and that is the idea that, since we cannot actually make choices freely, that since we are constrained in our present and future actions by our past, we cannot be held accountable for our present or future actions. The evil choice which we make are simply the product of what we or others have done in the past. Likewise, any positive actions or decisions we make are simply the foregone conclusion of what has transpired in our lives previously.

I do not mean to suggest that our past experiences play no role at all in our decision making. In fact, I believe that such experiences factor greatly into the decisions we make. Pondering the past is the process by which we learn. I do object, however, to the idea that we are inextricably bound to the past, that we are incapable of freeing ourselves from such bonds.

Thus would heroism become one and the same with villainy; the hero would be no more heroic for his courage than would the villain be culpable for his malevolence. Our admiration of the hero for acting out of the ordinary would be as misplaced as our outrage at the villain for his atrocities. The hero would be as unworthy of recognition as the villain would be of punishment. Even now, it seems that nearly every misdeed can be justified through a diagnosis of some sort of mental disorder.

I guess that the point I'm trying to make here is that our society is based entirely upon the idea that we do have a choice and that we are responsible for the choices we make. To deny that is to deny that we possess any shred of dignity; to deny that is to deny that we can be rewarded or punished for our actions. Crime and punishment, heroism and altruism become outmoded concepts to be relegated to the scrap heap of ideas whose usefulness we have outlived.

Til nest time, all the best. Joe

Happy New Year

Just a brief note to wish my vast readership a very happy and blessed New Year!

Let's brace for the challenges ahead, remembering where our hope lies. God bless you all!

Til next time, all the best. Joe