Three Links Wednesay (vol. XXXIII)

"As for those who say that the whole IRS affair becomes irrelevant if no one can prove that Obama is not directly involved, that’s completely wrong. Of course, if the president was involved, it shows that he is the most corrupt, tyrannical leader in American history, and that every branch of the executive division in our government has been tainted and must be cleaned out. And as far as Obama is concerned, if he wasn’t involved, he is a man too incompetent and weak to hold the job of national chief executive.

But think about what it means if Obama wasn’t involved, and the IRS, an agency that has the power to destroy every person in America, did all of this on its own initiative.  What we’re seeing in that case is the fall-out of a complete Leftist takeover of American institutions. We will have become a tyranny by bureaucracy (in no small part due to the fact that federal agencies are heavily unionized, and always with a Leftist slant), with the entire federal government irredeemably corrupt."

Bookworm on the IRS scandal

--I--

The Obama administration is taking tyranny to a whole new level (as if the HHS "contraception" mandate wasn't tyrannical enough).

What I find most humorous is that Barack Obama’s presidency embodies all of the caricatures of what the Bush presidency was thought to be. Bush was derided as a simple-minded cowboy who brooked no dissent. In reality, Bush actually relished and encouraged disagreement between his advisers, yet it is President Obama who has by all accounts surrounded himself with sycophantic yes-men (and women). And while the Bush administration supposedly drove us to the brink in terms of civil liberties, under the current administration journalists are being wiretapped, entire news networks are being targeted, Catholic groups are being asked about the content of their prayers,  and groups holding opposing views are being harassed by multiple government entities. And the saddest part of all is that the best case scenario is one in which the administration is monstrously incompetent and not simply corrupt

When we were in our last year at OSU, my friend Mr Nathanael Blake remarked to me that he expected to see a dictator in power in the US within our lifetimes. Between NYC Mayor Michael "Nanny" Bloomberg and President Barack Obama--who have done what they can to lay the groundwork for this--that is suddenly looking like an optimistic prediction. I should add here that suddenly, the selection of Joe Biden as VP makes sense: he is Obama's impeachment insurance. Frankly, I'd rather have stupid than sinister.

--II--

The Zippy Catholic has an interesting (always!) post about marriage and contrition:
"This can only make sense if we are incapable of distinguishing between the actuality of a commitment and the enforcement of that commitment by some external authority.  This can only make sense if we have no concept of actual morality at all: if moral obligation is not deontologically objective reality, but rather is merely a matter of the selfish avoidance of personal negative consequences: in short, if the only reason to do good and avoid evil is to escape punishment by the State....People with the understanding that obligation literally doesn’t exist without State enforcement are bound to think that way.  But back here in reality, any marriage which can be unmade by the will of the State is not true marriage.  It was never true marriage in the first place."

--III--

A neat little post about how the mainstream media shapes public opinion reports the news. The fact that the New York Times' is the paper read by intellectuals in the US certainly gives credence to C.S. Lewis' observation that the intellectuals are a credulous bunch, and often are the first to be fooled by the shapers and conditioners of opinion media.

--Bonus--

An now, in lighter news (yes, it's a little old), a take-down of the world's biggest hack writer most renowned author.

Expanded Footnote: On the Distinction Between Virgins and Maidens

These days, premarital virginity is now taken to mean merely that a person has not had sexual intercourse prior to marriage, which is I think an unfortunate oversimplification of virginity. Yes, a virgin is a person who has not had sexual intercourse, but it is something more than this—it is an interior disposition to being "set apart," that is, to setting aside sexual relations for something higher. We see this in St Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, for example, though this setting apart applies also to the person who will henceforth live in celibacy:

"The one who stands firm in his resolve, however, who is not under compulsion but has power over his own will, and has made up his mind to keep his virgin, will be doing well. So then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better. A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whomever she wishes, provided that it be in the Lord. She is more blessed, though, in my opinion, if she remains as she is, and I think that I too have the Spirit of God" (1 Corinthians 7:37-40).

The point has been re-iterated in other forms. For example, the well-loved medieval work The Quest for the Holy Grail, a 13^th century Christian work, has this to say:

"It must furthermore be understood that virginity and maidenhood are nowise identical, indeed that there is a deep distinction to be drawn between them. Maidenhood is not to be equated with virginity for reasons I shall show. The former is a virtue common to those of either sex who have not known the contact born of carnal commerce. But virginity is something infinitely higher and more worth: for none, whether man nor woman, can possess it who has inclined will to carnal intercourse."

This indeed meshes well with Christ's own instruction concerning adultery and lust (Matthew 5:27-28). It also shows that virginity is not merely the state in which a person lacks experience of sexual intercourse. Rather, this state is properly called "maidenhood," though we don't use that term anymore and instead reduce virginity to this state: we moderns overlook St Paul and instead assume that a virgin is merely a person who lacks sexual experience. But virginity is more than "lacking" something, rather it is an interior state in which the person does not desire sexual intercourse, or rather that the person has chosen to forgo sexual intercourse in favor of something higher, namely the freedom to dedicate his whole life to God. Ditto, incidentally, for celibacy, though a celibate person may have previously had sexual intercourse.

It's also why there is no contradiction between the existence of celibate clergy and consecrated virgins, on the one hand, and the teaching that sex is also a good thing on the other. Rather, the former actually points to the goodness of the latter.

Seven Quick Takes (v. 61): Things Fall Apart, or Something

--1--

The semester is dead. Long live the new semester! And speaking of long-lived endeavors, it sounds like the request for a 1-year extension on my dissertation has been unanimously approved by my committee. Here's hoping that I have a Ph.D. by year's end.

--2--

I'm noticing a whole lot of blog about purity/virginity/chastity/abstinence posts popping up all of a sudden. There are too many to be worth linking from here, and as always, there are at several sides (broadly):

1. One side--which seems largely to consist of hedonists, but includes a few folks who are simply shocked by the admission of a certain human-trafficking victim--equates chastity/virginity with purity/abstinence and rejects all of these.
2. Another side, consisting principally of somber moralists and certain Christians, reduces virginity and chastity to purity and abstinence, and thus defends the latter as the ends while not really embracing the former at all. 
3. A third side, which seems to largely by the orthodox Catholics and a few other good Christians, divides these and embraces chastity and virginity while rejecting purity and abstinence as ends though not necessarily as means.

Sides 2 and 3 are largely shouting back and forth at each other, the former is advocating "comprehensive sex education" and decrying Christian sexual morality as "oppressive;" the latter side is largely demanding more abstinence-only sex education in the schools while pointing to the negative consequences (both moral and biological) of sexual promiscuity. Side 3 is questioning whether and to what extent the schools as opposed to the parents ought to be running sex education at all, in particular the mechanics of it; they are the only ones who seem to actually be attempting to put forth anything actually joyful about sex.

--3--

In a related vein, there are moral prescriptions and proscriptions, there is the question of whether or not we adhere to them (both intellectually and in the will), and then there is the attitude by which we adhere to them. All three are important. The first is simply "right and wrong," and so ought to do what is right and avoid what is wrong. This is what it means to be moral. When we adhere to morality, we are moral persons, and to do this we must know right from wrong (intellect) and then desire to do right and to avoid wrong (will). The attitude by which we do each matters too, however. I can desire to do right or to avoid wrong for several reasons. For one, I may fear punishment or the loss of some reward; or I may have a more perfect desire--doing right because it is right, avoiding wrong because it is wrong--by which I would do right or avoid wrong even if there were no punishments or rewards attached. And I can act cheerfully or begrudgingly or sorrowfully or joyfully. For example, I may sorrowfully do a wrong because I am unable to do otherwise (see Romans 7:14-25), or joyfully do right because I know that this is good. I think that these attitudes are also an important part of being not merely moral but actually virtuous, and certainly saintly. For example, in my previous take case 1 is an example of cheerfully advocating immorality, case 2 of begrudgingly advocating morality. When we are left with the choice between 1 and 2, most people will choose 1 without looking back.

--4--

Another example of this can be found in this post by fellow IT columnist TJ Burdick, to wit:

"If one truly wants to help the homeless, giving them clothes designed by a shallow ignoramus for the sole purpose of sticking it to that same shallow ignoramus has no value. In fact, it insults the impoverished, hardcore, and ultimately does not achieve the desired ends. The act of using the powerless to demean the elite and calling it “charity” robs the poor of their most prized possession- their dignity. They are not pawns in a political game of social class, they are human beings who deserve our love, not our narcissism....The whole notion of #FitchTheHomeless is layered in shades of egotistic superiority and promotes a twisted sense of societal justice. If you really want to help the poor, don’t give them A & F clothes, give them their dignity."

The guy who is organizing #FitchTheHomeless is certainly cheerful about it, and it does have the dual good results of clothing the naked and rebuking sinners (the CEO of Abercrombie and Fitch), but it also does risk treating the homeless as mere pawns, as Mr Burdick notes, That is, even if the original intent isn't to treat the homeless as mere pawns--and it's hard to come to this conclusion given the video and the background to this whole movement--it is one of the effects. Further, it is debatable as to whether this is meant as a rebuke of a sinner (an act of mercy) or as a way of "sticking it to the man," which may be cathartic but is not actually virtuous.

--5--

From Fr Selman's summary of the thought of Aquinas (Aquinas 101):

"The greatest evil today is not physical pain, as is often thought today, but guilt, because what harms the soul is worse than what harms the body. Thus, to not think that evil is evil is a greater evil than any sorrow or pain, because this springs from a lack of judgment and right reason. To be deprived of these is an evil, because rationality constitutes the good of human nature."

I leave it as an exercise for the reader to see how this excerpt is related to the previous take(s). Also, I'd say that Fr. Selman's book is a fairly good (though brief, like so many other) introduction to the thought of Saint Thomas for people with minimal philosophical background.

--6--

A puzzle from my thesis-writing:

This figure is a bit vexing for me, actually. Similar data was observed (though never published) by Franklin Grigsby when he was building the original two-stage Raman shifter-amplifier system. This is from my own experiments. Let's just say that I can make a good case for the first peak, but I don't know why the second peak occurs, and neither did Grigsby or anybody else for that matter. It's puzzling. The spectra I can make a little more sense of, so it's probably going to go into my thesis somewhere (in the chapter on designing/building the laser system), the question is where. It would make a good bridge between the discussions of first and second stages (my Raman laser is a 3-stage system, plus compressor), but I already have something else to be discussed there, and it really doesn't make sense to put it after all the other stuff I'm discussing (that would really break the flow of the chapter up just a bit). Perhaps this is why Dr Grigsby didn't put it in his thesis.

Let's just say that it isn't figure 2.4 anymore.

--7--

Last weekend was mother's day, and so we went down to Sweetberry Farm to pick strawberries with the Elsters. This weekend's plans are relatively low-key. My wife is hosting a recital for her music students, and I'm hopefully going to go see Iron Man 3 with some friends. It's also the last round of RCIA for the year. Next weekend will be a bit more hectic, starting Wednesday when the family flies in, continuing through the Thursday/Friday festivities into my brother's wedding on Saturday, and then our daughter's baptism on Sunday. Good thing it's a three-day weekend.

-----
Seven Quick Takes Friday is hosted by Mrs Jennifer Fulwiler at her Conversion Diary blog.

TMM: On Why I Prefer Monastic Retreats

I prefer silent retreats--or, more accurately, monastic retreats, organized or otherwise--to the various "movement" retreats ("Awakenings" for college kids in the south and equivalents elsewhere, ACTS for everybody else). Yes, there may be a time for a well-done ACTS/Awakening/whatever retreat, but these are not for everybody.

I mention this because my wife was throwing out some old stuff, and we came across the mementos of one or another day retreat which was, as I recall, somewhat sappy. And it brought back the amount of pressure put on people--and I'm talking here about even good people who are already quite involved in their church community--to go on whichever of the "movement" retreats happens to have taken root at said parish.

I have nothing against ACTS, Awakening, etc, and have even gone on a few, have enjoyed some elements of them, and even gave a talk for one of these retreats. To the extent that they rejuvenate one's faith, great! But these retreats strike me as being a "first-step" type of thing, and not an end to themselves. Too often, they set up in a parish, and then become self-perpetuating: you get brow-beaten into attending as a retreatant, and then afterwards are harassed or implored into attending again as a staffer, and so on. For the Awakening retreats, you break the cycle by graduating and then leaving; for ACTS, you grin and bear it whenever the retreat sign-up comes around. If you're creative, you hand out cookie-cutters to each retreat staffer who actually pressures you into attending.

This is not to say that nobody every enjoys these things: there are some who find a sense of community in these retreats, and then develop a deeper faith for it. But the retreat itself, I find, rarely if ever does this for me. I've been to a few, and can certainly say that they can help develop a sense of community: but I don't think I've ever really found a deepening of faith from them.

The problem with these retreats, and I've found that this tends to be endemic, is that they inevitably place too much emphasis on the Theology of the Buddy, while offering too little quiet time for prayer and reflection. The point of a retreat should not be to build community--there are plenty of other good ways of doing that in a parish--but rather to allow a person to "tune out" all the noise in his life to spend more time with God, to deepen the prayer life, to spend time speaking and more time listening to God. If this is combined with some solid theology and sound catechesis, good! A good study day is also necessary, and may itself be a sort of retreat.

Our modern life is already hectic and noisy. Going to a retreat in which they confiscate all the watches and then cram every day from 6 AM until 2 AM with activity--whether talks or small groups discussions or coloring or "faith walks" or "love letters"--does not do much to alleviate the situation. Indeed, it can make the situation worse for those of us who, as a result of giving the weekend (usually Friday thru Sunday morning) to the retreat, now have to scramble to get the weekend tasks done during the week. If I had to pick out a flaw in my spiritual life, it's that I don't spend enough time in quiet contemplative prayer or in meditative prayer (e.g. Lectio Divina), and odds are that this is a problem for most others, too. Rare is the "movement" retreat which helps to alleviate this.

Short Thought about Thinking

"I don't necessarily want you to think the same way about this issue as I do, but I do want you to really think about this issue."

So was the (since-deleted) response to one of my comments in a recent exchange I had. It really doesn't matter what the issue in question was here--the sentiment is awfully arrogant. I have far more sympathy for the person who says, "I do want you to think like I do (e.g. to agree with me) on this issue." Indeed, if the point of discussion is to get at the truth underlying an issue, then honest discussion means that all participant really do want each other to agree. Playing devil's advocate is one thing, but really advocating the diabolic philosophy that it's more important to "really think" about something than to come to the right conclusion concerning said issue is something else entirely. It's this latter bit of rank sophistry which makes any genuine conversation difficult--and that is the attitude of far too many in these times of cultural decadence.

Just thinking about something is good, but the point of pondering a question is to gain an answer, and not just any answer but the right answer. This is true even if we don't arrive immediately at the right answer, or at the whole answer. "Really thinking" about something is only worthwhile if we hope to uncover at least a part of the truth of the thing. And that, in turn, is only possible if there is a truth of the thing to be uncovered.

Nicene Guys: Natural Law and Natural Consequences

When I read books, I find that occasional passages jump out at me right away—and that oftentimes these passages, which strike me as initially interesting, seem to fade out of my memory. Other passages kind of sneak up on my mind a little more, barely registering at first glance but then lodging themselves back in some recess of my memory, waiting their turn to come forward. Such may be said about conversations as well. And when the two things meet, well, that's often the time when they both spring forward unannounced, which may lead to a bit of thinking and still more writing (or is it the other way around?).

In his Aquinas 101: A Basic Introduction to the Thought of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Fr Francis Selman delves into a number of commonly and uncommonly commented topics in the thought of St Thomas. One of the more common is Aquinas' thoughts concerning good and evil. Included in this discussion is "five notes of the good," the fourth of which begins:

"When living beings, including humans, seek and strive to obtain what they apprehend as good for them, they act for an end. We see that things act for an end in nature: for example, the end of a caterpillar is to turn into a butterfly because its nature is to become a butterfly. Things are good when they attain their end, as a good pear tree bears fruit and a pear tree that bears no fruit is defective. Only what is good is the end we seek in acting; evil is never an end in itself. Nothing seeks what is bad for it, but avoid it. We can do evil, however, in seeking something that is good in itself when it is not directed to its proper end. Pleasure, for example, is good in itself, but not when we make it the end of our life because the senses are not the highest part of our nature; it needs to be directed to its proper end in our life."

Read the rest on the Nicene Guys site.

Strange Notions Is Online!

What, you may be asking, is "Strange Notions?" It is a site put together by Brandon Vogt, and featuring a number of talented speakers, bloggers, and writers who hope to put "charitable atheists and serious-minded Catholics" in dialogue with each other. It looks very promising.

Depressing Thought for the Day

Quite a few of my friends who were undergrads when I started my graduate work now have PhDs of their own. Meanwhile, my advisor tells me that on account of the laser's breaking again, I should apply for an extension (one year). It seems like I've gone through this every May for the last couple of years (minus applying for extensions). Some days I wonder if I should have been an engineer instead. As far as i know, there are only three other people from my starting year who are still working on PhDs. Two of those took time off in the middle, and the other guy also works with lasers.

Still, I do mostly like what I do (other than the long days and late nights part), and in the greater scheme of things it's a blessing to be able to pursue this degree at all. So there's that. I'm also happy for those friends who are finished--congrats to you all. If there was a litany of saints for those of us who are still awaiting the day of graduation, it might be something like this:
Saint Thomas Aquinas--pray for us.
Saint Augustine--pray for us.
Blessed John Newman--pray for us.
Saint Ignatius Loyola--pray for us.
Saint John Vianney--pray for us.
Blessed Pier Giorgio Frassati--pray for us.
Saint Jude the Apostle--pray for us.

IT: A Review of J Budziszewski's On the Meaning of Sex

No area of Catholic teaching is as widely or bitterly contested today as the Church's teachings on sexual issues [1]. While the great heresies of the past have been largely directed against some doctrine or other of the Faith—culminating in modernity's invectives against faith in general—the really modern objection to the Church is rooted mostly in the realm of morality in general, and sexual morality in particular. To be sure, there are still quite a few Protestants whose objection stem from Protestantism, or modernists who object on grounds of "rationality," but by and large most people in our secularizing and modernizing West who revile the Church do so on the grounds of morality [2]. Indeed, this has been true for some decades now, to the extent that Bishop Sheen could write, quite honestly, that "Atheism, nine times out of ten, is born from the womb of a bad conscience. Disbelief is born of sin, nor reason."

While some of the basis of the Church's teaching on morality is divine revelation, much of that moral teaching can also be approached by reason [3]. The Catholic Church has adopted one particular tradition of moral reason, which is called Natural Law (see CCC 1955-1960 and 1978-1979). Saint Thomas Aquinas is the most well-known expounder of this philosophy, and Aristotle planted some of its theoretical seeds. Today, its most well-known (American) proponents include Robert P George and John Finnis ("new" natural law) as well as Hadley Arkes, Russell Hittinger, and the late Ralph McInerny ("old" natural law).

Among its various proponents, theorists, and even popularizers, Professor J Budziszewski [4] stands out as being particularly good to read, in that his writings are especially clear, and yet also profound. He writes at a level which is easily understood by the average college student—or, indeed, a high school student—yet also manages to not feel "dumbed down" for it. His What We Can't Not Know (or else the shorter The Revenge of Conscience) should be on any short list of "must-read" books pertaining to morality, especially for college students.

In his latest book, On the Meaning of Sex, Dr Budziszewski walks the reader through the reasoning behind Christian sexual morality.

Read the whole thing on the IGNITUM TODAY site.

Parable of the Quiz

Student A: "Are we going to have a quiz today?"
Me: "I wasn't planning on starting class that way. We're doing a discussion/lecture."
Student A: "You just made my entire day!"

Student B: "This sure was a lot of information to take in..."
Students C,D,E, and F: "Yeah, it sure was..."
Me: "So ___."
Student A: "So could we stop with the new stuff here?"
Me: "You mean, 'Could we not do any experiment?'"
Whole Class in Unison: "Yeah!"
Student B: "That would be great."
Me: "You're sure?"
Class: "Yes!"
Me: "Well, ok. As it turns out, I have a quiz for you to take instead."
Student A: "You lied! You lied to us!"
Me: "No I didn't. I said we weren't going to start class with a quiz. I never said we wouldn't finish class with a quiz."

Class:  

 Be careful what you wish for when asking to not do any new work...

Sonogram Laws: What Basis for Opposition?

Sonogram laws, it seems, are supported almost exclusively by people who are explicitly pro-life. Pro-abortion people--for example, the aboritonists who stand to lose money whenever a woman chooses life--obviously dislike them, but then so do many people who prefer to call themselves pro-choice. Indeed, I would venture to guess that even those people who say that they are personally pro-life, but politically pro-choice also largely oppose sonogram bills. These are bills which say, in essence, that any woman seeking an abortion must be shown a sonogram of her baby before the abortion is performed.

Now, the chief argument I've heard against this is some variation on the idea that sonograms are equivalent to legalized rape--because these bills would supposedly require a transvaginal sonogram. I've never seen a bill which explicitly requires such a thing, though in talking to a few OB/GYNs whom I know, such a thing is only required to get a high-definition picture if the woman if either obese or very early in her pregnancy, < 8-9 weeks or so. Be that at is may, the argument is that this bill would force some women to have a transvanginal sonogram, which is in turn equivalent to legalized rape.

Nevermind that the woman would be consenting to have this done as a part of the abortion--just as she would no doubt be consenting to the insertion of the actual instruments of abortion, which are surely more painful than a small blunt wand. The other argument against it is that this would drive up the cost of an abortion, but this is a much less hard-pressed point, since the thought of having to shell out an extra hundred bucks or so does not strike as viscerally as the comparison to rape.

All of which brings me to a recent column by former Planned Parenthood director Abby Johnson. After describing her own experience with an abortion, and asking a hypothetical question regarding which part of the abortion experience sounds most traumatic (the pain of the surgery, the embarrassment of having to strip naked and then get dressed in a rather public setting, or the ultrasound itself), she notes that

Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the National Abortion Federation both REQUIRE ultrasounds to be performed before an abortion takes place. During a first trimester procedure, a transvaginal ultrasound is required. An abdominal or transvaginal is allowed in the second and third trimesters.

There is one reason for this. They need to be able to see exactly how far along the woman is in her pregnancy so the abortion facility knows how much to charge for the abortion. There is one reason they don’t want women to see their ultrasound…it is too risky. Ultrasounds expose the lie of the abortion industry. They show that it is not just a “blob of tissue” or a “mass of cells.”

Ultrasounds show the humanity of the child. They don’t oppose ultrasounds because it is too time consuming. They are performing them anyway! They are required (by their own rules) to perform them. It is not traumatizing for the woman. They are about to perform an invasive and painful procedure on these women and they are seriously worried about how an ultrasound will feel? Of course not. They only oppose ultrasounds because of the risk…a woman may choose life and they may be out several hundred dollars. It is pretty plain and simple.

Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the country. The National Abortion Federation is a large umbrella organization, a "professional association" for abortionists. These are supposedly the "good" abortion providers, the ones who people like to contrast (rightly or wrongly) with Kermit Gosnell and the "bad" abortion providers. They require sonograms, and they require specifically transvaginal sonograms as a matter of procedure during all first trimester abortions.

This begs a few questions. First, if you are a pro-choice person who bases his opposition to sonogram laws on the argument that they will drive up the cost of abortion, does the fact that the "safe" abortion providers require sonograms change your mind? If not, why not? Second, if you base your opposition to sonogram laws because they would be akin to "raping" the woman in-as-much-as a transvanginal sonogram is used, is your mind changed by knowing that Planned Parenthood and the NAF both require this as a standard procedure? If not, then does this mean that you now condemn Planned Parenthood and the NAF for "raping" women in this way? And if your opposition is based on neither the rape argument nor the cost argument, what then? If it is only based on the possibility that seeing a sonogram might cause a woman to change her mind, can you really call yourself pro-choice? You need not tell me the answer to these questions, because I am not the one to whom you are ultimately answerable--but you may want to grapple with both. There may be a test on them later.

Nicene Guys: On Apologetics

What is apologetics, and how is it related to catechesis and evangelization?

Apologetics sounds a bit like "apologize," and the two words do share a common root. Stated simply, apologetics means to give an account or defense, or perhaps an explanation. The Christian idea of apologetics can trace itself back to Saint Peter, who advises us by saying:

"Even if you should suffer because of righteousness, blessed are you. Do not be afraid or terrified with fear of them, but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts. Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put to shame" (1 Peter 3:14-16).

Good apologetics, then, has several marks:

1. It is a defense of our "hope," which ultimately means a defense of what we believe and how we live.
2. This defense should be both gentle and reverent, so that we are not attempting to hit others over the head with faith.
3. It involves keeping our consciences clear, so we should be honest, should tell the truth.

The task of apologetics is related to, but not identical to, both the tasks of evangelizing and of catechizing.


Read the rest on the Nicene Guys site.

Manic Monday Madness: What I Had on Sunday

This is my Sunday ensemble. The books are a mix of theology and philosophy (Aquinas, Augustine, Aristotle, and Plato) and Churchhill's WWII history. The cigar is Upper Cut, the brandy is Cles de Ducs Veiel Armagnac. Oh, yeah....

Oh wait, you mean the point of these is to show off what I wore to Church on Sunday? It's supposed to be "What I Wore Sunday," not "What I Had on Sunday?" Ah, my mistake!

Nothing special (well, the vest was a git from a friend, so that's special): bowtie, vest, collared shirt, pants--just dressy enough to show my respect for the Mass, to say nothing of the parish community and, well, the LORD.

Quote of the Day: Honest Disingenuity

"Any woman (and I do firmly believe that men should have no part in these discussions, since it does not concern their bodies, health, choices, or even lives in some cases) who has had to face this difficult decision - and make no mistake, whatever the age, whatever the circumstances, it is a traumatic and impossible decision to make - has only herself to answer to, only herself to look at in the mirror, and is the only one to live with her decision for the rest of her life."
(From a brief correspondence, my emphasis added)

That's a commonly heard statement (its can't be called an argument) if a pro-life man is discussing abortion with a pro-abortion woman. It's never heard in any other combination (pro-choice man and pro-life woman, two me, two women). It's disingenuous, and a clear sign that the person uttering it is not arguing in good faith. At least she's honest enough to admit that she is not interested in honest discussion.

Also worth noting is how short-sited and self-centered the rest of the argument is. The woman has to live with whatever decision she makes. So does her child. And while the child might die because of the decision, the woman has to die with it. There are no funhouse mirror on Judgment Day. We do not ultimately answer only to ourselves.

One step further, is that those who could have counseled her against this evil and did not will also be liable to judgment. That's true for both the men and the women who could have spoken out but didn't. We will have to live and die with our own parts in this decision. What she chooses may not affect us, or even reflect badly on us in the hereafter. But if we encouraged her to choose abortion (Luke 17:2 and Matthew 18:6) or if we failed to attempt o discourage her from it when given the opportunity (Hebrew 13:17), we will also be answerable to judgment.