Today is Spy Wednesday, the anniversary of the day on which Judas Iscariot conspired with the Snahedrin to hand of Jesus Christ for thirty pieces of silver. Have you ever wondered how much thirty pieces of silver is worth today, adjusted for inflation? In memory of the events which transpired nearly 2000 years ago today, I decided to do a quick search to find out. It seems that there is a bit of disagreement as to what the value of 30 pieces of silver would be worth today, in 2010. Most sites compare the money to the value of a slave (or of the temple tax, or the wages of a skilled worker, or so on), assuming that the "silver" coins were "shekels of Tyre." The result: thirty pieces of silver is worth between $10-15k. That's a pretty good chunk of change, though it maybe wouldn't be enough to buy a piece of land with today's costs, at least not anywhere near the city. Other sites use the Professional Coin Grading Service after converting these to their dollar value. The result: thirty pieces of silver is worth about $250,000. That's a lot of bank; it's also enough to buy a piece of land, with a house, in the city, or a larger piece of land (a small farm, perhaps) just outside the city.
Return to Equus Nom Veritas home.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Of Catholycs
A few days ago, I wrote a brief and somewhat hasty missive in which I used the terms "Womin" and "Catholyc." The former term is a generally accepted variation on "womyn," itself a variation of "women" which has been adopted by the most militant of feminist groups as an attempt to efface any hint of the word "men" or "man" from their identity. That paragon of mirthful honesty, Mr J Raymond Davidson, was quick to reply with a question: "All yor klever derogattory spelllings (Womin, Catholyc) leav mee uh byt losst....'Catholyc' [especially] had me lost. Is that a Catholic without regard for church authority?"
An honest question deserves and honest answer, though I did not have the time then to give an honest answer. I've since received a few other inquisitive messages from readers who were similarly confused. The term itself I borrow from the folks at Catholic Vote Action, specifically Mr Thomas Peters (from whom I found the term) and Mr Joshua Mercer (who coined the term). As Mr Peters explains,
For what it's worth, the alternative spelling "Catholyc" is not necessarily meant to be derogatory. Nor is it meant to kick people out of the Church, or even to excommunicate or interdict them (the latter two, at least, are the responsibility of the bishops).
While the idea isn't to become de facto bishops or usurpers of the bishops' responsibility to excommunicate, there is still some reason to use terms like Catholyc. There are some people who are honest in their desires to be Catholic and to hold to things which go contrary to the Church, that is, to change the Church's teachings one one or another "pet issue." On actual dogma, the Church cannot change; she is not granted the power to change sacred Scripture, or Sacred Tradition, or to otherwise alter the deposit of the faith. This may at times be frustrating, but t also illustrates the need for all individuals to grow in their faith.
Professor J Budsiszewski, upon converting to Catholicism, noted that as he entered the Church he saw a number of things with which he disagreed which were for him obstacles to conversion. However, upon deciding that the Church was exactly what she claimed to be--upon deciding that this Faith was true--those obstacles became only challenges to overcome through prayer and reflection, opportunities for spiritual growth. This is where a number of Catholics find themselves, this crossroads at which they are forced to ask "Am I right, or is the Church right?" When this question is asked honestly, the opportunity arises for growth in the Faith, for greater understanding. I have asked this question before on several occasions, and on every one of them have concluded that the Church is right, and that I was wrong, and my faith has grown a little each time this happens. I have also discovered a little effluence of joy. There was previously a struggle--often much strife--and now it has been resolved, and resolved in a way which rewards patience and honesty on the one hand, but faith on the other.
There are, however, also people who are willing to take advantage of these little periods of questioning. There are those who do not much desire to be reconciled with the Church and the Truth--whether it means honestly following a bad conclusion and leaving the Church or the joy of finding that Truth is waiting for them just inside the Church. There are, tragically enough, those who do not want to enter (or remain in) the Church out of love for her or for her Master, who do not see the Church as possessing either the fullness of revealed Truth or of even having a particularly strong claim to teach about Truth. These people (and organizations) nonetheless adhere to the Church, claiming the name Catholic and all of the privileges which come with it, while simultaneously rejecting the responsibilities of the Faith.
These people do not stay with the Church out of love, but rather out of love's opposite: use. They may hat ehte Church, or may not recognize her, or may be totally ambivalent towards her, save that they can use her for their own ends. Sometimes that use is meant in a benevolent way--the Church is used by hose on both the Left and the Right to acquire or achieve some good or perceived good for themselves or the world--but often the use is or becomes malevolent. Many people stay in the Church and take up the name Catholic as a means to subvert the Church's message, or to confuse the faithful. Often this is because the Church is opposed to some goal or desire of those organizations and those groups.
The recently passed healthcare bill provides some excellent examples of this malevolent use (and perhaps a few of benevolent use). Now the bishops, who have been charged with teaching the Faith--including the moral parts of it--have opposed the health care bill on the grounds that it will almost certainly be used to fund abortions; this was, indeed, the goal of some (perhaps many) of it supporters (why else oppose a simple amendment which would prohibit abortion funding, thus stalling the bill which was supposed to be the legislative priority of the "new" Congress?). The bill was held up, literally for months, over this issue. Prohibit this bill from funding abortion, and the pro-life democrats (and even some pro-life republicans) will support it, and it has the number of votes needed to pass. The US Bishops and virtually every pro-life organization in America opposed this bill as written because it would not prohibit the bill from being used to fund abortions.
Several groups and a certain politician came forth and used their Catholic identities to push for this bill, in spite of the bishop's opposition to its passage on moral (as opposed to merely prudential) grounds. This is a cause of scandal in that it gives moral cover to a bill which is not only a bad idea prudentially, but also which is a bad idea morally. As his excellency Bishop Charles Chaput puts it,
Most prominent amongst these were the Leadership Conference of Women's Religious, with their endorsement (claiming, incidentally, to represent all 59,000 religious sisters in the country, a claim which was shot down by the more faithful Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious, among others); the Catholic Health Association, particularly its president, Sr Carol Keehan*; Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United (both repeat offenders); and most egregiously, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, with her "prayer to St Joesph the Worker" (though on the wrong feast day).
There are literally dozens of organizations (and individuals) within the Church whose purpose is to undermine her teachings. I'm not about kicking people out of the Church (organizations, on the other hand, can be given the boot at any time). It is my hope that all people will have an honest conversion. However, it is better for faithful Catholics (and especially for those lead astray or confused by this dissent) that attention be brought to those groups and organizations who claim to be Catholic while at the same time doing their best to raise their voices in open or thinly veiled dissent. As for such organizations, I believe that all three synoptic Gospels carry a similar warning. I hope that those within the Church come to love the Church and embrace the truth of her teachings; similarly for those outside of the Church. However, it would be better for them to become honest Protestants, pagans, or even atheists than to remain as dishonest Catholycs.
____________________________________
*Update--The question has been posed to me as to whether I believe that LCWR, CHA, and Sr Carol Keehan are to be implicated for dissenting morally or prudentially. In the case of LCWR, the answer is morally. It is a very big stretch to attribute to them anything but moral dissent, since they a) lied in claiming to represent all 59,000 sisters in the country and b) also lied about whether or not this bill could be used to fund abortions. As for Sr Keehan and the Catholic Health Association, it is a bit harder to make the call as to whether their dissent is moral or prudential. The statement released by Sr Keehan on behalf of the CHA states only that
A charitable reading of this statement says that Sr Keehan is dissenting prudentially. A pragmatic reading says otherwise, given that the main concern which was threatening to derail the healthcare bill was that it would be used to fund abortions. Which is the right reading, I leave for the reader to judge for himself; the correct course of action if this does constitute moral dissent, I leave to the prudential judgment bishops.
To Sr Keehan's credit, she has stated previously that she wants healthcare reform which does not fund abortion; well and good. However, to cave on this principle "as a matter of prudence" so that healthcare reform is passed now is to assent to evil that good may result. That is something which is taught against as a moral teaching of the Church (and not merely of the local synod or council of bishops). Nowhere in the more honest of the endorsements of the current health care bill is added any caveat about the bill needing to prohibit funding for abortion; this includes the statements by Sr Keehan and the CHA. There's a world of difference between "I/we endorse this bill as-is" (Keehan, CHA, LCWR) and "I/we endorse this bill on the condition that it not be used to fund abortion" (or that it protect the consciences of healthcare workers).
With that said, I'm don't believe that the Catholic Health Association is a "Catholyc" group, because they have generally been pretty good about supporting the teachings of the; their disagreements are usually prudential. In this one matter, that may not be the case, but as best I can discern, neither CHA nor Sr Keehan has a history of doctrinal subterfuge.
An honest question deserves and honest answer, though I did not have the time then to give an honest answer. I've since received a few other inquisitive messages from readers who were similarly confused. The term itself I borrow from the folks at Catholic Vote Action, specifically Mr Thomas Peters (from whom I found the term) and Mr Joshua Mercer (who coined the term). As Mr Peters explains,
Both these groups [Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good], you see, are liberal AstroTurf posing as “Catholic organizations” (Catholics United especially)...calling an organization “fake” does not intend to vilify Catholics in these organizations, it is meant to seriously question why a supposedly “Catholic” organization would be directly campaigning for the Democrats’ pro-abortion health-care bill against the USCCB, for instance.
For what it's worth, the alternative spelling "Catholyc" is not necessarily meant to be derogatory. Nor is it meant to kick people out of the Church, or even to excommunicate or interdict them (the latter two, at least, are the responsibility of the bishops).
"no one is kicking anyone out of the Church. What we are trying to do, is kick harmful and heterodox messages out of the Church, the sort of blindly-partisan messages that come out of Catholics United and other fake catholyc organizations on a regular basis. And let’s be clear: someone is behaving as a “catholic in name only” if, besides showing up at Mass, they continually act against the interest and teachings of the Church. We would say a husband is acting “in name only” if he leaves his wife and children, starts living with a mistress, and takes away all financial support from his family. That’s an action which can be seen, understood and condemned as wrong. Period." (emphasis original)
While the idea isn't to become de facto bishops or usurpers of the bishops' responsibility to excommunicate, there is still some reason to use terms like Catholyc. There are some people who are honest in their desires to be Catholic and to hold to things which go contrary to the Church, that is, to change the Church's teachings one one or another "pet issue." On actual dogma, the Church cannot change; she is not granted the power to change sacred Scripture, or Sacred Tradition, or to otherwise alter the deposit of the faith. This may at times be frustrating, but t also illustrates the need for all individuals to grow in their faith.
Professor J Budsiszewski, upon converting to Catholicism, noted that as he entered the Church he saw a number of things with which he disagreed which were for him obstacles to conversion. However, upon deciding that the Church was exactly what she claimed to be--upon deciding that this Faith was true--those obstacles became only challenges to overcome through prayer and reflection, opportunities for spiritual growth. This is where a number of Catholics find themselves, this crossroads at which they are forced to ask "Am I right, or is the Church right?" When this question is asked honestly, the opportunity arises for growth in the Faith, for greater understanding. I have asked this question before on several occasions, and on every one of them have concluded that the Church is right, and that I was wrong, and my faith has grown a little each time this happens. I have also discovered a little effluence of joy. There was previously a struggle--often much strife--and now it has been resolved, and resolved in a way which rewards patience and honesty on the one hand, but faith on the other.
There are, however, also people who are willing to take advantage of these little periods of questioning. There are those who do not much desire to be reconciled with the Church and the Truth--whether it means honestly following a bad conclusion and leaving the Church or the joy of finding that Truth is waiting for them just inside the Church. There are, tragically enough, those who do not want to enter (or remain in) the Church out of love for her or for her Master, who do not see the Church as possessing either the fullness of revealed Truth or of even having a particularly strong claim to teach about Truth. These people (and organizations) nonetheless adhere to the Church, claiming the name Catholic and all of the privileges which come with it, while simultaneously rejecting the responsibilities of the Faith.
These people do not stay with the Church out of love, but rather out of love's opposite: use. They may hat ehte Church, or may not recognize her, or may be totally ambivalent towards her, save that they can use her for their own ends. Sometimes that use is meant in a benevolent way--the Church is used by hose on both the Left and the Right to acquire or achieve some good or perceived good for themselves or the world--but often the use is or becomes malevolent. Many people stay in the Church and take up the name Catholic as a means to subvert the Church's message, or to confuse the faithful. Often this is because the Church is opposed to some goal or desire of those organizations and those groups.
The recently passed healthcare bill provides some excellent examples of this malevolent use (and perhaps a few of benevolent use). Now the bishops, who have been charged with teaching the Faith--including the moral parts of it--have opposed the health care bill on the grounds that it will almost certainly be used to fund abortions; this was, indeed, the goal of some (perhaps many) of it supporters (why else oppose a simple amendment which would prohibit abortion funding, thus stalling the bill which was supposed to be the legislative priority of the "new" Congress?). The bill was held up, literally for months, over this issue. Prohibit this bill from funding abortion, and the pro-life democrats (and even some pro-life republicans) will support it, and it has the number of votes needed to pass. The US Bishops and virtually every pro-life organization in America opposed this bill as written because it would not prohibit the bill from being used to fund abortions.
Several groups and a certain politician came forth and used their Catholic identities to push for this bill, in spite of the bishop's opposition to its passage on moral (as opposed to merely prudential) grounds. This is a cause of scandal in that it gives moral cover to a bill which is not only a bad idea prudentially, but also which is a bad idea morally. As his excellency Bishop Charles Chaput puts it,
people who claim to be Catholic and then publicly undercut the teaching and leadership of their bishops spread confusion, cause grave damage to the believing community and give the illusion of moral cover to a version of health care “reform” that is not simply bad, but dangerous.
Most prominent amongst these were the Leadership Conference of Women's Religious, with their endorsement (claiming, incidentally, to represent all 59,000 religious sisters in the country, a claim which was shot down by the more faithful Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious, among others); the Catholic Health Association, particularly its president, Sr Carol Keehan*; Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United (both repeat offenders); and most egregiously, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, with her "prayer to St Joesph the Worker" (though on the wrong feast day).
There are literally dozens of organizations (and individuals) within the Church whose purpose is to undermine her teachings. I'm not about kicking people out of the Church (organizations, on the other hand, can be given the boot at any time). It is my hope that all people will have an honest conversion. However, it is better for faithful Catholics (and especially for those lead astray or confused by this dissent) that attention be brought to those groups and organizations who claim to be Catholic while at the same time doing their best to raise their voices in open or thinly veiled dissent. As for such organizations, I believe that all three synoptic Gospels carry a similar warning. I hope that those within the Church come to love the Church and embrace the truth of her teachings; similarly for those outside of the Church. However, it would be better for them to become honest Protestants, pagans, or even atheists than to remain as dishonest Catholycs.
____________________________________
*Update--The question has been posed to me as to whether I believe that LCWR, CHA, and Sr Carol Keehan are to be implicated for dissenting morally or prudentially. In the case of LCWR, the answer is morally. It is a very big stretch to attribute to them anything but moral dissent, since they a) lied in claiming to represent all 59,000 sisters in the country and b) also lied about whether or not this bill could be used to fund abortions. As for Sr Keehan and the Catholic Health Association, it is a bit harder to make the call as to whether their dissent is moral or prudential. The statement released by Sr Keehan on behalf of the CHA states only that
"We understand the political realities and concerns with passage of such important and far-reaching legislation. But we firmly believe that now is not the time to let those concerns derail what may be the last opportunity of our lifetime to address the continuing shame of allowing so many individuals and families in our nation to go without access to affordable health care"(emphasis mine).
A charitable reading of this statement says that Sr Keehan is dissenting prudentially. A pragmatic reading says otherwise, given that the main concern which was threatening to derail the healthcare bill was that it would be used to fund abortions. Which is the right reading, I leave for the reader to judge for himself; the correct course of action if this does constitute moral dissent, I leave to the prudential judgment bishops.
To Sr Keehan's credit, she has stated previously that she wants healthcare reform which does not fund abortion; well and good. However, to cave on this principle "as a matter of prudence" so that healthcare reform is passed now is to assent to evil that good may result. That is something which is taught against as a moral teaching of the Church (and not merely of the local synod or council of bishops). Nowhere in the more honest of the endorsements of the current health care bill is added any caveat about the bill needing to prohibit funding for abortion; this includes the statements by Sr Keehan and the CHA. There's a world of difference between "I/we endorse this bill as-is" (Keehan, CHA, LCWR) and "I/we endorse this bill on the condition that it not be used to fund abortion" (or that it protect the consciences of healthcare workers).
With that said, I'm don't believe that the Catholic Health Association is a "Catholyc" group, because they have generally been pretty good about supporting the teachings of the; their disagreements are usually prudential. In this one matter, that may not be the case, but as best I can discern, neither CHA nor Sr Keehan has a history of doctrinal subterfuge.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Nicene Guys Feed: Technocracy
Marching orders are handed down,
Each troop is given a uniform--
Standard issue with an ID number--
Every name is replaced with a barcode.
Each is a soldier of an unusual sort,
They're no mean army of men,
They fight in a war without skirmishes,
Their weapons are not meant to kill.
Read the rest at the Nicene Guys website.
Each troop is given a uniform--
Standard issue with an ID number--
Every name is replaced with a barcode.
Each is a soldier of an unusual sort,
They're no mean army of men,
They fight in a war without skirmishes,
Their weapons are not meant to kill.
Read the rest at the Nicene Guys website.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Can You Tell the Difference
Ok, this is going to be a bit of hyperbole, and I may regret this later, but here are two websites:
http://democratsforlife.com/ and http://democratsforlife.org/
Can you tell the difference? Not that there is much difference. On a more positive note, we should definitely applaud the handful of democratic holdouts who voted against this bill; ditto for all of the republicans who did so, especially those who did so for the pro-life motive. With that said, the more I read about Representative Bart Stapak's chicanery, the more I realize that he really is a charlatan who deserves the ire of the pro-life movement which he duped; that, or he is not very bright.
Tip of the derby to Mr Brandon Kraft of the Journeyman.
http://democratsforlife.com/ and http://democratsforlife.org/
Can you tell the difference? Not that there is much difference. On a more positive note, we should definitely applaud the handful of democratic holdouts who voted against this bill; ditto for all of the republicans who did so, especially those who did so for the pro-life motive. With that said, the more I read about Representative Bart Stapak's chicanery, the more I realize that he really is a charlatan who deserves the ire of the pro-life movement which he duped; that, or he is not very bright.
Tip of the derby to Mr Brandon Kraft of the Journeyman.
One Place Where I draw the Line
I haven't and likely wont's say this very often: Mr Henry Karlson is right. Of course, he is not the only one; regarding actual death threats (as opposed to an ill-timed and maybe ill-conceived campaign by Mrs Sarah Palin), a few true pro-lifers have already spoken up, in their various ways. This is also one place where I draw the line. However harsh may be my rhetoric and rants at times, death threats are never acceptable, nor are calls to assassinate public leaders or private persons (however tempting the idea may sometimes seem), nor are actual acts of violence. We may not do evil in the hopes that good will result. Evil or wicked as these people may be, they are at the end of the day still human, and thus must still be accorded that minimum standard of dignity due to every man. This includes a respect for the sanctity of their lives.
After-death threats, on the other hand...
Update: Mr Erick Erickson has a bit of analysis about the "threat of violence": some is "bipartisan" (both sides are being threatened), and a lot of it is fake. He adds an interesting little footnote to his piece:
Which brings me to a second area where I draw the line: even when my reasoning is faulty, and even when my sources are incorrect, I don't tell outright lies. That may be why I am not a politician or a newsman. I also tend not to advocate declaring war as a means of justifying assassinations.
I should add that there is a sort-of caveat to all of this, which is self-defense. If you threaten me, my family, my friends, or those to whom I have sworn allegiance, all bets are off. If you have declared war against me and mine, then you are now an enemy combatant, and subjected to the doctrines of just war.
After-death threats, on the other hand...
Update: Mr Erick Erickson has a bit of analysis about the "threat of violence": some is "bipartisan" (both sides are being threatened), and a lot of it is fake. He adds an interesting little footnote to his piece:
I had intended to put in one more clear expression that perpetrators of violence should be arrested, prosecuted, and sent to jail, but no matter what I say the Democrats and left will say I am actually encouraging and excusing violence. They have a vested intereste to play up the violence and, perversely, do exactly what they are accusing the GOP of doing — incite it so that the media narrative that started building on Monday highlighting all the immediate taxes and pain while the benefits don’t show up for a few years would disappear and focus instead on the racist angry white men. That’s also precisely why Marshall is lashing out at Cantor. Cantor totally undermined what they are trying to do.
Which brings me to a second area where I draw the line: even when my reasoning is faulty, and even when my sources are incorrect, I don't tell outright lies. That may be why I am not a politician or a newsman. I also tend not to advocate declaring war as a means of justifying assassinations.
I should add that there is a sort-of caveat to all of this, which is self-defense. If you threaten me, my family, my friends, or those to whom I have sworn allegiance, all bets are off. If you have declared war against me and mine, then you are now an enemy combatant, and subjected to the doctrines of just war.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Witches in the Anglican Church
Father Dwight Longenecker has a story up about the Anglican parish which welcomes a coven of witches to celebrate the Spring Equinox. There's a faith community which is sinking fast. What does the good father have to say?
Yes, yes, enough about the Episcopalians. What about the witches?
I rather meant the Wiccan witches, not the wicked witches. Though, I suppose these are only the wicked witches of the East; the wicked witch of the west is, alas, a Catholyc. In other news, the Anglican Church in America and the Anglican Catholic Church in Canada--both members of the Traditional Anglican Communion--have asked for Ordinariates to join the Catholic Church. The Leadership Conference of Women Religious is not so forthright in asking to leave the Church. So we have honest Anglicans who want to be Catholic and Catholycs who would honestly want to be Anglicans. Hey Anglicans: trade ya!
"Of course it is rather easy to poke fun at aging ladies in flowing robes and dangly earrings lighting candles and dancing around in a circle to celebrate the flowering of mother earth"
Yes, yes, enough about the Episcopalians. What about the witches?
When I was an Anglican priest fifteen years ago the feminists were already inserting prayers and canticles and other 'alternative worship material' which addressed God as 'Mother' and offered alternative liturgies to 'Mother Wisdom--She by whom all things were created" etc. etc. Even then the feminists in the Church of England were saying, "Christianity is irreformably patriarchal. Nothing but a complete overhaul of the Judeo Christian religion from within will cleanse the patriarchal stain." Fifteen years ago in the seemingly staid Church of England they were pushing to rid the liturgy of any reference to God the Father and change the language to affirm the Mother Goddess. The Cathedral in Asheville and the goings on there are, after all, not much different than what we get from lesbian Bishop-to-be Mary Glasspool and presiding bishop Schori in any case.
I rather meant the Wiccan witches, not the wicked witches. Though, I suppose these are only the wicked witches of the East; the wicked witch of the west is, alas, a Catholyc. In other news, the Anglican Church in America and the Anglican Catholic Church in Canada--both members of the Traditional Anglican Communion--have asked for Ordinariates to join the Catholic Church. The Leadership Conference of Women Religious is not so forthright in asking to leave the Church. So we have honest Anglicans who want to be Catholic and Catholycs who would honestly want to be Anglicans. Hey Anglicans: trade ya!
Physics as an Exercise in Deductive Reasoning: An Example from Newton's Laws
Today I had a sort of epiphany. I created a set of experiment which my students can use to measure friction. I give them three methods for doing this: the first is by measuring an angle, the second is by measuring an acceleration, and the third is by measuring two net forces. Of course, things are rarely as easy as the theory or description makes them out to be. Consider just the first of these methods which I have mentioned.
The force of friction can be found by measuring an angle. This statement sounds simple enough, but there is more to it than just this: there is also the background information which goes into this. The experiment itself measures both static friction and kinetic friction—or the coefficients thereof—by measuring the angle at which gravity overcomes these forces for an object sitting on a ramp. Place an object—say a car—on a ramp, and then begin to gradually increase the ramps’ angle of elevation; at some point, the object will begin to slide down the ramp. When this happens, gravity has overcome the force of static friction.
Equations are produced, algebra is used, and tears are shed. Such is life in a physics lab for people who have a weak math background. Ok, to be honest I generally stop my students before any tears are shed. “I’m a literature major!” they wail, “why do I have to do this?” Where is the source of this anxiety, I wonder. Then I glance at the board. I see the mess that has formed thereupon, and I pity those students with ADD who gaze upon it.
There is the problem with physics in a nutshell. For a moment I saw the board through my students’ eyes: not as a logical progression from a set of assumptions to a conclusion, but as a tangled mess of gibberish. I had given them a map to get from their starting point to the end, but the map was in a foreign language, the landmarks and way-signs unintelligible. I gave them a map, and acted as guide to one group; unfortunately, the remaining groups saw the maps but heard only the muffled sounds of the guide. It dawned on me that the reason for the despair—thick and palpable as it filled the room—was that they worried that they would be required to know everything which was written on the board.
This would be a tall order. That some of the material was review from the week before spring break perhaps was only a small consolation. That they don’t really speak “Mathese” fluently made all of this more difficult. What I was asking of them was hardly any more than what any good logician or philosopher would ask: that each be able to begin with a set of axioms and from those axioms reach a conclusion through a series of reasoning. The major difference is really only in the form in which this reasoning occurs.
In the normal course of reasoning, a person generally begins with something familiar or obvious: the first principle (or principles). We do that in physics also. In this case, the first principle (intuitive) is that an inanimate object which is “just sitting there” won’t just suddenly start to move on its own. In physics, we call this Newton’s First Law: if the net force acting on an object is zero, then the object’s velocity will remain constant (in this case, the velocity is zero). A second intuition, which is maybe a bit more of a stretch: what happens if two equally strong people tie ropes to opposite sides of an object and pull against it in opposite directions (all else is equal)? In “tug-of-war,” this is obvious: the rope is not moved. This is also Newton’s First Law, with an addendum stating that forces add together like vectors, and that as such they can nullify (or “cancel out”) each other when applied in opposite direction.
Now comes something which is a little less obvious, from an intuitive sense. Any vectors can be broken into components: this includes forces. Intuitively, this is a bit harder to see. Suppose, though, that we have three people playing tug-of-war with each other. All have the same strength* (and all other factors are equal). Which one would be the winner? Alternatively, which one would be the loser? The answer depends on how the rope is set-up. The most obvious example would be to place the three people at equal intervals around a circle: in this case, the match would be a draw.
Suppose two were placed fairly close to each other, and the last one was placed opposite from them on the circle; each person is then told to pull “straight back” away from the center of the circle. Now who wins? “But that’s not fair!” is the gut response. Why not? Nobody is pulling directly opposite anybody else, just like in the case where everybody is evenly spaced around the circle. Ah, but two players are obviously working more strongly against the third. Presto: we have that forces have components. The math only explains how large each component of each force is. This can be taken a step further: the two people who are pulling against the third won’t beat each other so long as they are each contributing the same amount of their strength to beating the third person.
Back to the car on the ramp: why does all of this matter? Because there are several forces acting on the car; the first is gravity, and that always points down towards the center of the earth. This is why we have to lean back when walking down a steep hill, or forwards when walking up it; alternatively, we know that gravity points towards the ground, because that’s the direction which an object falls when we drop it. The ramp, however, is not parallel to the ground, and so it is not perpendicular to gravity. This also means that the normal force is not parallel to gravity, because it is by necessity normal (perpendicular) to the surface on which the car is resting. We know this, because we have difficulty pushing the car through the ramp, but not so much difficulty pushing it along the ramp (maybe it’s a toy car).
Since the ramp is the direction along which the car will move, why not break up the gravitational force into two components: one along (parallel to) the ramp, and one perpendicular to it. The perpendicular component of the gravitational force on the car logically must be equal in magnitude to the normal force: the two have the same strength, otherwise the car would be pulled into (or pushed off of) the ramp. That is to say, if one of the two forces playing tug-of-war with the car is stronger than the other, then that force will “win” and the car will be pulled in that force’s direction.
Another way of illustrating this is to ask what would happen if the ramp were lying flat; does it make sense for the normal force to exceed gravity? No, because then the car would float off of the ramp; on the other hand, if gravity is stronger, then the car would fall through the ramp. I should add at this point that a statement of equality between two forces (or two things in general) implies an equation: “equal” implies an “equal sign,” with each of the two things on its own side of the equal sign.
This means that gravity has been broken into two components. One of these components is exactly counter-parallel to the normal force, the other of which is exactly perpendicular to the normal force. The analogy for this is to imagine the three people again playing tug of war. Two have the same strength (etc) and are placed exactly opposite each other on the circle; the third may be stronger or weaker, but he is placed on the circle midway between the other two (perpendicular means 90 degrees, and “exactly across from each other” means 180 degrees, half of which is 90 degrees). Now imagine that they have, instead of a three-way rope, a large and stiff T-shaped tire-iron. They’re also standing in slippery mud: slippery enough that they will slide if they are pulled without their active resisting. All three now pull straight back on their part of the tire-iron. In which way will they move?
The answer should be obvious: they will move in the direction of the iron’s head an not along either of its axles. This is Newton’s Second Law, which states that a net force acting on an object (caused in this case by the third player, who stands “between” the other two) will cause an acceleration of this object in the direction of the force. The trio is “pulled” along by the third player.
This is exactly the case in which the car on the ramp finds itself. Two forces pull into and push out of the ramp, and a third force (the parallel component of gravity) pulls along the ramp’s surface. But we also observe that the car does not necessarily slide down the ramp until a certain angle is reached: hence, the existence of a third force (two of the forces mentioned above are really components of gravity). This third force is friction, and it is somewhat akin to replacing the T-shaped iron with a +-shaped iron and adding a fourth player to the game.
The fourth player, competitive as he is, is also very lazy. He won’t pull any harder than he needs to in order to win. This is how friction works: it is usually never stronger than the net force unbalanced acting on an object, and it acts exactly opposite to that net unbalanced force. In this case, the fourth player pulls exactly as strongly as the third, and in the exact opposite direction. The tire-iron does not move in any direction, because the four players are all pulling with the same amount of strength. This last force prevents the car from sliding immediately down the ramp.
The players will thus be at an impasse unless the third player is stronger than the fourth. The third player, he who represents the component of gravity which is parallel to the ramp in this analogy, if he is stronger than the fourth—friction—will overpower him, because the third player is not so lazy as the fourth. This means that if the force of gravity parallel to the ramp is stronger than friction at its maximum exertion, then the car will be pulled down the ramp.
This is where the angle of the ramp comes back into play. The relative strengths of the two component of gravity depend on the angle of the ramp; for the perpendicular component, the dependence is on the cosine of the angle, for the parallel component the dependence is on the sine. As for friction, friction is always the normal force multiplied by some constant (called the coefficient of friction). Since the normal force is of equal strength to the perpendicular component of gravity, the strengths of both the normal force and its dependent friction are dependent on the cosine of the angle. From these statements, it follows that in order for the car to start sliding down the ramp, the coefficient of friction multiple by the cosine of the angle must be exceeded by the sine of the angle. This creates an equation (“exceeded by” implies an inequality, that is, an equation with a “>” sign) relating the coefficient of friction to the sine and cosine of the angle; when solved, one obtains that the coefficient of friction (u) must be less than (<) the tangent of the angle (a): u
All of these statements involve a bit of reasoning from an easily observed and often intuitive principle. It’s only when the math gets added that the thing suddenly becomes hard. The whole process of solving the problem is not really much different than the process of reading (or writing) a book: there are some basic assumptions of principles, some lines of reasoning, and then a conclusion. The conclusion itself may be only a paragraph or even a single sentence; similarly with any of the first principles. The reasoning to get from the latter to the former is what occupies most of the book, and indeed what makes the conclusions intelligible. The difference, then, between physics and any good persuasive (or even informative) essay is in the language used: math for the formed, words for the latter. The rest is mostly sound reasoning.
__________________________________
*Newton’s Third Law shows that the relative strength of the players in playing tug-of-war is not the deciding factor, a common misconception. However, for the ease of writing this article, I will use language which seems to indicate that it is. In actual tug-of war, the side which wins doesn’t exert the most force on the rope (or other object): both sides exert the same amount of force. Instead, it is the side which has the most force between it and the ground: the most “friction” as it were.
The force of friction can be found by measuring an angle. This statement sounds simple enough, but there is more to it than just this: there is also the background information which goes into this. The experiment itself measures both static friction and kinetic friction—or the coefficients thereof—by measuring the angle at which gravity overcomes these forces for an object sitting on a ramp. Place an object—say a car—on a ramp, and then begin to gradually increase the ramps’ angle of elevation; at some point, the object will begin to slide down the ramp. When this happens, gravity has overcome the force of static friction.
Equations are produced, algebra is used, and tears are shed. Such is life in a physics lab for people who have a weak math background. Ok, to be honest I generally stop my students before any tears are shed. “I’m a literature major!” they wail, “why do I have to do this?” Where is the source of this anxiety, I wonder. Then I glance at the board. I see the mess that has formed thereupon, and I pity those students with ADD who gaze upon it.
There is the problem with physics in a nutshell. For a moment I saw the board through my students’ eyes: not as a logical progression from a set of assumptions to a conclusion, but as a tangled mess of gibberish. I had given them a map to get from their starting point to the end, but the map was in a foreign language, the landmarks and way-signs unintelligible. I gave them a map, and acted as guide to one group; unfortunately, the remaining groups saw the maps but heard only the muffled sounds of the guide. It dawned on me that the reason for the despair—thick and palpable as it filled the room—was that they worried that they would be required to know everything which was written on the board.
This would be a tall order. That some of the material was review from the week before spring break perhaps was only a small consolation. That they don’t really speak “Mathese” fluently made all of this more difficult. What I was asking of them was hardly any more than what any good logician or philosopher would ask: that each be able to begin with a set of axioms and from those axioms reach a conclusion through a series of reasoning. The major difference is really only in the form in which this reasoning occurs.
In the normal course of reasoning, a person generally begins with something familiar or obvious: the first principle (or principles). We do that in physics also. In this case, the first principle (intuitive) is that an inanimate object which is “just sitting there” won’t just suddenly start to move on its own. In physics, we call this Newton’s First Law: if the net force acting on an object is zero, then the object’s velocity will remain constant (in this case, the velocity is zero). A second intuition, which is maybe a bit more of a stretch: what happens if two equally strong people tie ropes to opposite sides of an object and pull against it in opposite directions (all else is equal)? In “tug-of-war,” this is obvious: the rope is not moved. This is also Newton’s First Law, with an addendum stating that forces add together like vectors, and that as such they can nullify (or “cancel out”) each other when applied in opposite direction.
Now comes something which is a little less obvious, from an intuitive sense. Any vectors can be broken into components: this includes forces. Intuitively, this is a bit harder to see. Suppose, though, that we have three people playing tug-of-war with each other. All have the same strength* (and all other factors are equal). Which one would be the winner? Alternatively, which one would be the loser? The answer depends on how the rope is set-up. The most obvious example would be to place the three people at equal intervals around a circle: in this case, the match would be a draw.
Suppose two were placed fairly close to each other, and the last one was placed opposite from them on the circle; each person is then told to pull “straight back” away from the center of the circle. Now who wins? “But that’s not fair!” is the gut response. Why not? Nobody is pulling directly opposite anybody else, just like in the case where everybody is evenly spaced around the circle. Ah, but two players are obviously working more strongly against the third. Presto: we have that forces have components. The math only explains how large each component of each force is. This can be taken a step further: the two people who are pulling against the third won’t beat each other so long as they are each contributing the same amount of their strength to beating the third person.
Back to the car on the ramp: why does all of this matter? Because there are several forces acting on the car; the first is gravity, and that always points down towards the center of the earth. This is why we have to lean back when walking down a steep hill, or forwards when walking up it; alternatively, we know that gravity points towards the ground, because that’s the direction which an object falls when we drop it. The ramp, however, is not parallel to the ground, and so it is not perpendicular to gravity. This also means that the normal force is not parallel to gravity, because it is by necessity normal (perpendicular) to the surface on which the car is resting. We know this, because we have difficulty pushing the car through the ramp, but not so much difficulty pushing it along the ramp (maybe it’s a toy car).
Since the ramp is the direction along which the car will move, why not break up the gravitational force into two components: one along (parallel to) the ramp, and one perpendicular to it. The perpendicular component of the gravitational force on the car logically must be equal in magnitude to the normal force: the two have the same strength, otherwise the car would be pulled into (or pushed off of) the ramp. That is to say, if one of the two forces playing tug-of-war with the car is stronger than the other, then that force will “win” and the car will be pulled in that force’s direction.
Another way of illustrating this is to ask what would happen if the ramp were lying flat; does it make sense for the normal force to exceed gravity? No, because then the car would float off of the ramp; on the other hand, if gravity is stronger, then the car would fall through the ramp. I should add at this point that a statement of equality between two forces (or two things in general) implies an equation: “equal” implies an “equal sign,” with each of the two things on its own side of the equal sign.
This means that gravity has been broken into two components. One of these components is exactly counter-parallel to the normal force, the other of which is exactly perpendicular to the normal force. The analogy for this is to imagine the three people again playing tug of war. Two have the same strength (etc) and are placed exactly opposite each other on the circle; the third may be stronger or weaker, but he is placed on the circle midway between the other two (perpendicular means 90 degrees, and “exactly across from each other” means 180 degrees, half of which is 90 degrees). Now imagine that they have, instead of a three-way rope, a large and stiff T-shaped tire-iron. They’re also standing in slippery mud: slippery enough that they will slide if they are pulled without their active resisting. All three now pull straight back on their part of the tire-iron. In which way will they move?
The answer should be obvious: they will move in the direction of the iron’s head an not along either of its axles. This is Newton’s Second Law, which states that a net force acting on an object (caused in this case by the third player, who stands “between” the other two) will cause an acceleration of this object in the direction of the force. The trio is “pulled” along by the third player.
This is exactly the case in which the car on the ramp finds itself. Two forces pull into and push out of the ramp, and a third force (the parallel component of gravity) pulls along the ramp’s surface. But we also observe that the car does not necessarily slide down the ramp until a certain angle is reached: hence, the existence of a third force (two of the forces mentioned above are really components of gravity). This third force is friction, and it is somewhat akin to replacing the T-shaped iron with a +-shaped iron and adding a fourth player to the game.
The fourth player, competitive as he is, is also very lazy. He won’t pull any harder than he needs to in order to win. This is how friction works: it is usually never stronger than the net force unbalanced acting on an object, and it acts exactly opposite to that net unbalanced force. In this case, the fourth player pulls exactly as strongly as the third, and in the exact opposite direction. The tire-iron does not move in any direction, because the four players are all pulling with the same amount of strength. This last force prevents the car from sliding immediately down the ramp.
The players will thus be at an impasse unless the third player is stronger than the fourth. The third player, he who represents the component of gravity which is parallel to the ramp in this analogy, if he is stronger than the fourth—friction—will overpower him, because the third player is not so lazy as the fourth. This means that if the force of gravity parallel to the ramp is stronger than friction at its maximum exertion, then the car will be pulled down the ramp.
This is where the angle of the ramp comes back into play. The relative strengths of the two component of gravity depend on the angle of the ramp; for the perpendicular component, the dependence is on the cosine of the angle, for the parallel component the dependence is on the sine. As for friction, friction is always the normal force multiplied by some constant (called the coefficient of friction). Since the normal force is of equal strength to the perpendicular component of gravity, the strengths of both the normal force and its dependent friction are dependent on the cosine of the angle. From these statements, it follows that in order for the car to start sliding down the ramp, the coefficient of friction multiple by the cosine of the angle must be exceeded by the sine of the angle. This creates an equation (“exceeded by” implies an inequality, that is, an equation with a “>” sign) relating the coefficient of friction to the sine and cosine of the angle; when solved, one obtains that the coefficient of friction (u) must be less than (<) the tangent of the angle (a): u
All of these statements involve a bit of reasoning from an easily observed and often intuitive principle. It’s only when the math gets added that the thing suddenly becomes hard. The whole process of solving the problem is not really much different than the process of reading (or writing) a book: there are some basic assumptions of principles, some lines of reasoning, and then a conclusion. The conclusion itself may be only a paragraph or even a single sentence; similarly with any of the first principles. The reasoning to get from the latter to the former is what occupies most of the book, and indeed what makes the conclusions intelligible. The difference, then, between physics and any good persuasive (or even informative) essay is in the language used: math for the formed, words for the latter. The rest is mostly sound reasoning.
__________________________________
*Newton’s Third Law shows that the relative strength of the players in playing tug-of-war is not the deciding factor, a common misconception. However, for the ease of writing this article, I will use language which seems to indicate that it is. In actual tug-of war, the side which wins doesn’t exert the most force on the rope (or other object): both sides exert the same amount of force. Instead, it is the side which has the most force between it and the ground: the most “friction” as it were.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Healthcare Round-Up
The single largest item in the news right now is indubitably the healthcare bill. For those who get their news from me (shame on you!), the bill passed the house by a vote of 219-212. As Mr Thomas Peters notes, there are both some good and some bad points to this. The worst part of this is the betrayals (and worse, the outright treason):
However, as Mr Matthew Archibold notes, it would be ingenuous to place all of the blame at the feet of these liberal "Catholyc" groups. Yes, the bishops have been strong for the last couple of years. But where was their leadership before then in the public square? How often have they spoken on matters of mere prudence as if they were matters of faith, and how many pastoral documents have they released on said issues? These kinds of things sometimes muddy the moral waters by providing cover for the pro-abortion politicians who claim (falsely) that their position on abortion isn't important because they are obedient on so many other (often secondary) issues; this has in turn opened the door for pro-torture Catholics to hide behind their (sometimes only alleged) opposition to abortion.
Meanwhile, a good number of people accuse Representative Bart Stupak of being a traitor to the pro-life cause. I'm not sure that he's a traitor so much as a charlatan, given that he never intended to vote against "Obama-scare" in the first place. What would motivate him to keep fighting for an amendment? Possibly the echoes of a pro-life conviction; on the other hand, it is hard not to notice that he procured $700k for his district shortly before switching his vote. If he sold out for $700k, at least this is a higher price than that which has apparently been offered to sister Karol Keehan, who will be receiving one of the 20 pens used by president Obama to sign the health care bill. The $700k certainly comes closer to the value of thirty pieces of silver, adjusted for inflation: $250k.
There is also the possibility that Stupak really did strike a bargain with Obama and the Democratic Party. I have my doubts, but charity requires that I consider this a possibility, even if a remote one. On the other hand, he maybe only thinks that he has reached a deal (a more likely scenario), in which case after the executive order is rescinded (or overruled) he will feel about as duped as any ardent pro-lifers who voted for him or placed trust in him. In the words of Mr Jeff Miller, "Esau thought he was getting a good deal also."
I won't go so far as to say that there is no such thing as a pro-life Democrat. The final vote tally was 219-212, which implies that there are some Democrats who voted against this bill; on the other hand, there were at least a few who said they'd vote against it who did not.
As for the executive order itself: this is not nearly enough. The bishops (and their advisers) have said as much, but even with their voices aside, I come to this same conclusion. Also, even the lack of explicit language in the bill to provide funding for abortions is not in itself sufficient. Why? Is it just a matter of straining at legal (or linguistic) gnats while swallowing the camels? No. As Mr Jeff Miller notes in an article already linked from here,
As to the executive order itself, that can be quickly rescinded. As in, if the order is honored at all, it can then be rescinded minutes later. Even being very charitable and granting the benefit of the doubt to President Obama--that he will honor this order for so long as he is president (he does at the very least have some political motivation to do so)--there is absolutely nothing which prevents his successors (whoever they may be) from rescinding the order upon assuming office. Obama is not the most anti-abortion president of all time--quite the opposite, in fact--and he has a history of rescinding executive orders which prohibit the funding of abortions. Furthermore, as Mr Patrick Archibold notes, unlike an actual amendment to the bill which prohibits the funding of abortions, such an order can be thrown out by the courts. As the ever-perceptive Mr Miller points out,
To add to this, the good Monsignor Charles Pope also notes that
All of this seems very suspicious to me. The question is still there: why so much resistance to including language in the actual bill to prohibit funding abortions? Why the insistence upon taking the hard-earned money from tax-payers--a majority of whom are pro-life, and an even larger majority of whom do not want to see their money going to fund abortions--and using these funds to pay for elective abortions? The bill has been held up since last July over this one issue which could have been so easily fixed. We spent literally months--almost a year--while congress has fought over this one detail. The bill itself is over 2400 pages long (reason enough to oppose it on prudential grounds), and we're supposed to believe that it was simply impossible to add a single extra sentence. "Neither this bill nor future appropriations pertaining to it shall be used to fund abortions." Are we to believe that the same congress which spent months and months and thousands of pages drafting this thing could not find some way to include this simple sentence?
On the other hand, there is one good thing which might yet come of this. As the Zippy Catholic puts it:
This also goes for Mr Jim Wallis and his band of Sojourners. Now that we have health care reform, they are all free to become as actively pro-life as they would like. The same is true for the sisters and nuns who are members of the Leadership Conference of Womin Religious. After all, these folks did urge the passage of this bill because in their prudential judgment it was an authentically pro-life measure, right? As the LCWR signatories put it, "This is the REAL pro-life stance, and we as Catholics are all for it." Now that this has passed, there should be nothing to distract their attention from showing that they are ardently pro-life, in every sense of the word.
The accusation which is often leveled at pro-lifers is that we are single-issue voters. As my friend Mr Colin Gormley notes,
There is some truth to this, but it is not entirely accurate. Rather, we consider this issue to be the single most important, far outweighing most other issues. I, for one, have not found many candidates who are avidly pro-choice and who at the same time would agree with me on many other political, social, or economic issues which I consider to be especially important. But this accusation becomes ironic almost to the point of hypocrisy during the course of the health care debate. One the one hand, there were the single-issue voters whose single issue was healthcare--regardless of whether or not it funded abortion. On the other hand, there were the congressmen whose single issue was abortion, to the extent that they were willing to hold up healthcare to ensure that elective abortions would (or could) be funded under whatever bill was passed. Oddly enough, the two sets became allies, in spite of the former sets' protests that they are more genuinely pro-life than the actual pro-life movement. Is there any wonder, then, that their motives are viewed by genuinely faithful Catholics with a "hermeneutic of suspicion?"
Liberal Catholics, catholyc groups, and even isolated leaders of liberal religious women’s orders, betrayed the bishops of the United States and smashed the possibility of a unified Catholic witness to the world on this paramount issue. Just like these organizations, leaders and their “brand” of Catholic thinking delivered to President Obama a majority of Catholic voters in this country during the presidential election, they helped him deliver – perhaps to a higher degree than any other group – the President’s “signature” legislation. If Catholics are to positively shape the world according to Catholic principles as revealed by Christ and his Church, we must set our own house in order first.
However, as Mr Matthew Archibold notes, it would be ingenuous to place all of the blame at the feet of these liberal "Catholyc" groups. Yes, the bishops have been strong for the last couple of years. But where was their leadership before then in the public square? How often have they spoken on matters of mere prudence as if they were matters of faith, and how many pastoral documents have they released on said issues? These kinds of things sometimes muddy the moral waters by providing cover for the pro-abortion politicians who claim (falsely) that their position on abortion isn't important because they are obedient on so many other (often secondary) issues; this has in turn opened the door for pro-torture Catholics to hide behind their (sometimes only alleged) opposition to abortion.
A truly honest assessment of the situation should hold the Republican party to account. Truth be told, the Republican party has acquitted themselves well in the past year. They managed to hold off this bill as long as they could facing an opposition with a huge majority. But why did the Democrats have such a huge majority? Because when the reigns of government were entrusted to Republicans, they woefully failed in their duty. They failed to live up to their own creed in both a fiscal and moral sense. No need to go into detail here, everyone knows their failings. Those failings opened the door to a virulently pro-death Democrat Congress and a virulently pro-death Democrat president.
{snip}
The hard truth is that for years the Bishops have allied themselves with the pro-abort party in matters related to health-care, and now they claim 11th hour betrayal....Moreover, the Bishops silence for years in the face of pro-abortion Catholic politicians has given aid and comfort to those who seek the death of children. The Bishop’s unwillingness, with some obvious exceptions, to effectively address or discipline pro-abort Catholic politicians allowed for the Democrats to portray the Church as divided on the issue. They have also allowed a culture of dissent to flourish for decades that culminated in the shameful last minute endorsement by a group of radical nuns that seriously hurt the cause of life.
Meanwhile, a good number of people accuse Representative Bart Stupak of being a traitor to the pro-life cause. I'm not sure that he's a traitor so much as a charlatan, given that he never intended to vote against "Obama-scare" in the first place. What would motivate him to keep fighting for an amendment? Possibly the echoes of a pro-life conviction; on the other hand, it is hard not to notice that he procured $700k for his district shortly before switching his vote. If he sold out for $700k, at least this is a higher price than that which has apparently been offered to sister Karol Keehan, who will be receiving one of the 20 pens used by president Obama to sign the health care bill. The $700k certainly comes closer to the value of thirty pieces of silver, adjusted for inflation: $250k.
There is also the possibility that Stupak really did strike a bargain with Obama and the Democratic Party. I have my doubts, but charity requires that I consider this a possibility, even if a remote one. On the other hand, he maybe only thinks that he has reached a deal (a more likely scenario), in which case after the executive order is rescinded (or overruled) he will feel about as duped as any ardent pro-lifers who voted for him or placed trust in him. In the words of Mr Jeff Miller, "Esau thought he was getting a good deal also."
It would have been nice to believe in a Catholic pro-life Democrat. But as my atheist friends would say “Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence” and that is also true towards the existence of pro-life Democrats. Not that I think Republicans are thoroughly pro-life, but at least you can actually point to some existing. Though charitably I should believe that Rep. Stupak is a pro-life Democrat that just got duped and since I am too cynical I think I will work on believing this.
I won't go so far as to say that there is no such thing as a pro-life Democrat. The final vote tally was 219-212, which implies that there are some Democrats who voted against this bill; on the other hand, there were at least a few who said they'd vote against it who did not.
As for the executive order itself: this is not nearly enough. The bishops (and their advisers) have said as much, but even with their voices aside, I come to this same conclusion. Also, even the lack of explicit language in the bill to provide funding for abortions is not in itself sufficient. Why? Is it just a matter of straining at legal (or linguistic) gnats while swallowing the camels? No. As Mr Jeff Miller notes in an article already linked from here,
One thing people seem to forget that it always goes to more than just the wording in the bill. For example Medicaid said absolutely nothing about funding of abortion. Yet a judge deemed that it did and it is only the annually reinstatement of the Hyde Amendment that prevents Medicaid funding of abortion. The language has to be explicit or some Culture of Death judge out there will override it. The truth is most Democrats believe that abortion coverage is indeed healthcare and so any bill that moves to provide for healthcare must necessarily advance towards paying for abortion. So we will be paying for abortion, contraception, serializations and everything else that cries out to God. Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, unfortunately Caesar wants to take what belongs to God by snuffing out the life of the innocents.
As to the executive order itself, that can be quickly rescinded. As in, if the order is honored at all, it can then be rescinded minutes later. Even being very charitable and granting the benefit of the doubt to President Obama--that he will honor this order for so long as he is president (he does at the very least have some political motivation to do so)--there is absolutely nothing which prevents his successors (whoever they may be) from rescinding the order upon assuming office. Obama is not the most anti-abortion president of all time--quite the opposite, in fact--and he has a history of rescinding executive orders which prohibit the funding of abortions. Furthermore, as Mr Patrick Archibold notes, unlike an actual amendment to the bill which prohibits the funding of abortions, such an order can be thrown out by the courts. As the ever-perceptive Mr Miller points out,
There was a story yesterday of 50 Democrats who would oppose the bill if any Stupak language made its way into it. Funny how the signed Executive Order has not freaked out anybody on the pro-abortion side. We are suppose to believe there was such a fight in the Senate and then the congress up to now to reject any such language and yet – ho hum – on the Executive Order.
To add to this, the good Monsignor Charles Pope also notes that
Mr Stupak has to know that the executive order of the President carries no weight because it cannot over-rule the Law that is going into effect upon the President’s signature. Both Democrat and Republican leaders I saw interviewed fully admit this. The Healthcare Bill, when signed into law permits Federal funding of Abortion. Anyone denied such funding on the the basis of an executive order can sue and will win because the law is clear and an executive order cannot set aside the law.
All of this seems very suspicious to me. The question is still there: why so much resistance to including language in the actual bill to prohibit funding abortions? Why the insistence upon taking the hard-earned money from tax-payers--a majority of whom are pro-life, and an even larger majority of whom do not want to see their money going to fund abortions--and using these funds to pay for elective abortions? The bill has been held up since last July over this one issue which could have been so easily fixed. We spent literally months--almost a year--while congress has fought over this one detail. The bill itself is over 2400 pages long (reason enough to oppose it on prudential grounds), and we're supposed to believe that it was simply impossible to add a single extra sentence. "Neither this bill nor future appropriations pertaining to it shall be used to fund abortions." Are we to believe that the same congress which spent months and months and thousands of pages drafting this thing could not find some way to include this simple sentence?
On the other hand, there is one good thing which might yet come of this. As the Zippy Catholic puts it:
"I can't wait to see Vox Nova and dotCommonweal become the very model of a modern anti-abortion activist blog, now that their other "pro life" goals have been achieved. What could possibly be a higher priority to genuine pro-lifers now than full-on hard-charging anti-abortion activism?" (links added)
This also goes for Mr Jim Wallis and his band of Sojourners. Now that we have health care reform, they are all free to become as actively pro-life as they would like. The same is true for the sisters and nuns who are members of the Leadership Conference of Womin Religious. After all, these folks did urge the passage of this bill because in their prudential judgment it was an authentically pro-life measure, right? As the LCWR signatories put it, "This is the REAL pro-life stance, and we as Catholics are all for it." Now that this has passed, there should be nothing to distract their attention from showing that they are ardently pro-life, in every sense of the word.
The accusation which is often leveled at pro-lifers is that we are single-issue voters. As my friend Mr Colin Gormley notes,
For those of us who stand up for the rights of the unborn, we are often accused of being "single issue voters." This term is used in a derogatory fashion. It basically means that prolife folks are so focused on abortion to the exclusion of other social justice concerns.
I am therefore enamored by the extent to which the current health care bill proponents support and defend it with almost single-minded focus. Objections to the bill are dismissed as being tangential.
There is some truth to this, but it is not entirely accurate. Rather, we consider this issue to be the single most important, far outweighing most other issues. I, for one, have not found many candidates who are avidly pro-choice and who at the same time would agree with me on many other political, social, or economic issues which I consider to be especially important. But this accusation becomes ironic almost to the point of hypocrisy during the course of the health care debate. One the one hand, there were the single-issue voters whose single issue was healthcare--regardless of whether or not it funded abortion. On the other hand, there were the congressmen whose single issue was abortion, to the extent that they were willing to hold up healthcare to ensure that elective abortions would (or could) be funded under whatever bill was passed. Oddly enough, the two sets became allies, in spite of the former sets' protests that they are more genuinely pro-life than the actual pro-life movement. Is there any wonder, then, that their motives are viewed by genuinely faithful Catholics with a "hermeneutic of suspicion?"
Mr Archibold Reminds Us
Mister Archibold reminds us that from the culture of death's perspective, the important part of "family planning" is that people "choose" to have small families. This is in keeping with one of the pioneers of unnatural family planning, Margaret Sanger who infamously stated that: "Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child" and "The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
It seems to me that Mr Archibold's experience is a common one. Some friends of mine (neither of whom are Catholics) had their first child shortly after getting married--within about a year--and (according to the father) this caused raised eyebrows amongst the non-Catholic contingent at the mother's workplace. I should mention that she worked for Oregon Right to Life at the time. These friends are intending to have a large family (he, at least, comes from a a very large family), so the pregnancy was actually intended.
Too often, the position is that even married couples ought to wait to start a new family. This is already approaching the issue in the wrong way: the new family began when the couple exchanged vows. If even employees of a state right to life organization are advising waiting a few years, then it becomes pretty obvious where the cultural inertia lies. There is no dearth of societal pressure for marriages to begin later (I'm told that I am relatively young to be getting married, and I am now 25), and the pressure to delay having children is greater still. The average age at marriage for men is now about 27.5 years in the US, and 25.6 for women; I imagine that this age likely increasing for people in my situation (graduate student, Ph.D. track, projected completion age is about 28-29 for me, and older on average).
Average age of first birth for women has increased along with age for marriage. This means that most families aren't even trying to have children until an age at which the wife's fertility has begun to drop. Yet, we wonder why there are so many fertility problems in so many families. To be fair, there are cases in which the best decision really is to delay having children (hence, for example, the Church's admission of NFP as the legitimate and moral form of family planning). However, the existence of such cases does not necessarily mean that in all cases childbearing should be delayed; neither do the existent of such legitimate cases imply that all families should be kept small.
Our culture has since the time of Margaret Sanger had the general attitude of "just enough of me, way too many of you." As Mr Archibold notes, a major symptom of society's rejection of children--both of one's own children and of other peoples' children--is the snide remarks made in the supermarket of movie ticket lines. "Are all of those yours?" The answer is an emphatic yes, because the children obviously don't belong to the interrogator. "You do know what causes that, right?" The answer is so obvious that a reply is not merited.
The irony is that of all the methods for planning a family size, only one really acknowledges all of the causes. Contraceptive methods all acknowledge a material cause, and to a lesser extent a formal cause. They seek to prevent one or the other of these causes. However, it is only natural family planning--with its openness to life should conception occur--which acknowledges also the efficient cause and the final cause of children. Contraception seeks to divorce conception from its efficient cause--intercourse--and at times fails. NFP recognizes that a part of the efficient cause (not to mention the material cause and the formal cause) is the woman's own fertility; so by abstaining from intercourse during the fertile periods of the month, a couple is working with the efficient cause to plan their family.
Contraception denies entirely the final cause, for it does not acknowledge that a final cause can exist. Every man's final cause is God, by Whose will we are given life. In the words of the Baltimore Catechism, "God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven." The culture of death which rejects both God and His will can never admit Him as a cause--final or otherwise--for man; as such, it can give no answer as to a child's final cause.
It seems to me that Mr Archibold's experience is a common one. Some friends of mine (neither of whom are Catholics) had their first child shortly after getting married--within about a year--and (according to the father) this caused raised eyebrows amongst the non-Catholic contingent at the mother's workplace. I should mention that she worked for Oregon Right to Life at the time. These friends are intending to have a large family (he, at least, comes from a a very large family), so the pregnancy was actually intended.
Too often, the position is that even married couples ought to wait to start a new family. This is already approaching the issue in the wrong way: the new family began when the couple exchanged vows. If even employees of a state right to life organization are advising waiting a few years, then it becomes pretty obvious where the cultural inertia lies. There is no dearth of societal pressure for marriages to begin later (I'm told that I am relatively young to be getting married, and I am now 25), and the pressure to delay having children is greater still. The average age at marriage for men is now about 27.5 years in the US, and 25.6 for women; I imagine that this age likely increasing for people in my situation (graduate student, Ph.D. track, projected completion age is about 28-29 for me, and older on average).
Average age of first birth for women has increased along with age for marriage. This means that most families aren't even trying to have children until an age at which the wife's fertility has begun to drop. Yet, we wonder why there are so many fertility problems in so many families. To be fair, there are cases in which the best decision really is to delay having children (hence, for example, the Church's admission of NFP as the legitimate and moral form of family planning). However, the existence of such cases does not necessarily mean that in all cases childbearing should be delayed; neither do the existent of such legitimate cases imply that all families should be kept small.
Our culture has since the time of Margaret Sanger had the general attitude of "just enough of me, way too many of you." As Mr Archibold notes, a major symptom of society's rejection of children--both of one's own children and of other peoples' children--is the snide remarks made in the supermarket of movie ticket lines. "Are all of those yours?" The answer is an emphatic yes, because the children obviously don't belong to the interrogator. "You do know what causes that, right?" The answer is so obvious that a reply is not merited.
The irony is that of all the methods for planning a family size, only one really acknowledges all of the causes. Contraceptive methods all acknowledge a material cause, and to a lesser extent a formal cause. They seek to prevent one or the other of these causes. However, it is only natural family planning--with its openness to life should conception occur--which acknowledges also the efficient cause and the final cause of children. Contraception seeks to divorce conception from its efficient cause--intercourse--and at times fails. NFP recognizes that a part of the efficient cause (not to mention the material cause and the formal cause) is the woman's own fertility; so by abstaining from intercourse during the fertile periods of the month, a couple is working with the efficient cause to plan their family.
Contraception denies entirely the final cause, for it does not acknowledge that a final cause can exist. Every man's final cause is God, by Whose will we are given life. In the words of the Baltimore Catechism, "God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven." The culture of death which rejects both God and His will can never admit Him as a cause--final or otherwise--for man; as such, it can give no answer as to a child's final cause.
Monday, March 22, 2010
On the Crisis of Clerical Sex Abuse
I've read three good articles concerning the sex abuse crisis today. The US may be slowing "moving on," but the thing is now hitting Europe (it should be noted that this is because the European investigations covering the same post-conciliar period as began the crisis in the US are being released). The Telegraph's Mr Gerald Warner gives a call to action (here, as seen through the eyes of the nearly indisputable Fr John Zuhlsdorf, or here with comments from Fr Philip Neri Powell OP); and Fr Dwight Longenecker offer his interpretation of Professor Philip Jenkins' keen analysis of the problem(s) at hand.
Normally, I would add some comments of my own here. However, I'm feeling a bit exhausted, and these gentlemen's articles really speak for themselves. I will add only a couple of short prayers. First: Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, Kyrie eleision. Second: All saints, all you holy men and women, pray for us here below.
Normally, I would add some comments of my own here. However, I'm feeling a bit exhausted, and these gentlemen's articles really speak for themselves. I will add only a couple of short prayers. First: Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, Kyrie eleision. Second: All saints, all you holy men and women, pray for us here below.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Coming to a Town Near You?
Strange how the ACLU doesn't fight cities which try this kind of thing. Instead, it's up to the Alliance Defense Fund--those fine folks who defend:
That town must have a large police force with nothing to do, and an even larger budget. Three-person church leadership meetings? Yeah, that will definitely cause "traffic, parking, and building safety concerns." Potluck dinners? How are these any different than backyard barbecues? Oh, and of course there are the Bible studies. What counts as a "Bible study?" Suppose me, my soon-to-be wife, and her sister and brother-in-law decide to get together to study Scripture. Would this now be illegal in Gilbert?
I'm not the biggest fan of "house churches" to walk the earth; they had their time when the Church was too small (and too heavily persecuted) to meet in large public places (e.g. churches). Even then, Christians gathered in the Jewish Temple for regular worship, at least at first. And who knows what the pastor, Mr Joe Sutherland, and his church were doing? He could very well have had significant traffic so as to cause a problem. That might be a legitimate reason to complain, least of all because there might be a legitimate noise, traffic, or safety concern (especially if this was occurring weekly), though this is really not likely, given the group's size:
By my count, that makes eleven members. That's smaller than some family get-togethers or even college study-parties. For that matter, when I was a student intern at Lawrence Livermore National Labs, my roommates and I regularly hosted a once-per-week barbecue; our average attendance was probably pretty close to eleven. The eleven people who are attending this "house church" come in groups: three married couples and their children. That's probably a whole three cars! Wow, traffic really must back up on those days. They probably take up almost a whole house's worth of curbside parking. That must be a real inconvenience for the neighbors.
There's bonus points for the sheer irony involved. Consider: the main complaint which I hear from secularists and even religious liberals is that religion should stay out of the public square. How does this make sense if the "public square" is suddenly telling people that religion should also stay out of the private homes? The public square has long since butted its head into the churches (see: Catholic Charities of Boston and Washington D.C.; see also "Hate crimes" legislation). Yet this legislation was clearly not passed (or enforced) by people of deep religious faith as a means of fostering that faith at home (or in church). For literally decades we've been told to leave our religion at the door of the church and the house. Now we're beginning to be told to not even bring it there.
The town contends that, under its zoning code, churches within its borders cannot have any home meetings of any size, including Bible studies, three-person church leadership meetings, and potluck dinners. This ban is defended based upon traffic, parking, and building safety concerns. However, nothing in its zoning code prevents weekly Cub Scouts meetings, Monday Night Football parties with numerous attendees, or large business parties from being held on a regular basis in private homes. In fact, the zoning code explicitly allows some day cares to operate from homes.
That town must have a large police force with nothing to do, and an even larger budget. Three-person church leadership meetings? Yeah, that will definitely cause "traffic, parking, and building safety concerns." Potluck dinners? How are these any different than backyard barbecues? Oh, and of course there are the Bible studies. What counts as a "Bible study?" Suppose me, my soon-to-be wife, and her sister and brother-in-law decide to get together to study Scripture. Would this now be illegal in Gilbert?
I'm not the biggest fan of "house churches" to walk the earth; they had their time when the Church was too small (and too heavily persecuted) to meet in large public places (e.g. churches). Even then, Christians gathered in the Jewish Temple for regular worship, at least at first. And who knows what the pastor, Mr Joe Sutherland, and his church were doing? He could very well have had significant traffic so as to cause a problem. That might be a legitimate reason to complain, least of all because there might be a legitimate noise, traffic, or safety concern (especially if this was occurring weekly), though this is really not likely, given the group's size:
Notably, the church only met for a few hours a week in members’ homes, and would rotate to different homes weekly. Further, the church was quite small, consisting of just seven adult members, including three married couples, and their four children.
By my count, that makes eleven members. That's smaller than some family get-togethers or even college study-parties. For that matter, when I was a student intern at Lawrence Livermore National Labs, my roommates and I regularly hosted a once-per-week barbecue; our average attendance was probably pretty close to eleven. The eleven people who are attending this "house church" come in groups: three married couples and their children. That's probably a whole three cars! Wow, traffic really must back up on those days. They probably take up almost a whole house's worth of curbside parking. That must be a real inconvenience for the neighbors.
There's bonus points for the sheer irony involved. Consider: the main complaint which I hear from secularists and even religious liberals is that religion should stay out of the public square. How does this make sense if the "public square" is suddenly telling people that religion should also stay out of the private homes? The public square has long since butted its head into the churches (see: Catholic Charities of Boston and Washington D.C.; see also "Hate crimes" legislation). Yet this legislation was clearly not passed (or enforced) by people of deep religious faith as a means of fostering that faith at home (or in church). For literally decades we've been told to leave our religion at the door of the church and the house. Now we're beginning to be told to not even bring it there.
Rasmussen Gives
Something for the Congresscritters to think about. A slim majority of Americans oppose the health care bill. More people strongly oppose the bill (46%) than support it, strongly or otherwise (43%). And less the Congresscritters think that ramming this thing down our throats will have no effect on their ability to retain their (largely undeserved) jobs, another Rasmussen Poll finds that "Fifty percent (50%) of U.S. voters say they are less likely to vote for their representative in Congress this November if he or she votes for the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats."
Polls, of course, should not necessarily be the highest principle which determines a nation's course of action. Sometimes the moral choice isn't the popular choice. Sometimes doing the right thing requires "going against the flow." This is not such a time. In other news, House Speaker Nanci Pelosi has asked, in her usual diabolical manner, that people petition "Saint Joesph the Worker" on his feast day for the passage of this bill. Maybe by the time his feast day rolls around in May, the bill will actually be worth supporting.
In the meantime, on today's feast of Saint Joseph, Husband of the Blessed Virgin Mary, it is better to pray that the bill not pass until it has undergone a bit of an overhaul. Since Saint Joseph's first task was as foster father to Christ, and as such was there to protect not only the Infant Jesus but also the pre-Born Jesus and His Mother, it is far more fitting to pray for the protection of the pre-born, especially that funding for their gruesome murders be stripped out of this bill. Indeed, it is very fitting that we pray for the removal of anything in these bills which threatened the lives of the unborn, from the funding of Murder, Inc. to the lack of protection for the consciences of health care workers.
Tradition also tells us that Saint Joseph died a happy, peaceful, and natural death in the arms of his most chaste spouse and his foster Son and Lord. It therefore also makes sense to pray that anything which threatens the sanctity of human life at the other ends of the spectrum--the elderly, the sick and dying--also be stripped from this bill. In short, let us pray that whatever bill does eventually pass affirms rather than negates the sanctity of all human life and the dignity of every human person.
Finally, we might consider praying for the removal from power of those sycophants and liars who use their office as a sort of internship to become shrine-maidens or high priests of Moloch, and for the conversion and healing of their souls.
Polls, of course, should not necessarily be the highest principle which determines a nation's course of action. Sometimes the moral choice isn't the popular choice. Sometimes doing the right thing requires "going against the flow." This is not such a time. In other news, House Speaker Nanci Pelosi has asked, in her usual diabolical manner, that people petition "Saint Joesph the Worker" on his feast day for the passage of this bill. Maybe by the time his feast day rolls around in May, the bill will actually be worth supporting.
In the meantime, on today's feast of Saint Joseph, Husband of the Blessed Virgin Mary, it is better to pray that the bill not pass until it has undergone a bit of an overhaul. Since Saint Joseph's first task was as foster father to Christ, and as such was there to protect not only the Infant Jesus but also the pre-Born Jesus and His Mother, it is far more fitting to pray for the protection of the pre-born, especially that funding for their gruesome murders be stripped out of this bill. Indeed, it is very fitting that we pray for the removal of anything in these bills which threatened the lives of the unborn, from the funding of Murder, Inc. to the lack of protection for the consciences of health care workers.
Tradition also tells us that Saint Joseph died a happy, peaceful, and natural death in the arms of his most chaste spouse and his foster Son and Lord. It therefore also makes sense to pray that anything which threatens the sanctity of human life at the other ends of the spectrum--the elderly, the sick and dying--also be stripped from this bill. In short, let us pray that whatever bill does eventually pass affirms rather than negates the sanctity of all human life and the dignity of every human person.
Finally, we might consider praying for the removal from power of those sycophants and liars who use their office as a sort of internship to become shrine-maidens or high priests of Moloch, and for the conversion and healing of their souls.
One Can Only Hope
That the American Psychiatric Association actually goes through with this new addition of pornography as an addiction to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. If there is one industry which gives Murder, Inc a run for their money on the breaking the Categorical Imperative front, it's Big Pornography. I can think of nothing which has destroyed more peoples' lives or relationships, or of no more thoroughly vile industry than either of these two. In the meantime, California takes all of the wrong measures towards regulating this so-called industry.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Treason!
In light of the US bishops' decision to oppose the health care bill on grounds of its' funding elective abortion, there is really only one word to describe the decision of a large number of the heads of religious orders in the US to endorse it: treason!
Equally appalling is their claim to represent all 59,000 women religious in the US: they don't. If they're willing to distort this claim (to put it nicely), just how credible is the rest of their statement? This is just one more reason why that apostolic visitation and the CDF investigation are both needed. The former is needed, because there is probably a large number of women religious who are upset over their leadership's decision to go against the bishops. The latter is needed for the simple reason that they decided to deliberately undermine the bishops' leadership. The question, best answered by the CDF investigation, is whether this disobedience is a matter of prudential disagreement or of something more sinister.
Does it really prohibit funding abortion? No. And no. As their excellencies Archbishop Charles Chaput and Bishop James Donley note,
Is healthcare reform needed? Probably yes. Does that mean that we should pass just any reform bill? No. Nor should we endorse it, since, as the women who wrote this letter note in somewhat of an understatement, "it is an imperfect measure."
Update: Speaking of treason (perhaps only surrender?), it appears that the battle is lost. Twilight is upon us, but hope must not be lost. Now more than ever is it a needed virtue.
Equally appalling is their claim to represent all 59,000 women religious in the US: they don't. If they're willing to distort this claim (to put it nicely), just how credible is the rest of their statement? This is just one more reason why that apostolic visitation and the CDF investigation are both needed. The former is needed, because there is probably a large number of women religious who are upset over their leadership's decision to go against the bishops. The latter is needed for the simple reason that they decided to deliberately undermine the bishops' leadership. The question, best answered by the CDF investigation, is whether this disobedience is a matter of prudential disagreement or of something more sinister.
The health care bill that has been passed by the Senate and that will be voted on by the House will expand coverage to over 30 million uninsured Americans. While it is an imperfect measure, it is a crucial next step in realizing health care for all. It will invest in preventative care. It will bar insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. It will make crucial investments in community health centers that largely serve poor women and children. And despite false claims to the contrary, the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions. It will uphold longstanding conscience protections and it will make historic new investments – $250 million – in support of pregnant women. This is the REAL pro-life stance, and we as Catholics are all for it.
Does it really prohibit funding abortion? No. And no. As their excellencies Archbishop Charles Chaput and Bishop James Donley note,
In the past two days, congressional leaders and the White House have brought tremendous pressure on prolife Democratic members of Congress to support a fatally flawed Senate version of health care reform.
Regrettably, groups like Network and the Catholic Health Association have done a grave disservice to the American Catholic community by undermining the leadership of the nation’s Catholic bishops, sowing confusion among faithful Catholics, and misleading legislators through their support of the Senate bill.
Do not be fooled. Nothing has changed. The Senate bill remains gravely flawed on the issues of abortion funding, conscience protections and the inclusion of immigrants. Unless seriously revised to address these issues, the Senate version of health care is unethical and should be firmly opposed.
Is healthcare reform needed? Probably yes. Does that mean that we should pass just any reform bill? No. Nor should we endorse it, since, as the women who wrote this letter note in somewhat of an understatement, "it is an imperfect measure."
Update: Speaking of treason (perhaps only surrender?), it appears that the battle is lost. Twilight is upon us, but hope must not be lost. Now more than ever is it a needed virtue.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Quotes of the Day: A Seeming Juxtaposition on Dissent; or, The Duties of Charity
"We are not free as Catholics to just pick and choose what parts of Christ’s teaching we want to adhere to and which ones we want to ignore, cast aside, or – as in the case of Mr. Hannity – to mock and dismiss as outdated and impractical. We are free to leave the Church, though, if we disagree with its teachings. That would be the honest thing to do. What is intolerable to faithful Catholics is the disingenuousness of those who enjoy all the privileges of being Catholic, but who feel no obligation to embrace the responsibilities of our Faith. This was what the Hannity interview highlighted, and it is an endemic problem in our Church."
-Fr Thomas Euteneuer, commenting on his interview with Mr Sean Hannity
For those who have forgotten--or who don't normally watch or listen to Sean Hannity--Fr Thomas Euteneuer was invited onto the Hannity and Colmes show about three years ago after (justly) chastising Mr Hannity for his stance on contraception. And now for the juxtaposition:
"Those who experience the Church as Body of Doctrine have their strong and weak points. On the one hand, they take very seriously what the Church actually teaches and are willing to learn from the Church and when she makes us uncomfortable. On the other hand, there can sometimes be a troubling zeal to purge the Church of the Doctrinally Impure. Similarly, 'Church as Family' folk will often go to the mat to make room for the catholicity of the Church. On the down side, they often do not have a clue what the Church teaches because 'Catholic' is more like an ethnicity for them than a revelation from God that is meant change our lives."
-Mr Mark Shea, link added for emphasis
Mister Shea wrote this statement in reflection on the difference between cradle Catholics and converts to the Faith (say, from Evangelicalism). The ironic aside is that Fr Euteneuer--who is defending what Mr Shea calls "the convert position" of the Faith--is himself a cradle Catholic (unless I am mistaken), whereas Mr Shea--"defending"* what he would call the "cradle position"--is a convert.
Now to the dilemma which is brought out by this seeming juxtaposition. On the one hand, it is necessary to warn sinners of their folly; on the other hand, there is a certain amount of prudence (to say nothing of tact) which is needed when doing this. As my dear friend the inestimable Mr Nathanael Blake noted in commenting on one of my earlier laments,
I feel your pain, mate. It's hard to maintain a proper balance between calling sin what it is and remembering our own culpability in order to remain humble.
Just as humility and tact are needed when warning casual or even persistent sinners of their sins, so are both needed when confronting dissenters and even rank heretics. Charity is really an application of justice to the truth of a situation aided by grace, with special attention to the fact that all men share in each others' sins to some extent. In the words of of that great sage, G.K. Chesterton, "You may think a crime horrible because you could never commit it. I think it horrible because I could commit it." Sin is abhorrent to God, because He could never commit it (it goes against His will), but it is abhorrent to us because we know that to some extent or other, we already have.
We don't want to be associated with sin (those who do would prefer that it be called something else). We know our own guilt, our own culpability--sometimes in greater matters, other times in lesser matters--and so when we see a public display of sin, we don't want to go near it. At least not any nearer than we need to stand to throw stones at it. I hear of adultery and hate it rightly because it is evil, but perhaps wrongly because it reminds me of the time when I harbored a lustful thought; or you hear of a murder and are appalled rightly because it was a wicked act of violence, depriving God of His due and man of his, but also wrongly because of that abortion you counseled your friend to commit. Or we cringe at the bank robber because he stole money from all of us, but also because we are reminded of that day when the boss was out of town and we made no efforts to do a just day's work. Our subconscious mind is reminded of the sins we've committed upon hearing of the often much worse sins that somebody else has committed, and we shudder in anticipation of the Last and General Judgment.
Worse still is the embrace or promotion of sin--truly abominable because of the scandal--from within our own circles (in this case, from within the Church's own membership). The sins strike home in a clearer way. If the brotherhood of mankind causes us to remember our sins when we hear of the sins of another, how much worse is it when somebody from within our group sins? These are people who supposedly have more in common with us than the "general riff-raff" of humanity, because they allegedly share with us creed or even cult. If the disparity of these things gives us separation, then the lack of such disparity makes the sins seem that much more real. No longer can we simply say, "Well, a good Christian would never..." or "We Catholics don't..."
Here are people who share with us creed if not cult. They've been taught all of the same moral truths as we have, and have been given the same opportunities to foster faith and inculcate virtue, the same avenues for grace have been open to them as to us. Yet, still they fall, and still we fall. The difference is often in degree rather than kind. Often when we do avoid a sin, it is through the sheer power of grace given to us.
Every sin is a painful reminder of our own, and some more painful than others. Every prodigal son is a reminder that we, too, have strayed. We would like nothing more than to flee from such sinner, or rather to cast them out. We see guilt by mere association, so why associate?
The duties and responsibilities of charity insist that we at least try. A sin is still a sin, and some sins are so bad that they severe the bonds of community (hence, excommunication). We must hate the sins because they are evil, and those who willfully commit them with full knowledge and intent are wicked indeed. We may be better, but not by much. We can see a great difference between us and "the other guy," "the cafeteria Catholics," etc. That difference, no matter how large, is still finite; it therefore vanishes in comparison with true and infinite Holiness, which God alone possesses. It is for this reason which we must love the sinner even as we hate his sins. If a man may justly be hated by us because he is a few degrees more sinful than we, if we can despise him because we are slightly more holy, what does that say about our relationship with God, next to Whom we are infinitely sinful and Who is infinitely holy when compared to us?
*As the indispensable Mr Mark Shea himself notes in the comments to this post, it is not so much a defense as an explanation, and this explanation is not necessarily a justification. Thanks for the clarification, Mr Shea!
Update: switching to Disqus has apparently removed all of the old comments, so that previous asterisk may seem a little out of place...
Friday, March 12, 2010
Lifstyles Not Lived
Some have said they prefer city life,
Glistening towers whose spires stab the clouds,
Hustling bustling commotions of hurried men,
The night kept bright by a million warm lights,
Whilst people rest after a day's strife.
Others take a liking to life in the valleys,
A cozy cottage home at the mountains' feet,
Snuggling between green forested foothills,
Protected by blue giants guarding the horizon,
Soothed by streams' flowing through carved alleys.
Quite a few would choose the ocean or sea,
Salty waters' waves washing the shore,
Refreshing winds caressing hair and clothes alike,
The sun sinking into the waters and from them rising,
And the laughter of the seagulls who fly free.
Many would prefer the great peaked ranges of mountains,
Bathed by the sun or by clouds crowned,
Covered by the purest white crystalline snow,
Where the air is at its thinnest and crispest--
And the view overlooks the whole world.
None of these things will I see before the tomb,
Not the busy robustness of the bright city towers,
Nor the great mountains guarding their valley flocks,
Even the rolling blue vastness of the mighty seas:
For I shall not alive leave my warm dark womb.
Glistening towers whose spires stab the clouds,
Hustling bustling commotions of hurried men,
The night kept bright by a million warm lights,
Whilst people rest after a day's strife.
Others take a liking to life in the valleys,
A cozy cottage home at the mountains' feet,
Snuggling between green forested foothills,
Protected by blue giants guarding the horizon,
Soothed by streams' flowing through carved alleys.
Quite a few would choose the ocean or sea,
Salty waters' waves washing the shore,
Refreshing winds caressing hair and clothes alike,
The sun sinking into the waters and from them rising,
And the laughter of the seagulls who fly free.
Many would prefer the great peaked ranges of mountains,
Bathed by the sun or by clouds crowned,
Covered by the purest white crystalline snow,
Where the air is at its thinnest and crispest--
And the view overlooks the whole world.
None of these things will I see before the tomb,
Not the busy robustness of the bright city towers,
Nor the great mountains guarding their valley flocks,
Even the rolling blue vastness of the mighty seas:
For I shall not alive leave my warm dark womb.
A Dilemma, a Controversy, and a Question
Those who follow the news from New Advent know by now that there is a dilemma faced by the schools in the Archdiocese of Denver (and which will ultimately be faced by the Church). A great amount of virtual ink has been spilled surrounding this controversy, not the least of which is in the Catholic realms of the internet. Even his Excellency, Archbishop Charles Chaput, has defended Fr Breslin's decision to bar the daughter of a lesbian couple from attending the Sacred Heart of Jesus Catholic School. In his comments about the school's decision, Fr Breslin notes:
The most reverend Chaput adds
Here then is the dilemma faced by the Church in general and Catholic education in particular. At what point should Catholic schools (and hospitals, and charities, and other organizations) draw the line? Obviously the answer depends in part on which services a given organization is providing; for example, a Catholic Hospital must certainly should provide medical assistance (if possible) when and where it's needed, regardless of whether the person asking for assistance is gay, straight, Catholic, Protestant, or atheist. There is more leeway for the charitable organizations (e.g. Catholic Charities), and also for the schools.
In the context of the schools, for what reasons is it reasonable to deny services? Moral reasons may be one reason: schools are there to cooperate with parents in educating the children--both in the faith and in "secular" matters--so it makes sense for a school to bar any individuals or families who will be a great hindrance to this. The archdiocese has thus decided as a matter of prudence that the child of a lesbian couple will be such a hindrance, because of the position in which she puts the teachers: ether to call a sin a sin and risk angering the parents or setting daughter against mother, or to fail to teach that part of morality. There are plenty of supposedly Catholic schools who have chosen the second path, so if the couple wants only the Catholic TM brand of education for their daughter, they still have many options from which to choose.
Suppose that they want an authentically Catholic education for their daughter, complete with the moral education which will state that they are living in sin. Has the school done a disservice to this child by refusing her admission under these circumstances? The dilemma faced by the Church is, who do you turn away, and from which services, and for what reasons? If a homosexual pair undermines the teachings of the Church concerning marriage, does a "divorced" and extra-married* couple? How about a couple who are unmarried and living together, whose child is conceived by fornication?
In broader terms it is reasonable to assert that if the Church admitted only those children whose parents live in perfect agreements to every teaching of the Faith, then the schools would have very low enrollment indeed. This is the reason for asking where (or if) the line aught to be drawn, because the Church consists of sinners as well as saints. The former are in fact in the vast majority, and the latter is only a subset of the former.
___________________________________________
So much for the dilemma. There is, however, also a controversy, this time from Britain. The Reverend Frank Wainwright, a deacon, humorously remarked during his sermon that "Marriage is between Adam and Eve--not Adam and Steve." That a leader of the local church community would state a matter of Church teaching concerning marriage during a sermon in a church service should hardly count as controversy. The Church has been given the task of ensuring that the sacraments are validly administered, and this includes marriage; that marriage is the one sacrament administered by the couple and not normally by the clergy makes no difference here: it must still contain both valid form and matter.
This is not a statement either way about the way in which the civil rights of a civil union ought to be recognized: that is a matter of prudence upon which people may in good faith disagree. As concerns the actual sacrament of Holy Matrimony, there needs to be a valid form and valid matter; the latter of which requires explicitly one man and one woman. Two men cannot between them a sacramental marriage make.
This is a teaching of the Church, and must necessarily be so long as she remains faithful to Christ. She cannot change this, because she did not create or institute it, and it is not hers to change. The real controversy is to ask why so much attention is given to this form of sin against marriage, and not to others: "divorce," extra-marriage, adultery, fornication, contraception. It is true that not nearly enough time is spent in the average parish teaching about (read: preaching against) any of these things, or for that matter teaching about what the true Catholic vision of Holy Matrimony should be.
However, in most of those parishes which do address the issues of sexual morality (during homilies or sermons), the main attention is especially given to the issue of homosexual unions. Such are certainly sins, and homosexual acts (sodomy--though lesbians are not necessarily guilty of this, and there are some heterosexual couples who are) do cry out to heaven for vengeance (see Genesis 18:20-21). On the other hand, there are also far fewer homosexuals than fornicators, adulterers, and "divorcees" (let alone those who use contraception). This is true of the population in general, and also of the Catholic population (and thus of almost any given congregation). Why, then, is there a seeming emphasis on this particular sin in those orthodox parishes which do address such things as sin?
___________________________________________
This brings me at last to the question. I actually posed this question** to Monsignor Charles Pope a week or so ago: Is homosexual “marriage” a break from the Church’s teaching of marriage in the same kind but of different degree or of a different kind entirely than contracepted marriage and divorce? By extension, is it a greater or lesser offense against marriage than these things, and fornication, adultery, etc?
This question becomes relevant because one of the chief arguments used in protest is that if the Church and her schools were to bar everyone whose parents diverge from her teachings on matters of morality, those schools would face low enrollment indeed. The hidden assumption is, of course, that every parent indulges in one or another of these sins, be it "divorce", extra-marriage, adultery, contraception, or even fornication. This is surely a faulty assumption, but it may be a bit naive to assume that none of the parents do any of these things. If homosexual intercourse is indeed a greater offense than any (or even most) of these others, then the Archdiocese of Denver is merely "drawing a line" based on greatest sin.
If not--and at this point, I can only speculate--is is entirely possible that they are drawing a line based on most obvious and public sin. Many of the other sins against Holy Matrimony can be carried out in relative secrecy; the parents alone (and maybe their pharmacist) may know about the use of contraception. Similarly, adultery is so often a secret affair, the the ability to move from one neighborhood to another makes "divorce" and extra-marriage relatively easy to disguise. Fornication may be a bit harder, since in this case the couple is still living in sin, and maybe obviously so. Then again, I know of very few unmarried couples who are cohabiting with no intention of marrying, who are continuing to fornicate, and who also send their kids to Catholic schools (which, of course, does not mean that such couple do not exist).
Another alternative is that the archdiocese is drawing a line which will ban one group of sins as an example--but only a relatively small group. This might make sense from a prudential perspective: the Church cannot cease to teach against sin, but she does not want to become too exclusive either. She therefore chooses the smallest group who is also least likely to reform and/or most likely to cause difficulty in teaching her morality.
Reform can happen in any man's soul, but often only in small steps at a time. No sin is too great to be repented (save those against the Holy Spirit, which include both despair and refusal to repent out of prideful obstinacy). Similarly, the Church is not "giving up" on this particular sin, but instead making the prudential judgment that the schools are not the place at which it can best be resisted, that is, that some more "elementary" changes must be made before the schools can be of spiritual benefit. A Catholic education is meant to help form a person in the faith. It cannot do this if the person has no desire to be so formed, and all the knowledge in the world counts as nothing if a man will not repent of his sins.
In any case, these questions are worth asking. I hope to address them in a future post (as always, I make no guarantees); I am not, in any case, attempting to fully answer either question here. In the meantime, what do you think?
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
*I call this extra-married, because that is what it is. Marriage cannot be broken save by death, so divorce has no real efficacy towards the sacrament. It may severe the civil ties, but it does not severe the sacramental bonds, for these can't be broken. Annulment, on the other hand, states that said bonds never existed in the first place. On the other hand, there is such a thing as a valid "remarriage:" that would be a marriage in which at least one spouse is a widow(er). In the case of a divorce, the first marriage still exists until proven otherwise (annulment), and thus the second marriage is not valid, but is instead and extra-marital civil union, not a "remarriage."
**This was actually an aside for my main question, which was essentially, "Will the Church continue to recognize as valid and sacramental those marriages between couple from denominations which admit, embrace, or even encourage homosexual marriages?" He apparently took the question to the Archdiocese' cannon lawyer, who wrote back in the affirmative:
As an aside, I appreciate that the canon lawyer in question prefers the spelling "M-o-s-l-e-m" to "M-u-s-l-i-m," in part because this is about as close to having dialects in the English language as we generally are allowed to experience anymore. The shrinking of the language via the death of regional dialects (not too mention different styles of writing, etc) is truly a pity, as it will ultimately impoverish our language.
If a child of gay parents comes to our school, and we teach that gay marriage is against the will of God, then the child will think that we are saying their parents are bad. We don't want to put any child in that tough position-nor do we want to put the parents, or the teachers, at odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Why would good parents want their children to learn something they don't believe in? It doesn't make sense. There are so many schools in Boulder that see the meaning of sexuality in an entirely different way than the Catholic Church does. Why not send their child there?
The most reverend Chaput adds
The Church never looks for reasons to turn anyone away from a Catholic education. But the Church can’t change her moral beliefs without undermining her mission and failing to serve the many families who believe in that mission. If Catholics take their faith seriously, they naturally follow the teachings of the Church in matters of faith and morals; otherwise they take themselves outside the believing community.
The Church does not claim that people with a homosexual orientation are “bad,” or that their children are less loved by God. Quite the opposite. But what the Church does teach is that sexual intimacy by anyone outside marriage is wrong; that marriage is a sacramental covenant; and that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman. These beliefs are central to a Catholic understanding of human nature, family and happiness, and the organization of society. The Church cannot change these teachings because, in the faith of Catholics, they are the teachings of Jesus Christ.
The policies of our Catholic school system exist to protect all parties involved, including the children of homosexual couples and the couples themselves. Our schools are meant to be “partners in faith” with parents. If parents don’t respect the beliefs of the Church, or live in a manner that openly rejects those beliefs, then partnering with those parents becomes very difficult, if not impossible. It also places unfair stress on the children, who find themselves caught in the middle, and on their teachers, who have an obligation to teach the authentic faith of the Church.
Here then is the dilemma faced by the Church in general and Catholic education in particular. At what point should Catholic schools (and hospitals, and charities, and other organizations) draw the line? Obviously the answer depends in part on which services a given organization is providing; for example, a Catholic Hospital must certainly should provide medical assistance (if possible) when and where it's needed, regardless of whether the person asking for assistance is gay, straight, Catholic, Protestant, or atheist. There is more leeway for the charitable organizations (e.g. Catholic Charities), and also for the schools.
In the context of the schools, for what reasons is it reasonable to deny services? Moral reasons may be one reason: schools are there to cooperate with parents in educating the children--both in the faith and in "secular" matters--so it makes sense for a school to bar any individuals or families who will be a great hindrance to this. The archdiocese has thus decided as a matter of prudence that the child of a lesbian couple will be such a hindrance, because of the position in which she puts the teachers: ether to call a sin a sin and risk angering the parents or setting daughter against mother, or to fail to teach that part of morality. There are plenty of supposedly Catholic schools who have chosen the second path, so if the couple wants only the Catholic TM brand of education for their daughter, they still have many options from which to choose.
Suppose that they want an authentically Catholic education for their daughter, complete with the moral education which will state that they are living in sin. Has the school done a disservice to this child by refusing her admission under these circumstances? The dilemma faced by the Church is, who do you turn away, and from which services, and for what reasons? If a homosexual pair undermines the teachings of the Church concerning marriage, does a "divorced" and extra-married* couple? How about a couple who are unmarried and living together, whose child is conceived by fornication?
In broader terms it is reasonable to assert that if the Church admitted only those children whose parents live in perfect agreements to every teaching of the Faith, then the schools would have very low enrollment indeed. This is the reason for asking where (or if) the line aught to be drawn, because the Church consists of sinners as well as saints. The former are in fact in the vast majority, and the latter is only a subset of the former.
___________________________________________
So much for the dilemma. There is, however, also a controversy, this time from Britain. The Reverend Frank Wainwright, a deacon, humorously remarked during his sermon that "Marriage is between Adam and Eve--not Adam and Steve." That a leader of the local church community would state a matter of Church teaching concerning marriage during a sermon in a church service should hardly count as controversy. The Church has been given the task of ensuring that the sacraments are validly administered, and this includes marriage; that marriage is the one sacrament administered by the couple and not normally by the clergy makes no difference here: it must still contain both valid form and matter.
This is not a statement either way about the way in which the civil rights of a civil union ought to be recognized: that is a matter of prudence upon which people may in good faith disagree. As concerns the actual sacrament of Holy Matrimony, there needs to be a valid form and valid matter; the latter of which requires explicitly one man and one woman. Two men cannot between them a sacramental marriage make.
This is a teaching of the Church, and must necessarily be so long as she remains faithful to Christ. She cannot change this, because she did not create or institute it, and it is not hers to change. The real controversy is to ask why so much attention is given to this form of sin against marriage, and not to others: "divorce," extra-marriage, adultery, fornication, contraception. It is true that not nearly enough time is spent in the average parish teaching about (read: preaching against) any of these things, or for that matter teaching about what the true Catholic vision of Holy Matrimony should be.
However, in most of those parishes which do address the issues of sexual morality (during homilies or sermons), the main attention is especially given to the issue of homosexual unions. Such are certainly sins, and homosexual acts (sodomy--though lesbians are not necessarily guilty of this, and there are some heterosexual couples who are) do cry out to heaven for vengeance (see Genesis 18:20-21). On the other hand, there are also far fewer homosexuals than fornicators, adulterers, and "divorcees" (let alone those who use contraception). This is true of the population in general, and also of the Catholic population (and thus of almost any given congregation). Why, then, is there a seeming emphasis on this particular sin in those orthodox parishes which do address such things as sin?
___________________________________________
This brings me at last to the question. I actually posed this question** to Monsignor Charles Pope a week or so ago: Is homosexual “marriage” a break from the Church’s teaching of marriage in the same kind but of different degree or of a different kind entirely than contracepted marriage and divorce? By extension, is it a greater or lesser offense against marriage than these things, and fornication, adultery, etc?
This question becomes relevant because one of the chief arguments used in protest is that if the Church and her schools were to bar everyone whose parents diverge from her teachings on matters of morality, those schools would face low enrollment indeed. The hidden assumption is, of course, that every parent indulges in one or another of these sins, be it "divorce", extra-marriage, adultery, contraception, or even fornication. This is surely a faulty assumption, but it may be a bit naive to assume that none of the parents do any of these things. If homosexual intercourse is indeed a greater offense than any (or even most) of these others, then the Archdiocese of Denver is merely "drawing a line" based on greatest sin.
If not--and at this point, I can only speculate--is is entirely possible that they are drawing a line based on most obvious and public sin. Many of the other sins against Holy Matrimony can be carried out in relative secrecy; the parents alone (and maybe their pharmacist) may know about the use of contraception. Similarly, adultery is so often a secret affair, the the ability to move from one neighborhood to another makes "divorce" and extra-marriage relatively easy to disguise. Fornication may be a bit harder, since in this case the couple is still living in sin, and maybe obviously so. Then again, I know of very few unmarried couples who are cohabiting with no intention of marrying, who are continuing to fornicate, and who also send their kids to Catholic schools (which, of course, does not mean that such couple do not exist).
Another alternative is that the archdiocese is drawing a line which will ban one group of sins as an example--but only a relatively small group. This might make sense from a prudential perspective: the Church cannot cease to teach against sin, but she does not want to become too exclusive either. She therefore chooses the smallest group who is also least likely to reform and/or most likely to cause difficulty in teaching her morality.
Reform can happen in any man's soul, but often only in small steps at a time. No sin is too great to be repented (save those against the Holy Spirit, which include both despair and refusal to repent out of prideful obstinacy). Similarly, the Church is not "giving up" on this particular sin, but instead making the prudential judgment that the schools are not the place at which it can best be resisted, that is, that some more "elementary" changes must be made before the schools can be of spiritual benefit. A Catholic education is meant to help form a person in the faith. It cannot do this if the person has no desire to be so formed, and all the knowledge in the world counts as nothing if a man will not repent of his sins.
In any case, these questions are worth asking. I hope to address them in a future post (as always, I make no guarantees); I am not, in any case, attempting to fully answer either question here. In the meantime, what do you think?
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
*I call this extra-married, because that is what it is. Marriage cannot be broken save by death, so divorce has no real efficacy towards the sacrament. It may severe the civil ties, but it does not severe the sacramental bonds, for these can't be broken. Annulment, on the other hand, states that said bonds never existed in the first place. On the other hand, there is such a thing as a valid "remarriage:" that would be a marriage in which at least one spouse is a widow(er). In the case of a divorce, the first marriage still exists until proven otherwise (annulment), and thus the second marriage is not valid, but is instead and extra-marital civil union, not a "remarriage."
**This was actually an aside for my main question, which was essentially, "Will the Church continue to recognize as valid and sacramental those marriages between couple from denominations which admit, embrace, or even encourage homosexual marriages?" He apparently took the question to the Archdiocese' cannon lawyer, who wrote back in the affirmative:
Marriages are assumed to be valid unless they are proved to be otherwise. We cannot conclude that because some Protestants have an imperfect understanding of what marriage is, no Protestants can validly marry. That an understanding of marriage different from that of the Church invalidated consent would have to be proved in individual cases. The Church assumes the validity of marriages of people whose religions or cultures recognize easy divorce, whether pagans, Moslems, or Jews, as well as some Christians.
As an aside, I appreciate that the canon lawyer in question prefers the spelling "M-o-s-l-e-m" to "M-u-s-l-i-m," in part because this is about as close to having dialects in the English language as we generally are allowed to experience anymore. The shrinking of the language via the death of regional dialects (not too mention different styles of writing, etc) is truly a pity, as it will ultimately impoverish our language.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
