TMM: Poverty as a Moral Problem

"If you give a man a fish, you have fed him for today. If you teach a man to fish, you have fed him for a lifetime." Few would deny that poverty exists in the world, and fewer still that it is a problem of sorts. From there, the opinion tend to diverge a bit more widely. Is poverty a technical problem which can be "solved" by government intervention--whether in the form of a sort of socialism which meets every man's basic needs (which might include everything from food and clean water to a modest house and two cars)--and if so can it actually be solved?

Most debates of an economic nature tend to treat poverty as a technical problem, with varying opinions as to whether or not said problem has a possible (let alone plausible) solution. To use a bit of Catholic theology, they believe that the solution is to be found in the works of corporal mercy:  feeding the hungry, giving drinks to the thirsty, clothing the naked, harboring the harborless. The debate is then over who ought to do these works: the government (at any level, but inevitably at the federal level), the community (e.g. through charitable organizations), or the individual people (often working as a community).

The problem with this is that it gets the diagnosis wrong, at least in part. Yes, the works of corporal mercy are needed; but the problem is not a technical one, or at least is not only a technical one. It's solution is not, therefore, only a technical solution--though the solution must have a technical side, too--and so it cannot be resolved only through the corporal acts of mercy. Rather-dare I say primarily?--it is a moral problem, and so there must be a moral element to approaching poverty. This means that it must have some sort of moral solution, too.

Part of this moral solution is what we call the works of spiritual mercy: instructing the ignorant, counseling the doubtful, comforting the sorrowful, reproving sinners. After all, nor all poverty is material poverty, and there is such a thing as moral capital, even if it is in ever shorter supply today. The poor might rise a little from their poverty, and their lives will not seem (or be) quite so "nasty, brutish, and short" with a bit of this moral capital. They can gain this moral capital by recognizing their own dignity as members of the human community, by recognizing that although there are many things which are beyond their ability to control--economic factors and such--there are some things over which they may exert some modicum of control (moral factors). This does not mean that they will all become virtuous overnight (or perhaps ever); but the mere effort to move in that direction can give them a greater sense of their own dignity, since such a struggle for virtue is in accordance with that dignity. To be unemployed or "underemployed" does not mean that a man ought to cease taking responsibility for himself (or for his family).

There is, of course, a second part to this moral solution. So far I have spoken as if the entire solution to the problem must be applied to the poor. Give them money or education or instruction and they will not be poor anymore. That is, of course, quite false. The other part of the solution applies to us, those who do not live in poverty; since poverty is a moral (and perhaps technical) problem for us, too. And this should make it clear why the government solutions will fail to alleviate poverty if they are the only (or even primary) approach to "solving poverty." We also must recognize the dignity of the poor, and can be helped in that endeavor when we carry out he works of mercy (both corporal and spiritual). We need to give them their fish for today--and teach them how to fish for tomorrow. We must look at them and see another person, another "I." We must look at them and say, "There but for the grace of God go I."

I am not claiming that this will rid the world of poverty, or even that it will mean there are no more poor people. The poor we will have always, and perhaps poverty as well. But at the very least we will rid ourselves of what poverty we have: that spiritual poverty which prevents us from being truly poor in spirit. We may just help others to do the same while we're at it: which is more than can be said for employing a purely technical solution administered by bureaucracy to the unnamed masses.

Seven Quick Takes (v 22): Confession, Reconciliation, Absolution, Penance

This week's theme is the sacrament of Reconciliation (or Confession, Penance, Absolution...), because several questions were (mostly inadvertantly) raised in RCIA on Sunday. Call this rehearsal for the short presentation in our next session.

--1--

First, there was some confusion about what constitutes a mortal sin (see 1 John 5:17). In order for  sin to be mortal, three conditions must be met: 1) it must be a grave matter 2) committed under the knowledge that it is a sin 3) with the sinner's free consent (CCC 1857; the latter two again in CCC 1859). It seems to me that any of these three conditions can trip somebody up when deciding "is this sin mortal or not"), though most of the trouble is in distinguishing between the sin as a mortal sin as opposed to it's being a "grave matter." In the Catechism of the Catholic Church we read that

"Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother." The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger." (CCC 1858).

Thus, for example, adultery as such is always a grave matter, but not always a mortal sin.

--2--

When we sin, and as soon as we are aware that we have sinned, we may feel remorse. We have guilt, we are aware of that guilt and so have "guilty knowledge," and now we feel sorrow for that, and want to find forgiveness. The first step in this process is to turn to God in prayer and ask for His forgiveness. We might make an act of contrition, for example. And having been sincerely sorry for our sins and asked God for His forgiveness, we are granted it.

--3--

With that in mind, why would we then need to go to confession at all? As I have mentioned before in addressing the Sacrament of Reconciliation, being guilty of sin means that we have wronged God (and oftentimes men, too), and that we need to heal from this wronging. There are four more steps needed for this healing to occur, besides being forgiven. These are that we need to confess what we have done, the wrong needs to be atoned for, we need to be reconciled with all parties whom we have wronged, and we need to be justified. I have addressed each of these four points before in discussing reconciliation (and Professor J Budzisewski does so more thoroughly in his books The Revenge of Conscience and What We Can't Not Know); all four are to some extent dealt with in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. However, I would like to take another look at two of the four, the two with which this sacrament most directly deals.

--4--

The Sacrament of Penance is sometimes also called "confession." We often will say "I went to confession" rather than "I received the sacrament of Penance/Reconciliation." This is because much of the sacrament consists on the penitent confessing his sins to the priest. Why do I bring this up? Two reasons. First, because the first step in overcoming a sin is often admitting that we committed it and that it was a sin. In confession, we are essentially doing both, and doing so out loud. Second, because confessing our wrongdoing gives us a sense of closure on the matter. We may fell a mixture of other emotions when we go through this--embarrassment, shame, anger, frustration, sadness--but we also get a sense of relief. It's over and done with, and now we can really move on. "It is finished." It should also be noted here that in giving our confession, we are on the one hand asking God for his forgiveness (again), and on the other testifying to His glory (that He will forgive; that we are imperfect, and He Is perfect). And on the third hand, we are asking the priest, as representative of the Church community, for forgiveness from that community.

--5--

This brings me to another aspect of the sacrament of Penance, which is reconciliation. In brief, reconciliation means actually repairing the harm done to our relationship due to the sin (which involves more than just forgiving the sin). Through this sacrament, we are reconciled again to God and also to His Church. The former is obviously important, but what about the latter? All sins damage our relationship with God in some way; some also damage our relationship with other men, or with the community as a whole; indeed, if the Church is the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12-31), then any damage done to our relationship with the one is also damage to our relationship with the other. Or looked at in another way, the Church is the Bride of Christ, and so if we will be reconciled with Him then we must also be reconciled with her. I mentioned that the priest acts as representative of the community, that is of the Church; he also acts in persona Christi (see CCC paragraphs 875, 1348, and 1548) so that our reconciliation with both is completed in this sacrament. It also means that we are again as members in good standing with the community, and can again participate directly (and "worthily") in the Sacrament of Communion (see 1 Corinthians 11:27).

--6--

At some point, the question of repentance came up. What does it mean to repent of a sin? Does it mean that we will never, ever commit it again? Not necessarily; it does, however, mean that we intend to not commit it again. As we say in the act of contrition, "I firmly resolve, with the help of Your grace, to sin no more and avoid the near occasion of sin." Even the firmest of resolutions may later waver, though we should pray that we are able to keep those resolutions. Often avoiding the near occasion of sin (though this may require quite a bit of effort) is enough to keep us out of that particular sin. On the other hand, if we enter the confessional and confess a sin which we have committed while intending to commit the same sin again, then we have no truly repented; and though our confession as a list of things we've done is true, it is a lie as a sacramental confession. Absolution will not be ours, and we will not be truly reconciled. But just because we do commit the same sin again does not mean that we had intended to do so all along; and the same sin may e forgiven many times over if we repent of it (see Matthew 18:21-22)

--7--

Some effects of the sacrament are outlines and summarized by the Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraph 1496):

The spiritual effects of the sacrament of Penance are:
- reconciliation with God by which the penitent recovers grace;
- reconciliation with the Church;
- remission of the eternal punishment incurred by mortal sins;
- remission, at least in part, of temporal punishments resulting from sin;
- peace and serenity of conscience, and spiritual consolation;
- an increase of spiritual strength for the Christian battle.

All of these are important effects, but perhaps the last one is particularly important for one of the question raised: why should I go to confession for a sin which I am sorry about, but which I fear I might commit again (e.g. through habit or addiction)? If you are sorry for a sin but fear that you might commit it again, then it seems to me that you ought to do anything you can to fortify yourself against it. One of the spiritual effects of this sacrament is the grace to help you do this, that is, the grace to help you avoid this sin when you can and resist it when you must. You must of course still cooperate with this grace; but in receiving this sacrament, you receive this grace so that it is there for you to cooperate with at all.


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

RCIA Question Box: Papal Infallibility

What does it mean to say that the pope is infallible? Does this mean that he never makes any mistakes, never sins, or that he is perfect?

The doctrine of Papal Infallibility [1] was formally defined at the first Vatican council in 1870, but its roots run much deeper:

When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:14-19).

We can trace in an unbroken line all of the popes, from Benedict XVI back to Peter the apostle; and just as we believe that the bishops are the successors of the apostles, we believe that the Pope, as earthly head of the Church, is the successor to the "head" apostle, Saint Peter. As such, he is the visible head of the Church on earth and the vicar of Christ, who Is the Head of the Church (Ephesians 5:23).

Read the rest on the Nicene  Guys site.

Three Links Wednesday (vol. IV)

"Aborting Hitler would not have prevented the Halocaust. It would have justified it. The killing of millions of innocents does not begin with the killing of one innocent. It begins with the idea that (in the larger scheme of things) it is permissible to kill one innocent." (Professor Mike Adams)

--I--

Since this week began with a sad anniversary, and contains the national of prayer, penance, and atonement for abortion, let's begin with a post about abortion: this one from "Red Cardigan." She begins with,

"As the March for Life takes place today, as President Obama declares that abortion is necessary so our daughters have the same freedom to fulfill their dreams as our sons (because apparently embracing rampant sexual immorality and the ability to kill one's offspring is essential in order to be just like a man)"

Such is the (ahem) logic of at least the feminist arm of the pro-abortion movement. And Mrs Manning, being a feminist of a more conservative and Catholic sort [1], has framed this in terms of "why should women want to go there." Those of us who are men might look at it another way: why is it that this issue is framed in such a way as to assume that women must become cold-hearted murders of their own children to be "just like" us? See with which colors we are painted (as men) by the feminists (at the least) of the pro-abortion movement. Is it any wonder that all men are also viewed primarily as "potential rapists" by this culture (and then treated as guilty until proven innocent)?

[1] Meaning that she believes that women's rights are a matter of human rights and not necessarily just a matter of "fighting the man."

--II--

Speaking of the culture wars, Mr Chris Willitson considers the difference between two laws which pertain to conscience rights and abortion. He concludes by writing:

The battle lines of the 2012 election have never been more clear and Catholics have a moral responsibility to step up and get involved in the process to enact change. The bishops have made it clear that we must prayerfully consider who we support with our political action and resources. Now, more than ever, it is clear that the only wrong thing that any of us can do is nothing. Please keep our political leaders in prayer for conversion of heart and mind. Our battle may never be won on political fronts, but will be waged in the hearts and minds of all whom we encounter in love.

I disagree with one point: that the only thing we can do wrong is nothing. Voting for Obama is not nothing. As Fr John Zhulsdorf has put it, "I’d vote for a frozen orange juice can in November 2012." Unfortunately, the frozen orange juice isn't running, so I'll probably have to settle for Mitt Romney come November, even though I don't trust him. He may be the devil I don't know, but it's hard to imagine his doing more damage to our culture, our civilization, and our liberty than the current president.

--III--

In other topics, Mrs Jennifer Fulwiler has a post on the National Catholic Register about not worrying too much about the children's college tuition. There are a lot of good things said in Mrs Fulwiler's article. The idea of attending community college to get a few of the classes out of the way is fairly common, but doing so from the local community college and living at home is not quite as common, which is unfortunate (after all, the living expenses are often the killer cost in college, along with tuition which is also mitigated by going to the community college). The idea that college is not for everybody is right, but tragically also counter-cultural (to be blunt, a university education is not right or "best" for more than a few percent of people, and certainly not more than 10-15%). Unfortunately, it is often used as a supplement for the education which nobody is getting from the public schools, at least in the non-major (and some of the major) classes at most universities. I will add one note. My wife and I have discussed the possibility of sending our future children to trade school (or otherwise making them learn a gainful trade) before sending them to college; this might be as a part of the education from home, or we might make them take a year or two off to do this. Being a licensed massage therapist, or machinist, or electrician can help them to pay for their own college education (which might help them value it more), not to mention it gives them the incentive to get a good broad education instead of having to worry about whether or not their degree will be employable thereafter.

--Bonus--

Since it's 2012, we need a little perspective concerning the Mayan calendar: and Mr Mark Shea gives it to us.

IT: Assumptions and Models

The scientific method, as does much learning in general, begins with observation. Father Stanley Jaki likened this process to the first step in the march of science, without which there can be no second or third step. We might call it a sort of first cause in scientific investigation, both in order of time sequence an in order of importance.

Where do the models and theories come into all of this? The model is the second step (if observation and interpretation of data are together taken as one step), and that model should describe the system’s behavior and then predict its behavior under some new conditions. Then it’s a matter of testing the model—more observation and more interpretation—and then modifying it, and testing again, and so on. A theory then brings together several models in a coherent fashion and attempts to explain them.

 Read the rest on IGNITUM TODAY.

Abortion and the Virtues

There are, as we know, seven principle virtues—four cardinal virtues and three theological ones—I a daresay that abortion manages to violate all seven of them. Few sins, I think, can claim such thoroughness in being so opposed to virtue.

Abortion and Prudence

That prudence is violated by abortion can be seen in many ways. The first of these is the false-prudence which advises abortion to begin with: do this, or your life will be ruined with a child. "Think of all the things you'll miss out on if you have a child now" could be a slogan for the abortion industry (of which the contraception industry is a subgroup). Yes, but if that is of such a large concern, then why the lack of prudence up until this point?

Where was prudence before the pregnancy, where was the voice of caution before the act of intercourse which does, after all, have as its end (natural consequence) procreation, whatever tampering we may do to it? And why does prudence suddenly seem to leave the room when the "choice" of abortion is taken so seriously as to require some time to think it over with the facts in hand (and not only the propaganda of those who would profit from an abortion). Witness, for example, the attempts of abortion advocates to withhold sonograms, or to deny information (let alone consent) from parents of minors involved.

Prudence is cast by the wayside leading up to an abortion.

Abortion and Justice

Justice is also violated in the act of abortion. Even in its simplest form--justice being only "giving to one what is his due" is violated, since it denies the child the life that he is due. It does, however, cut deeper than this, since the act of abortion denies the child his very dignity as a member of the human community, his value as a child of God. Abortion commits the injustice of denying his nature and dignity. It also does an injustice to the mother, by denying her the dignity which she has as a mother; and likewise to the father.

There are also the many smaller injustices, the men who are never informed that they are fathers, the women who are coerced to give up being mothers, and the parents of those women who are often denied their role as guardians (especially in the case of a minor). And of course it denies not only the Golden Rule (do onto others as you would have them do to you), but its Confucian (or Old Testament) counterpart, do not do to others what you would not have done to you. We treat animals with more dignity that we do the children who will be killd by this procedure, since few animals are killed by being torn limb-from-limb, or by having their skin dissolved and boiled off. Abortion falls short not only of granting the dignity due to a fellow human being, but even of granting the much lesser dignity granted to most animals, over which our natural relationship is lord or steward.

Abortion is an act which denies justice to all involved.

Abortion and Fortitude

What of fortitude--that is, steadfast courage in the face of trials and adversity? Certainly, adversity and trials are implied in abortion (most of the time): if they weren't, there would be no abortion. Yet, abortion is the "quick and easy" solution, though the grieving and guilt suffered by many women who have undergone this procedure suggests that it is not so easy, at least. Abortion is the coward's way out, though often it is not only the woman who is the coward in question. Sometimes it is the father abandoning his duty for convenience, sometimes it is the girl's parents who can think of nothing but "saving face," or "family reputation."

They perceive all of the trials which come with bringing a child into the world (and sometimes raising him), not to mention to reputation which comes (or once came with) bearing children out of wedlock; if they do away with the child quietly, then they believe that they will be spared this latter thing, at least, not to mention any inconveniences they might suffer. They overlook the blessings involved, overlook that every child is a gift from God, even when that gift is illicitly obtained. They look at the challenges and overlook the blessings, and so shy to the convenient path which requires less sacrifice (or really, fewer changes in lifestyle), forgetting that the easy path is the one which slopes down and down.

It requires much fortitude to be a parent, and none to be an ex-parent.

Abortion and Temperance

Temperance may be the biggest stretch on the face of it, but it really isn't so great a stretch when we see that temperance involves self-control. There are two possibilities: either the woman engaged in sexual intercourse willingly--in which case she lacked self-control--or (occasionally/rarely) she did not, in which case it was her partner (or aggressor) who lacked this part of temperance. The self-control may have been lost several steps earlier, as if she decided to drink to excess and then became inebriated (though this may also be a problem with prudence, as when she decided to go to the bar knowing that she tends to lose control of her drinking). She was subsequently taken advantage of--a lack of self-control on the part of her date--and then nature ran its course and a child was conceived.

Temperance is thus violated not so much in the act of abortion as in the course of events leading up to it.

Abortion and Faith

Faith means not only believing in God, but also accepting the truths which He has revealed. This includes those truths which are "written on the heart" (Romans 2:15), which are often then clarified by more explicitly revealed truths. It means accepting an outside authority as being superior to one's own self in determining matters of truth and goodness, which includes matters of right or wrong.

In an abortion, these outside authorities are sometimes misplaced (that is, the woman trusts in the pressuring of her coercive boyfriend or the coaxing of the profiteering abortionist). Other time, the outside authorities are totally discarded (as when the woman ignores all advice to the contrary and screams "my body, my choice!"). God's law is subverted, and His voice is ignored in favor of another's. When He said that He shall have no other gods before Him, He did not make an exception for Moloch.

Abortion is an act in defiance of faith.

Abortion and Hope

Hope can be taken to mean placing all of one's trust in God. It means accepting that He is ultimately in control, that even if we don't know what to what ends his Providence moves us, they will be good ends. They will be better ends than what we will achieve on our own. This means that we must trust that when he allows something which we think is bad to happen, it is because He will bring a greater good out of it, if we will but let Him.

Thus, every child is willed by Him, and every child is a blessing. We may not immediately see the blessing, we may see the adversity, we may see the pregnancy as a "crisis." But that is looking at it with earthly eyes, with eyes of "the flesh," with eyes not attuned to seeing what God sees. Abortion (like suicide) is the ultimate act of despair, saying not so much that no good can come from life, but that whatever good may come of life will be far outweighed by its suffering. There is no hope that God will bring a greater good from this, no trust that He knows what He is doing when he creates a new life.

Abortion is most certainly a sin against hope.

Abortion and Charity

How abortion violates against the precept of selfless love is self-evident. Whether the woman is driven to this by fear or by force, charity is itself not a consideration. Where is the charity which welcomes the stranger (let alone which welcomes one's very own child)? If we can't love our neighbors who we see, then how shall we love God whom we don't? And if a mother cannot love her own child, if a father cannot love his own child, how can they claim to love their neighbors whom they hardly know?

Sure, there is the false-charity which says (in some cases) that the child would be "better off dead," though we see in real life that few people think this of themselves, whatever may be there quality of life. For the logical conclusion to "I'd be better off dead" is suicide, and though this is a significant cause of death, the vast majority of people elect to continue living, whatever may be heir quality of life. Moreover, many of those who elect suicide at some point do so only after living some length of time in the world around them: and often the people who make this election are not the same kinds of people who the pro-choicers would say are "better off dead".

Thus, what we see is not charity but rather is false compassion.

I write this not to condemn--it is not for me to do that--but rather to warn. Those who have gone through this need no condemnation from men: they are either filled with remorse (secret or no), or to be condemned by a higher Authority. We may take the path of virtue, or the path of convenience.

TMM: What Destroys Marriage (A False Dichotomy)

A false dichotomy.

One of the little themes used by those who favor the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples is to point to the erosion of "traditional" marriage over time and suggest that with this in mind, "gay marriage" cannot possibly destroy the institution. The picture to the left is a good example of this, and is the latest making the rounds on the internet (and in particular, in social media). The basic argument is that, since all these people (in this case, all these celebrities: because Hollywood et al. are truly socially conservative preservers of the culture [1]) have somehow failed to live up to the traditional definition of marriage, therefore gay marriage will not do any harm.

Another (and more insidious) way of saying this is that it's either gay marriage or the failure of the rest of the culture in part or whole which destroys marriage, and since all of these other things in culture happened first, therefore they're the ones who have destroyed marriage in it entirety, and so redefining the institution doesn't matter because it's already lost its definition anyway. It's not a matter of "either all these examples ruined marriage, and so gay marriage does no harm" (the argument claimed by many advocates of redefining marriage) or else "gay marriage will destroy the institution of marriage, so (therefore) none of these other things really matters or contributes to this destruction"  (which is the opposite claim). This is, of course, a false dichotomy, because there is another possibility not granted by the dichotomy and yet which could be (and is) true in reality: namely, that both gay marriage and such things as no-fault divorce (and its high rate of usage among the population in general) and the cavalier attitude of the Hollywood stars and other celebrities towards marriage can contribute to its decline and ultimate destruction as an institution.

Here is an analogy. A man is filing for bankruptcy. He is hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, and is no longer able to pay off even the interest on all of his loans. He went to college and mostly partied, which delayed his graduation for a few years. After 7 years, he graduates with a BA in business and a high tolerance for alcohol, plus $60k in student loans. He lands in a decent job which pays $40k/year, and decides to buy a status car ($30k) and a nice house little house in a decent neighborhood in Austin ($350k). He runs up his credit card bill each month and then makes minimum payments each month, opening a second and then a third credit line as each previous line fills up. The result is that he needs to pay (minimum) $30k/year to all of his creditors, but brings home less than this after taxes. He is given one last chance to fix things, by consolidating his loans, but he must make a cash payment of $5k--his entire life savings--up front to do this; on his way to do this, he gets robbed, and loses that last $5k. He goes bankrupt. So, which of these purchases caused this?

Answering "the house and the car" is somewhat analogous to answering that the destruction of marriage is due to the celebrities and the culture being manufactured by the mainstream media (to say nothing of HBO, MTV, of the pornography industry). If you said it was all the college loans and the credit cards, you blamed the loss of respect in the culture for the institution as evidenced by the high divorce rate (not to mention cohabitation, etc). And if you blamed it on the robbers who beat him up and stole his money after all of this, then you blamed it on gay marriage. In reality, it is a combination of all these things, or perhaps more importantly, the fact that the man never attempted to reform his life (and spending habits) save possibly at the eleventh hour, but rather he escalated them as his debt grew.

Another analogy (a violent extension of the first). Suppose the robber stabs him with a knife and leaves him for dead. He will, however, survive if he receives some medical care (but will die otherwise); but the first passerby ignores his calls for help, and the second sees him and decides to shoot him now and put him out of his misery. Again, which of the three is responsible for the man's death? The robber who strikes the initial death blow (our declining culture), the man who ignores him (those who have pushed for commitment-free marriage, consequence-free sex, and no-fault divorce), or the man who shoots him (gay-"marriage" advocates and the MTV-Pornography portion of the media)? Again, I'd say all three share some part in the blame.

He's done his part to destroy the institution of marriage

The erosion of the institution of marriage began (in a mainstream way) in 1930 at the Lambeth conference, in which the Anglican communion became the first denomination to formally separate marital sex from procreation. It was helped along by the Supreme Court (Griswold v Connecticut and later Roe v Wade, Doe v Bolton, and Casey v Planned Parenthood), by the Roosevelt's New Deal and the Johnson Great Society and the expansion of the welfare state. It gained greater momentum by the separation of sex from marriage and marriage from procreation, thanks in no small part to the sexual revolution (both the quiet one taking place in the 40's and 50's, the louder one fueled by Alfred Kinsey and Hugh Hefner, and the explosive one of the '60s and '70s). It surged forward when parents and churches abdicated in their duty to properly catechize the growing generation:  witness that my own generation and the rising generation--which are the most poorly catechized in recent history--are the age groups which show the most support for redefining marriage. The final death blow has come from the media and elites--academia, Hollywood, the mainstream media, and especially MTV--which have been not only actively working as proponents for redefining marriage, but indeed for destroying it. These are not merely proponents for "gay marriage," about which I think they couldn't care less, but rather are opponents of "traditional" marriage and of the Christian morality [2] which helps to support and defend it [3].

But that all of these forces have worked together or apart to destroy traditional morality in general and the institution of marriage in particular does not mean that the institution is yet dead and gone. That these forces have strained to push it over the edge and into the abyss does not mean that it has gone there, or that it cannot be recovered. Our culture has been pushed to the brink. Traditional morality, which is the lifeline of our culture, has been maimed but is not yet dead. The institution of marriage now hangs by but a few thin threads, as that lifeline of culture has been frayed by the forces arrayed against it. Attempts to redefine marriage are attempts to cut those last few threads, and will finally destroy the institution. The solution is not to redefine marriage, and thus to throw it (and our culture with it) into the abyss; rather, it is to re-attached the lifeline, to splice and weave its stands back together, to repent of our civilizations long slow suicide of sin. There may still be time.


---Footnotes---
[1] Well, ok, they can perhaps point to Newt Gingrich as a person who actually makes claims to care about social conservatives. I don't buy it, mostly because I'm not convinced that Newt Gingrich actually does care about social conservatives, however much noise he may be making on the campaign trail. As for the "43-50% OF TRADITIONAL MARRIAGES" statistic, it's worth noting that all such marriages end at the death of one of the spouses. The argument should read that this percentage ends in divorce--but that begs the question that divorce itself has the ability to end something which one side of the "traditional" marriage proponents claims can't actually be ended by human power.

[2] I would say "Judeo-Christian," and to some extent it is true. On the other hand, divorce presents no problem for Jewish theology, as it is permitted under the Law, whereas Christians at least must come to grips with Christ's statements that "

"But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother (and be joined to his wife), and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate.' In the house the disciples again questioned him about this. He said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.'" 

[3] Which is not to say that this is only defensible through Christian morality; but I think a good argument can be made that it is being attacked because it does happen to be found in Christian morality, and that the hostility is towards Christian morality in general, and this specific aspect in particular becomes an especial casualty of that hostility.

Seven Quick Takes (v 21)

--1--

My wife had me take down our Christmas tree, now that Christmas season is actually over. That was my Saturday project, and it was a two step process. Let's just say a picture or two is worth more that a description:

Step 1: Cut into pieces

 Step 1 requires: saw. Gloves, axe, and/or hatchet optional.

Step 2: Fire in the hole.

Step 2 requires: matches, fireplace/pit/barrel. Poker and tongs optional.

--2--

Looking for a charity and/or project which is not religious per se but which does have to potential for a lot of good? May I suggest the global village construction set: aside from potentially developing some machines which could be built in the third world, it also creates a set of DIY equipment which may yet be useful for those who want to survive the complete collapse of Western Civilization.

--3--

I read Mr Matt Archbold's latest piece in the register about the joys (and importance) of being a father. Have I mentioned that his is one of maybe two good "daddy" blogs which i read fairly regularly? Oddly enough, I only see women commenting on the article (well, 6/7 comments). For those who are curious about what I consider to be the other, it is The Art of Manliness, which also touches on a number of "fathers' issues," though from a bit of a different perspective.

--4--

I just finished reading Dr Edward Feser's book, Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide. I'm not sure whether or not I'll write an actual review of the book any time soon, but I will probably be referring to it in at least some of my future posts on science (and scientism) over at IGNITUM TODAY. After reading Dr Feser's book, I decided to shift gears a little (but not too much) and turn to science fiction. I made an allusion to this with Wednesday's Three Links post: I started in on Mr Michael Flynn's In the Lion's Mouth, and it is so far excellent. I was sorely tempted to just not go to bed last night and instead stay up all night reading it--by my better half convinced me to do otherwise.Snippet from Flynn:

"The tube walls formed a Visser Skin, laminas of progressively slower space called subluminal mud, which decoupled the interior of causally from normal space. In a sense, a ship in the tube network was no longer 'in' the universe, but 'underneath.'

All this had been understood in ages past, in the old Commonwealth of Sun; and being understood, had been well engineered; and being well engineered, understanding no longer mattered. The formulas worked, and machines could be taught to work them. That was all a man need know."

This passage (and so many others in this series) points back to one of Flynn's theories as to how a scientific dark age can progress, as he explains more in-depth here.

--5--

Incidentally, a few people have been wondering why I seem to have decreased my writing frequency with that site. Mostly, it's a combination of things: 1) Christmas has come and gone, but that plus finals plus the start of the new semester has disrupted my general writing routine, and I typically (though not always) try to write stuff for IGNITUM TODAY and the Nicene Guys on the weekends and therefore a few days in advance, which relies on having a definite routine. 2) we changed our writing schedule a bit, so I am scheduled to write once every 4 weeks; I can in principle write more often, and I plan to do so. However, last time around that I wrote something on a day I wasn't scheduled for, they hadn't fixed up the system so that the featured/non-featured posts had a distinction, and I don't want to "bump" other people from the front page by posting out of turn.

--6--

With the start of the semester, I've had to shift my sleep schedule a little. I teach a class at 8:00 AM on Mondays and Wednesdays, and getting from my apartment to campus plus either waiting on the bus or hiking from the parking lots (they're about a mile from RLM) means that by the time all is said and done, I have to get up at 5:30 to get here on time (so I've got Mrs Jennifer Fulwiler beat in the getting up uncomfortably early department). The weeks just after daylight savings' time shifts are going to be a real bear. The only upside to all of this is that it means getting up for That Man Is You on Fridays isn't any earlier than my normal routine. The downside is that, since my lab, office, and classroom are all windowless, and since I usually pack a lunch along, there are some days during which I literally get to work before the sun rises, and leave after it sets--and thus I have some days when I never see the sun.

--7--

This blog is soon going to be syndicated through Austin Catholic New Media's site. This means that most of these posts will show up in the "community posts" pages. I have a few friends who are writing for that site more directly, and was given the opportunity to do the same, but I had to decline for now.  I am stretched a little thin between my current blogging, plus school and research and family life. Go check their site out!


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

Three Links Wednesday (vol. III)

Old Nick: a spiritual being in constant rebellion against religious authority. Sadly, he is able to poison and twist religion (and religious authorities) as with anything else. But that act of twisting and poisoning does not mean that the thing twisted was bad to begin with (indeed, it is evidence that the thing itself is very good). On to the links:

--I--

After linking an article about whether we can teach virtue (I may come back to this later), Dr Lawrence Gage has written a short essay in which he summarizes the problematic dichotomy of modernity, beginning with the scientific (or scientistic?) revolution. That dichotomy is between power and love. Might I add that (within science) the dichotomy may be between emphasizing science as the search for truth, goodness, and beauty--which ultimately leads back to the source of these things--on the one hand, and power, utility, and technology on the other. But more broadly, I think that he is right to suggest that there are two fundamental paths--the one of love, the other of power--which we can go down; and that our civilization has clearly chosen the latter. As an aside, the love-power dichotomy is fundamental to the thought of Prof. Dietrich von Hildebrand, and thus also to Blessed Pope John Paul the Great's Theology of the Body; after all, in his Love and Responsibility, the latter suggests that the opposite of "to love" is "to use": love or power.

--II--

Want a litmus test about whether or not somebody is full of nonsense when they say "don't judge me?" Wait until he agrees with you and then tell him not to judge you. This is one of the two most misinterpreted and misused (really, abused) statements or actions of Christ. The other is just like it: His general condemnation of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees.  This is often used by the "spiritual but not religious" (and in conjunction with this other statement) types today to give blanket condemnation to those of us who have the courage (and common sense) to admit being religious. We are not to condemn or pass judgment about people; we are, however, to do for for actions (or courses of action). "Test everything; retain what is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

--III--

What is a dark age? Perhaps in honor of the release of their latest novels, two of my favorite science fiction authors address this question, each slightly differently. First, there is Mr Michael Flynn's post about the idea of the loss of scientific understanding (though not necessarily technological know-how), which forms a part of the backdrop to his far-future "Spiral Arm" series (my name for it). Systems become complex, and we focus so much on specialization that we lose sight of the "big picture"--he used Poincare's analogy of science as a house as opposed to merely a pile of bricks (facts)--and first our technology, then the world itself becomes so many "black boxes" for which we know that a (controllable) certain input will yield a certain (predictable) output, but about whose inner operations, laws, and design we know nothing. The other post is by Mr John C Wright, whose "dark age" is economic and political before it is scientific. He points out that there were plenty of technological developments during the middle ages (and those who are familiar with Prof. Duhem and Fr. Jaki among others know that there were indeed some actually scientific advances during this age), though there was also "a loss of craftsmanship." Might I add that there is another important element which leads to a societal collapse--if widespread enough, a dark age--which is the decline of public (and therefore private) morality and the abandonment of virtue. All of this suggests that we are heading for such a fate.

--Bonus--

What would the Phantom Menace have looked like if Mr John C Wright had written it? Well, it would have been better than the movie itself actually was, but that's not exactly hard to accomplish.

TMM: Body, Spirit, and Religion

"Nine out of ten of what we call new ideas are simply old mistakes." I kicked off my quick-takes last Friday by pointing to a few general dismantlings of the recent YouTube hit "Why I Hate Religion but Love Jesus" (which I will not rehash here). Not surprisingly, the frustration to this kind of approach to "spirituality" is not limited to Catholics, as my friend Mr Nathanael Blake has let his own misgivings be known. The trend of claiming to be "spiritual,but not religious" or of attempting to distance oneself from religion by claiming that it gets in the way of a relationship with God.

So what does this have to do with Chesterton's observation that most "new ideas" are in fact "old mistakes"? It may seem a simplistic critique, but I believe that Mr Jefferson Bethke is, even if subconsciously, embracing the Gnostic heresy of Manicheism in making this video (and apparently, I'm not alone in this assessment). A strong claim, to be sure, and perhaps overkill for the video itself, or even the"spiritual,but nor religious" trend as a whole. But it does have something in common with that heresy in particular, a sort of revulsion of the body as opposed to the spirit.

What I mean is this. Belonging to the church (yes, small c in this case) means belonging to the Christian religion, and accepting at least certain dogmas and doctrines (e.g. that Jesus is true God and true Man, that He died for us, that the Bible is the inspired written word of God). Of particular relevance to this discussion is that belonging to this religion means being a member of the mystical Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12-14) [1]. That means that human beings—yes, in our frailty and weakness, in the fallen state we suffer in this vale of tears—are in effect Christ's hands and feet and even (gasp) His voice in this world.

In a more strictly Catholic understanding, the Church (large C this time) is the Faithful who are the body of Christ, and this body is guided by the Holy Spirit. More broadly, the (small c) church is made up of believers who would profess Christ, and yet who are also sinners who would at times deny Him. Both of these things appear as contradictions—though they are only paradoxes. What manner of chimera consists of a body of men and yet is animated by the Spirit of God? And how can we follow a religion of people who claim that they are believers yet who often fall well short of what faith demands of them? Worse still, religion seems to demand that we submit ourselves to this body of believers—it is from them that we learn about Christ, and from them that we get our Bible, to them that we must at times turn for help in understanding what we ought to believe.

We see that the other members of the body of Christ are sinners. We know this, we recognize it, and we often want to proclaim it as a way of distancing ourselves from their sins. "I am not like those others, those miserable sinners who boast of their religion and ritual like the pharisee but who really don't know you!" (Luke 18:11). We see the sins of the members of Christ's Body, and so want to separate ourselves from it, as Mr Bethke attempts to separate himself from it by embracing the pure spirit of just wanting the relationship without the religion. The problem is that the religion is a part of the relationship, and indeed an integral part. The former cannot be denied without damaging the latter.

This "spiritual, but not religious" attitude seems to me to be a way for those so-inclined to remove themselves from the nitty-gritty part of living as a member of the body of Christ. Yes, they still care about some of the works of mercy—feeding the poor, for instance [2]—but these are often the "noncontroversial" or "feel-good" works, and not the "hard" works of (say) rebuking sinners or instructing the ignorant. These latter are "hard" because they often force ourselves to come into contact with our own failings—either by making us keenly aware of our own sins or by risking being truly judgmental. Moreover, as we are members of a larger body which is as a whole accountable to Christ, our turn may yet come to be rebuked or corrected; we may face the fact that though we profess with our mouths (and even our hearts and minds) Christ, we proclaim sin with our lives. Dissociating ourselves from the other sinners, from "religion", does nothing to resolve this problem. Learning to live in the humility which recognizes that we are not too good for the rest of the body of Christ, however, may go a long way in helping us to truly repent.

"Nine out of ten of what we call new ideas are simply old mistakes. The Catholic Church has for one of her chief duties that of preventing people from making those old mistakes; from making them over and over forever, as people always do if they are left to themselves. The Catholic Church carries a sort of map of the mind which looks like the map of a maze, but which is in fact the guide to the maze. It has been compiled form knowledge which, even considered as a human knowledge, is quite without any human parallel. There is no other case of one continuous intelligent institution that has been thinking about thinking for two thousand years."

--Footnotes--

[1] Yes, s**t just got corporeal.

[2] Though again, it is the institutionalized religions which have done more than anyone to carry out these works.

Seven Quick Takes (v 20): Smoke and Mirrors

--1--

Before I do any of these other takes, I'd like to point reader to a couple of good links concerning that "I hate religion" video which has (not surprisingly) gone viral on YouTube this week. The first is by Mr Marcel LeJeune. Preach it Marcel! The second is by my co-blogger at IGNITUM TODAY, Mr Marc Barnes. "Smackdown" much? Word (no, really, Logos, which is relevant to this whole discussion, no?). I've written a few posts on this theme before too, but not in the context of this particular video. It really is nothing new, other than that, in the words of Mr Barnes,

"He’s very, very wrong with some great video editing, good background music, a strong emotional appeal, catchy rhyme, and all in relatively well-timed YouTube moment. He’s wrong in style. When a man gains immense popularity by making blanket statements stylistically, how likely is it that his followers will read a rebuttal making specific statements prosaically?"

Go read the replies by Barnes and LeJeune. It's a tired (and tiring) false dichotomy that we must choose either Christ or religion; and though the creator(s) of this video never states it explicitly, it's fairly obvious in this case which religion he is especially targeting. By choosing Christ, we are choosing a religion. The question is how particular and how deep and thought-out and recognizable that religion is going to be.

--2--

Since I'm already mentioning Mr Barnes, allow me to point to another of his posts: this one about smoking pipe tobacco. Some friends of mine and I probably get together about every other week to smoke our pipes and discuss all things Catholic/literary/philosophical/theological/cultural/etc; so Marc, if you're ever in Austin, look me up. As an aside, I was talking to one of these friends--Mr Matthew Anderson--and he made this remark concerning smoking: cigarettes are for looking "cool" and "hip" and alone (and are generally disgusting to boot); cigars are for smoking when trying to appear as the man about the town, or the celebratory man, or for discussing politics and business. But pipes, these are for enjoying with friends and in conversation about the finer things, about philosophy or fantasy or art or culture. 'Tis the pipe that I like best.

--3--

I might add a second note to this effect: cigars seem to go well with whiskeys, maybe Bourbons and especially Scotches. Pipe tobacco I find can go well with these things, but with beer or spiced rum-and-root beer (or rum and cream soda, either of which is, incidentally, much better than rum and coke), or even some types of wine: depending on the type of tobacco you pick. Drink and smoke responsibly [:)] .

--4--

Cigar and scotch. Live jazz music in the background.

Ok, one last take about tobacco and booze. (I swear I don't smoke but maybe every other week, and drink more than but twice a week and in small quantities). For Christmas, I got my wife an incense censor (and a few incense blends, to include frankincense and myrrh, since we exchanged gifts on the feast of the epiphany). She got me a ticket to the Secret Society Adventures: Scotch. Cigars. Jazz, which I attended with my best friend (and fellow Nicene Guy) Mr Andrew Elster. There was a professional photographer on hand, so we'll have some photos of that in a few days. In the meantime, here are a couple from the event. The Scotch was great, the cigar was good, and the jazz was an excellent touch. The next one will be a jazz/swing dance themed thing, so we may be back (with our wives!) for more.

Andrew looking dapper as always

Just for fun: How a pipe-smoker gets started on cigars.

--5--

My wife, for her part, is contemplating doing the training to become a licensed massage therapist. This is so that in addition to offering voice and piano lessons, she can offer massages, and hopefully therefore supplement our income when we have children (especially if/when I'm still in graduate school when we start). This means that tonight we are going to a free session on ankle and foot massages. She is going to see if this is really something she wants to do (it's a big time-commitment for the next year, and it's not free or even cheap, but is rather an investment of sorts). I am going to be supportive.

--6--

My wife and I have been wanting to plan a short (weekend) camping trip for a while now. I've not been camping anywhere in Texas, though I used to go all the time in Oregon/California (though we did do some camping there last summer). Any recommendations for places within a few hours of Austin where we can pitch a tent, cook by fire, etc? Note that my wife hasn't done much camping, and that we probably won't be going until it warms up again anyway.

--7--

Classes begin this week. I'm not taking any classes this semester--I have a time conflict with the only one which looked interesting to me--but I am teaching a couple of section of physical science. Hopefully this semester will come with less stress than the last few have. In any case, when the semester begins, things start to get more complicated around here, kinda like this:



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

Quote of the Day: John Stuart Mill and Libertarians

"In every principle premise of his argument, [James Fitzjames] Stephen declared, [John Stuart] Mill suffered from an inadequate an inadequate understanding of human nature and history. All the great movements of humankind, Stephen said, have been achieved by force, not by free discussion; and if we leave force out of our calculations, very soon we will be subject to the intolerant wills of men who know no scruples about employing force against us. (So, one may remark, many twentieth-century libertarians would have had us stand defenseless against the Soviet Russians.) It is consummate folly to tolerate every variety of opinion, on every topic, out of devotion to an abstract 'liberty'; for opinion soon finds its expression in action, and the fanatics whom we tolerated will not tolerate us when they have power."

This passage comes from Dr Russell Kirk's essay "Libertarians: Chirping Sectaries", published as a chapter in his Redeeming the Time. It was written concerning the possibility of any political alliance between conservatives and libertarians--which possibility Kirk denied--to stand against Communism, which ideology both opposed. It may be worth revisiting today, if for no other reason than that the likely second-place candidate in this year's Republican nominations will be the libertarian candidate, Ron Paul.

For what it is worth, Congressman Paul is not quite the archetypal libertarian against whom Dr Kirk is writing here--but in so many ways he is quite close, at least in his approach to politics. As a human being, he seems to me to be far less libertine than his political philosophy would seem (and Dr Kirk in this essay certainly treats the libertarians as being also a libertine); he is indeed quite possibly the most decent and even conservative of all the candidates in his personal life.

Moreover, with some of the dangerous excesses of the government (and in particular, of the current president, at times backed by and at time s independent from Congress), it is certainly a very tempting idea to pull for the candidate who would, if elected president, most likely work to repeal these excesses. Giving the president the power to target civilians without trial for assassination or indefinite imprisonment (and torture to boot) may or may not keep us collectively safer from foreign threats; it will, however, put us individually in more danger from our own government, if not immediately then somewhere off in the future; it certainly gives more credence to the speculations of a friend of mine who suggested that we will see a dictatorship in the United States in our lifetimes.

In general, perhaps the best case for libertarianism is that because men are often wicked and always fallen, it is a bit of a gamble to allow any one person (or group of people) to have too much power, because that power will inevitably be abused. Much of this power to the government is granted with the best of intentions:  for example, the expanded powers of government during wartime to help win the war, or in a crisis to help end the crisis, or to protect the citizens (or subjects) from this or that threat (be it a hostile foreign power, terrorists, criminals, or whatever) or likewise for society as a whole (e.g. the law acts a a moral teacher, too). Often these expanded powers are granted to a government headed by men who are largely thought to be "good men" (unlike, for example, our current president, or to look at it from another perspective, our previous one), and often also under the assumption that the powers will.

But what happens when the crisis ends, or when somebody new and less trustworthy, honorable, or "good" gets into power? What happens when we embrace the theory that the law is a moral teacher (though not the most important one) so that we can pass "good" laws, and then the other side comes to power and sweeps these aside to be replaced with "bad" laws? And how did that granting emergency powers to the leader (in this case, the general, the "dictator") thing work out for Rome as a Republic when Julius Ceaser decided to cross the Rubicon? Better perhaps to limit the government's ability to wield power so that these dangers (and these possible threats to life and liberty) are avoided (or more easily avoided).

This is, however ironically, also perhaps one of the strongest cases against libertarianism. The government rightfully yields some authority--and as Christians we believe that that authority is granted by God. Merely to limit the government will not mean that no group exercises power, but rather will shift it to some other group (e.g. big labor, or big business, or a foreign power, etc). Power may frequently tend to corrupt the character of the powerful when granted in great enough amounts and for a great enough duration; but there are ways of fighting this which do not begin with "all government exercise of power is excessive..." This is not to say that our government right now does not exercise too much power, or that it is not too big as is. But as Dr Kirk notes, the exercise of force does have some part to play in human affairs--and not always a bad part--so long as we live in this vale of tears. That the government abuses its authority in countless ways does not mean that it lacks authority to abuse.

"The great line of division in modern politics--as Eric Voegelin reminds us--is not between totalitarians on the one hand and liberals (or libertarians) on the other; rather, it lies between all those who believe in some sort of transcendant moral order, on one side, and on the other all those who take this ephemeral existence of our for the be-all and end-all--to be devoted chiefly to producing and consuming."

And since I am discussing libertarians in general, it might be worth a moment to return briefly the most important libertarian in America right now, who is Congressman Ron Paul. He really does deserve to be one of the top three candidates this time around. And he really does have some good insights--the case for libertarianism is based on mostly good insights--but he often takes these too far. I agree that America is spread a bit thin, and that these last two wars were badly run; he takes this a bit too far when he says that we shouldn't have been involved in fighting Germany in the second World War, or that we should have left the Barbary Pirates alone; nor was peaceful coexistence with a hostile superpower (Soviet Russia) a likely outcome long-term. Similarly, I agree with him in his insistence that the war on drugs has largely been a costly (and wasteful) endeavor; I do not think that the legalization of every drug from marijuana to heroine is the solution to this problem. Nor do I think that the government ought to be legalizing prostitution just because it shouldn't be entering into people's bedrooms--though I suppose that our culture's addiction to pornography does come pretty close to this anyway, since after all it involves people's getting paid to have sex [1].

On the other hand, most of these things are areas on which Representative Paul would be largely blocked by the other branches of the government. In that case, he really would be the candidate who would do "the least amount of damage," which seems to be the reason why some (or many?) people would vote for Mr Mitt Romney.

In closing, it is worth returning one more time to Dr Kirk's essay--and noting in light of this point, that the problem is that there aren't really any actually conservative candidates running this year who are likely to garner many votes:

"But surely, I must be misrepresenting the breed? Don't I know self-proclaimed libertarians who are kindly old gentlemen, God-fearing, patriotic, chaste, well-endowed with the goods of fortune [2]? Yes, I do know such. They are the people who through misapprehension put up cash for the fantastics. Such gentlemen call themselves 'libertarians' merely because they believe in personal freedom, and do not understand to what extravagance they lend their names by subsidizing doctrinaire 'libertarian' causes and publications. If a person describes himself as 'libertarian' because he believes in an enduring moral order, the Constitution of the United States, free enterprise, and old American ways of life--why, actually he is a conservative with imperfect understanding of the general terms of politics."

--Footnotes--
[1] I am not going to take time and outline what I think should be done in each of these situations, however.

[2] Oddly enough, Representive Paul seems to fit this bill, despite being a libertarian as candidate. Thus, the next part, "put up cash for" might be rendered "would grant political or legal cover to."

Three Links Wednesday (vol. II)

Sometimes (ok, often) I wish that it was a quick and easy to post links to my blog as to post them to Facebook. In particular, I'd like to be able to post these quick links (with or without my commentary) and have them show up in a side-reader instead of the main blog. Perhaps that will be a feature which comes to the Nicene Guys blog when the upgraded version gets launched. Since the site has been up and down all week, I suspect that perhaps my friend and theoretical co-blogger there, Mr Andrew Elster, may be tweaking the site just a little. We'll see.

--I--

My friend Mr Nathan Kennedy has an interesting post about moral relativism and "objective" as opposed to "subjective" morality. It's not exactly the same direction as my other Nathan-named friend Mr Nathanael Blake has gone concerning morality (or truth), but it has given me something to think about. NB that I also have mentioned something similar in a past post, that there is Truth (and Goodness) and then there is our own interpretations of these, but this isn't necessarily the same understanding as either of my friends are putting forward.

--II--

Professor Edward Feser has a discussion about the concept of "perverted faculties" wrapped in a discuss about the morality of lying. He also outline seven points about lying, which he has examined in more depth elsewhere. The first three points more-or-less contain the others, and in particular he begins by noting that lying is always wrong, but not always gravely wrong.

--III--

On the National Catholic Register blogs, Mr Patrick Archbold writes about custody of the eyes--and how the men (or maybe "guys") of our society no longer practice this. For those who struggle with this, a step in the right direction would be to at least keep the dirty thoughts to yourself. It would be better still to not have such thoughts at all, but this may be a bit harder to master. One step at a time, though. Mr Archbold offers this advice to help, though: "I have a simple, yet effective rule of thumb for how men should act.  I would never look at a woman or say anything about a woman that I would not do or say in front of my wife.  To do otherwise would bring shame upon her and me."

--Bonus (RANT)--

While I disagree with the rhetoric of this article, it does say one good thing: that a playoff is apparently looming in college football. The SEC was gift-wrapped the BCS national championship this year (so claiming "we won six in a row" can't be done with anything but an asterisk, which I would have put on the statement before anyway), but the result is that change is coming. From a fan's perspective, playoffs are great: but I'd actually be quite content to go back to the old bowl system (and perhaps with a reduced number of bowl games), which at least did not put on the continual charade of pitting the supposed #1 vs #2 in the championship. Perhaps Alabama really is the best team; perhaps not; we'll never know how OSU (or, for that matter, Stanford or even Oregon, to say nothing of USC and BSU) would have fared against them. For that matter, how would Texas, USC, or Utah fared against Florida in 2008, or USC or WVU (assuming the coach had stuck around) or OU fared against LSU in 2007? I will give the SEC '06 and '09-'10, but of those only the '06 championship game was really that impressive.

On a related note, I suspect that if the top three teams from the PAC-12 played against the top 3 from the SEC, it would be a 2-1 split (and could go either way as to who wins 2), including a possible Oregon win in a rematch with LSU (after all, if Alabama can lose at home by 3 in overtime to LSU and then win by 21 on a neutral site a few months later, there' no reason to believe that Oregon couldn't have the same kind of turn-around)--though I suppose a 3-v-3 would look like Oregon v Alabama, USC v LSU (maybe next year?), and Stanford v Arkansas. I suspect that the same would be true for the Big-12, with OSU being a match for Alabama, KSU not so for LSU, and OU being more than a match for Arkansas.At leas tthe PAC-12 and B1G are planning something similar for the future.

I did, in any case, boycott watching the SEC West championship re-match, as did a number of other people, since the rating was down from last year (and was lower than 8 other "BCS Championship" games--it was third lowest rated all-time and lowest all-time for cable BCS games). As one friend put it, "I played Battlefield 3 instead. I guarantee I had way more fun than anyone who watched the game."

IT: Acts of Faith in Science

The idea that we have faith in everyday matters is not new. This secular faith is practiced by, well, everybody, since we rely on a sort of faith that our senses do not deceive us in perceiving the world around us. This sense of secular faith is no less apparent (and certainly no less important!) in the sciences. Indeed, we have some amount or other of faith in each step of the “process” for a given experiment, which we exercise quite unconsciously.


Faith in Theory

It’s been said before that a scientific theory is a sort of story which we tell ourselves to makes sense of some set of (presumably repeatable) data. Well and good. But what reason do we have to believe that our “story” describes reality—and especially, that it holds true anytime, anywhere? What reason do we have to believe that it really describes the natural world as it is?

It is worth noting here that a great many theories—at least in physics—begin with any number of assumptions. There is a joke that physics never works in real life because most objects aren’t spheres and very few of us actually live in a vacuum. We often, moreover, ignore any number of “small” interactions when deriving our formulas [1], which interactions may not actually be ignorable, and may play a large or a small part in any given interaction; these interactions may or may not be separable from the particular interaction or effect in which our theory takes some interest.


Read the rest on the IGNITUM TODAY site.

Seven Quick Takes (v 19)

--1--

I've mostly enjoyed my Kindle for the approximately half-year that I've had it. I have very few complaints about it as a product, and it has cut down drastically on the number of books I've bought in the last few months which save us some money (though I usually buy used) and also lots of shelf space (I don't have much stuff, but I have hundreds of books, and that eats up a lot of space in our apartment). I do, however, have two complaints about my Kindle. The first is that it sometimes crashes if I make too many notes/highlights too quickly--which is annoying, but not deal-breaking. The other is that (aside from writing notes) there is no way to distinguish between types of highlight. Sometimes I like to just browse and find the memorable quotes from a book, other times I want the key passages, others the passages I've marked for my own purposes, and occasionally I want to return to that one passage which I either disagreed with (and may want to blog about) or which I am unlcear on (and thus wanted to think about some more). Not too mention, it's sometimes nice to distinguish between things I found important on the first reading and things I found important on the second or third or tenth. I do kind of wonder if the Kindle Fire remedies this.

--2--

Tomorrow is our Dominican Study Day! This is one of our "major" events as a group for the year, in which the groups from Rockdale, Austin (Spanish), Austin South/central, and Austin North groups get together as one large group. We've also commonly had contingents from other cities (especially an Antonio and surrounding), and also (last year) from the Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist. I'm looking forward to seeing everybody (especially the folks from the Austin South/Central group, from which the North group missioned off). The Study day itself often works as a sort of miniature retreat--open with prayer, hear a presentation, discussion the presentation in small groups, discuss it as a larger group, and then repeat for a second presentation. Those in the Austin area who are curious about being lay Dominicans would do well to come to this, it's from 9-3:30 at St Julia's Parish.

--3--

The break is slowly coming to a close. This week was not my first week back, nor was it a full week (yay for New Year's day being observed on Monday as a holiday), but it was a laser week--so I'm back in the swing of things a bit more. Luckily, after three long days (and late nights), I get a short day today: the building is closing down and they're kicking us out by 6 for some electrical service work. Then I return next week and begin planning for classes, which start on the following week.

--4--

Speaking of getting back into the swing of thing, RCIA starts back up on Sunday, so I may be fielding some more question box questions soon. Hopefully the Nicene Guys site will be fixed by then.

--5--

Happy Feast of the Epiphany! No booze recommendation for today, unfortunately. Well, unless you include Three Philosophers Quadrupel. I suppose that the wise men were sort of like philosophers, right? Indeed, it could be argued that both the philosopher and the magi seeks the God made man*. And it's three philosophers, and tradition (small t) tells us that there are three wise men (Jasper, Melchior, and Balthasar). So, yeah, I guess there is an opportunity for drinking with the saints after all.

*As my friend Mr Nathanael Blake put it, 

"Plato was looking for a church...Christianity offers freedom for philosophy.  Leaving aside the Christian revelation as the fulfillment of the spiritual experience of philosophy described by Plato, Christianity relieves philosophy from the burden of expressing the spiritual experience of the right order of the soul in a temptation to reorder society in its image.  Political philosophy is free to focus on the realization of a tolerable and peaceable order within the City of Man, while the Church meets the spiritual needs of man by being the mundane expression of the eschatological City of God."

--6--

My wife and I are making a little road trip to New Ulms on Sunday. We're basically going to this resort and golf club for the afternoon to relax a little and check the place out. This is in large part because I won a drawing and want to claim the prize, but it should be a nice little trip out of town for a half-day.

Hey, it will get us outside, which does both Rebecca and I some good.

--7--

Parting thought: just for fun, I'd like to see a battle of the (you-tube) bands. I'm thinking "Ok Go" vs "Pomplamoose."
In this corner, Pomplamoose:

And in this corner, OK Go:

And for the last time this liturgical year, Merry Christmas!
-----
Seven Quick Takes Friday is hosted by Mrs Jennifer Fulwiler at her Conversion Diary blog.