Monday Brought to You by Mustard

Today is brought to you by mustard! (What an interesting looking word, if you study it at length, by the way.)

Mustard can come in a bottle:



It can also come in a jar:



However, mustard really grows in a field, like so:



And here are some nifty mustard-colored shoes:



Let the mustard flow!

Couldn't Resist

Mine is like an indie-metal band.

Colin, you will like this

A random band generating Meme!

I'm lazy, so see the Shrine post for directions, but my result is above.

Hmmm . . .

I saw a lot of this, too, on election day.  It astounds me how many people will defend to the death their right to vote, and yet make no effort whatsoever to find out about who they are voting for.

Coming Soon . . . the Adventures of Lambie!

Stay tuned . . .

Christmas in...November?

I'm taking Sylvia's dare and blogging :)

A few weeks ago, it was brought to my attention that radio stations in Philadelphia had begun to play Christmas music. I was astounded. A few days later, I realized that radio stations in my area were doing the same thing. What is going on here? Not only are stores putting us Christmas decoration the day after Halloween, Christmas/"holiday" music is now being played at the beginning of November. My initial reaction to this has been incredulity, and I've been trying to figure out the reasons behind this "Christmas craze."

I think the root of the problem lies in the lost, bored, and lonely feelings of secular society. Without faith, life loses much of its meaning. I've often thought how sad it must be for non-Catholics who go through life with hardly any fasting or feasting. The cycle of the Church calendar is actually very important for our human psyche, especially since we've lost the natural agrarian change of seasons. Having feasts, and celebrations, and times of fasting and penance, apart from their inherent religious significance, provides change and interest in our daily lives as events to look forward to and prepare for. Fasting gives meaning to feasting, and feast days throughout the year allow us to relax, celebrate, and take a break from daily life.

It is this idea of looking forward and celebrating that, I believe, lies at the root of the Christmas craze. Christmas is the only holiday which our secular society still really celebrates. Although the true meaning of Christmas is often overlooked, who can deny that just about everyone gets excited about Christmas? For once a year, people think again about family, giving, peace on earth, etc. Ideally, it's an opportunity for celebrating. And because it only comes once a year, people want to enjoy it as long as they can. Of course, without faith, secular society goes about it the wrong way. Christmas decorations, constant Christmas songs, tons of shopping for food and gifts, parties galore; these are the ways people try to fill the emptiness in their hearts, and they look for more opportunities to do it. And it won't make them happy. After all, that's the reason behind the depression which can follow the holidays. People get all hyped up, but there hearts are never truly filled, and so even Christmas leaves them empty. If you've ever experienced this, take a look at how your prepare for, and celebrate, Christmas. Do you prepare for Christ's birthday, and celebrate Advent and Christmas with spiritual fervor, or do you let yourself get caught up in shopping, decorating, partying, etc.?

I love Christmas. I love the decorations, and food, and family celebrations. And yes, I enjoy hearing the Christmas music on the radio. But I know there is more to the "holy-day" than all that. So while the world is telling us to "celebrate the season," let's try to remember what the "season" really is. First, it's November, the month of the Holy Souls, and we should be offering extra prayers for the souls in purgatory. Second, this Sunday is the Feast of Christ the King. Third, Thanksgiving is next week, a time to give thanks for all our blessings, and spend time with our family, instead of worrying which stores to visit, and what to buy, on Black Friday. Fourth, Advent will begin on November 30, and we should recall that it is a time of preparation. The rigors of Lent are not asked, but we should make an effort to pray, sacrifice, and prepare spiritually for the birth of the Savior.

We are entering a season of joy, but above all it should be a spiritual joy. Instead of just preparing for Christmas Day, and then suffering from post-holiday depression, let's concentrate on today, and the upcoming feasts, celebrations, and Advent season. Try a little extra prayer and sacrifice this season, then go to a good Christmas Mass. I think you'll enjoy the holidays a whole lot more. And while we can enjoy the early Christmas music, let it be a reminder to pray for all those who don't know the true meaning of Christmas.

Gross Coffee

Is it better than no coffee at all? Discuss.

Dare to Blog

I dare you.

Volunteering at the Hospital?

Lately, I've been thinking I need to volunteer at a place. I have grown more than a little self-absorbed and self-centered, and what's worse, I rarely meet "non-Christendommy" people even in this little town. I go from work to home to friends to church to some activity for me, then back to work (right, back to work!). I've come up with the idea to volunteer at the hospital. The hospital is a place I never, ever go: I don't think I have darkened the door of a hospital for at least two years. That's why I thought it might be a good idea to spread good cheer and good will there. So my plan was to start in January.

. . . but then I had an unfortunate practical thought: will going to the hospital regularly to volunteer make it likely that I will catch some illness or other and spread it to my housemates? Will I put myself in the way of all sorts of unheard-of infections? In other words, should I just find a better place to volunteer, like a nursing home or something? I haven't even started looking into the need of these various places, or the hours. What are your thoughts?

Addicted to Online Shopping, Trying to Recover

When you start to daydream about dresses you might buy, or even presents, you realize you may have a problem. I have gone to extremes in shopping online. In an effort to stop my shopping binges and regain control of my life, I have used the following instructions for some of my favorite shopping sites. The reason that it's not a problem for me to do this is that by now, mid-November, I'm almost completely done with my Christmas shopping.

1. Click Start->Run
   
2. Through the Browse, select "All Files" and open C:/Windows/System32/drivers/etc/hosts using Notepad
   
3. Locate the line 127.0.0.1 localhost
   
4. To block the website spiegel.com for example, just add this text under 127.0.0.1 localhost:
   
   127.0.0.1 spiegel.com
   127.0.0.1 www.spiegel.com
   
   You can add as many sites any site, However you will need to prefix it with "127.0.0.1".
   
5. Save the file. Spiegel will now be blocked in all web browsers.
   

Events This Week - 11/10/08

This week looks to provide several opportunities for doing cool things, if you're into that. Moreover, all of them are free! Here are some of the highlights:

• Monday (tonight): Theology on Tap talk by Fr. Richard Mullins, at Pat Troy's in Alexandria, 7:30 p.m.
  
• Wednesday: Fortepiano recital given by Susan Duer, at Christendom College Chapel Crypt, 8:00 p.m.
  
• Thursday: Talk by Dr. Adam Schwartz and Dr. Robert Rice on Tolkien!! St. John the Evangelist library at Christendom, 8:00 p.m.
  
• Saturday & Sunday: Concert of Renaissance Polyphony by Collegium Cantorum, 8 p.m. & 3:30 p.m. respectively
  

Facebook

Good for you, Colin!

I have found since quitting Facebook that I don't miss it at all. One additional reason that I'm trying to piece together for myself and for my study (I'm going to write a paper on this topic) is that in some way Facebook and other "social networking" sites create a false reality that keeps the user plugged in to the detriment of their real social and personal lives. This may not always happen--as Colin pointed out, some people have the self-discipline to put Facebook in its proper place, as a tool to be used sparingly and only as needed. However, what has made FB so fun and appealing is their very tendency to allow escapism to creep in to your life. I need to think about this more, but these are my thoughts at present.

Vote!

Today is Election Day. If you are reading this post, please go out and vote if you haven't already done so! It won't take that long and it's your duty! Besides, you could get a free Starbucks coffee, so why wait? :-)

November Events

I wanted to post a quick summary of some upcoming events for November. If anyone thinks of more, please feel free to add/amend.

• November 1: All Saints' Day mass at Christendom (Palestrina chorus singing), 11:30 a.m.
  
• November 3: Major Speaker Russell Shaw at Christendom, 6:30 p.m.
  
• November 4: Election Day--go out and vote!
  
• November 9: Solemn High Mass at Old St. Mary's in D.C. (Palestrina chorus singing), 5 p.m.
  
• November 12: Fortepiano recital by Susan Duer at Christendom College Library, 8 p.m.
  
• November 15 & 16: Concert of Renaissance Polyphony by Collegium Cantorum (of whom Anthony is a member), 8 p.m. & 3:30 p.m. respectively
  
• November 21-23: Christendom College Players present The Secret Garden at Skyline High School
  
• November 22: Woodwind Quintet Concert at Christendom Commons, 7 p.m.
  
  

Joe and Liz's Wedding

Last Saturday, I had the good fortune to sing at a wedding of a couple of my friends, Joe and Liz. They are both fun, laid-back people and the wedding, as weddings generally do, suited the personality of the bride and groom. Their ceremony took place in an intimate chapel connected to a parish church in Annapolis, Liz's hometown. I must mention that she looked gorgeous, an absolutely stunning bride as, Krystle later remarked, brides should be if they possibly can. Krystle herself was part of a very large wedding party; I believe there were six bridesmaids and six groomsmen, plus the matron of honor and best man. Nevertheless, despite the proliferation of these witnesses, the nuptial mass began more or less on time. Though the priest took an updated approach to liturgical prayer, his additions of a "blessing by the children" and a first-name orchestration of the ceremony were offset by the choir's renditions of traditional polyphonic ordinaries and motets, especially William Byrd's Mass for Three Voices, as well as by the Gregorian gradual "Uxor tua," stuck in awkwardly between the first reading and the responsorial psalm. Unexpectedly, Joe and Elizabeth made the effort to memorize their vows, rather than repeating them after the priest, which made that part of the ceremony especially romantic. They sealed their covenant, in the middle of mass, with a kiss!

After mass, we headed over to the Knights of Columbus hall for the reception. Overall, I found the party playful yet also very tasteful. A buffet-style brunch was served on real dishes, with coffee and juice in real glass mugs and cups. The tables were set up in a "card party" theme, with each table suggesting a different card game, such as Spades, Poker, or even Mao! Though I did not end up playing cards, I did enjoy chatting with a few old acquaintances. Of course, dancing ranks high among my favorite wedding reception activities: I danced a few swing dances, as well as a tango and a polka (Anthony made fun of my dance partner for choosing to polka to Josh Turner's "Would You Go With Me," but it was a blast! Totally worth the blisters . . . ). The bride and groom danced a lot also, showing off their swing skills in an impressive fashion considering Liz's beautiful and extensive gown. She later urged all the ladies to join in a freestyle dance to "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun." All in all, the wedding was small and simple, yet abounding in festivity and joy.

I love living in a Catholic bubble

Here I am at work on a Thursday morning, trying to concentrate on an important conversion project and not to be distracted by the Woot-Off in progress, nor to worry about my NDGS midterms this evening. I turn on some tunes and it hits me how cool it is to live and work here! One of my coworkers makes Catholic kids music, another chants in the St. John's schola. I chat online with our resident filmmaker to let him know about the upcoming All Saints Day mass at Christendom, at which I will sing. Life is somehow simple and good.

Pictures from Homecoming

Fr. William: Champion of the New Liturgical Movement

Fr. William Fitzgerald is a priest after my own heart. In the rhetoric surrounding the debate between the Novus Ordo Missae vs. the Missal of Pius V (termed by Fr. William the "Classical Roman Rite," causing Nicole to think of harpies!) we too often get caught up in the minutiae, the details surrounding each form of the mass, and more importantly, our own personal attachment to one or another of the forms. Not so Fr. William. In his talk last night entitled "The Mass: How Extraordinary?!" Father gave us a clear and simple objective: think as the Holy Father does about the liturgy. He pointed out that the extreme of a narrow focus is those Catholics who demand, "what they want, when they want," with regard to the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice. He contended that we should be comfortable with Mass in either form, ordinary or extraordinary. At the same time, he pointed out that the Church's vision for the ordinary form is much different from what we often see in parishes today. Moreover, he explained that the Holy Father specifically used the word "extraordinary" with regard to the older form to indicate that the celebration of this form will be the exception and not the rule. Fr. William's fascinating, dense reflections gained credence from his personal history, one of strong attachment to the liturgy and of extensive education in matters liturgical. His wide knowledge showed itself in his compact history of the Mass in the Western Church. While recognizing the excellence of the Tridentine Mass, he sees Pope Benedict XVI's plan as ultimately one of reform, not of trying to situate the Church of today in a past time. By taking such a "middle road," as well as by using a matter-of-fact tone free for the most part from personal criticisms of either side, he showed us a great example of how to think with the Church and love our liturgical tradition.

Old Town Alexandria

Also on Monday, to celebrate Sarah F's twenty-third birthday, Nicole and I headed to Old Town Alexandria for a night out. The only time I had been there before was for a Theology on Tap session at Pat Troy's. We would later end up at that favored Irish pub, but first we started out at Red Mei, an Asian restaurant chosen by Sarah for its inexpensiveness. Because N and I arrived late, we didn't eat there with her and her friend Marcelle but instead walked a block or so to la Madeleine. I have grown less and less impressed with la Madeleine over the years, mainly because, like Panera, they make you pay too much for fairly mediocre food. Nevertheless, also like Panera, you're paying for the appealing ambiance of the restaurant itself; we had a nice little talk there while munching on my Mediterranean Salade (note to self: don't order salads at the very end of the day at a place like this) and Nicole's Chicken Friande (actually quite decent). Then, we moseyed over to the Scoop Grill for some delicious homemade ice cream. On the way, we stopped into a precious shop called decorium, an upscale home decor destination--we also picked up a job application there for Sarah and had the greatest fun filling out during the rest of the evening! Finally, after Sean V. and Andrew S. joined us at the cash-only ice cream parlor, we walked back up King Street to Pat Troy's. The ambiance was perfect there as well: we chatted the night away, swapping hilarious stories over a few beers with the familiar strains of Irish folk songs playing in the background. My final impression is that Old Town Alexandria is a great place to bring a friend or group of friends and have a bit of fun. Though you must also be prepared to pay for it, like the restaurants I mentioned, the overall charm of the town makes up for the fact. I would recommend it for dates and holidays. :-)

REMINDER: Fr. William's talk is tonight at 8 p.m. in St. John's Library basement level.

Lunch Spot

Yesterday, I tried out a new lunch spot here in town: Lucky Star Lounge. I had been there once before to hear my co-worker Danny play, but I did not try the food on that occasion. This time, I coerced a friend into accompanying me to this charming and eclectic spot.

In my opinion, the restaurant can boast a lot of things that are just right; the decor is one of those things. There is the perfect amount and arrangement of furniture to make it feel full without crowding and spacious without emptiness. Moreover, the wall hangings might not be what you would choose to display in your living room, but they're certainly very interesting! In short, the place looks good during the day as well as at night, and going there just makes you feel cool. :)

More importantly, the food was good! Slightly cheaper than element, Lucky Star's menu was also more varied--with a lot of vegetarian options, which makes me happy! I tried one of the daily specials, a vegetarian taco salad, and both the flavor and presentation were highly satisfactory. They used a better quality taco shell than you normally get, which had a good crunch, and the combination of the warm beans and the salsa worked very well for a lunch salad. My companion ordered the Cobb sandwich, and his only complaint about it was that he wished there was more. Perhaps the portion sizes were a touch on the small side, but I felt satisfied with mine even though I had waited until past 2 p.m. to eat. One negative note was that the iced tea tasted a bit off, but other than that it was a delicious meal.

Finally, the service . . . was odd. I couldn't decide whether the waitress was being slow on purpose to give us time to chat and relax. I think that's the most probable view of it, because there weren't really any other parties besides ours to wait on. The food took a bit longer than I expected to come out; in fact, everything took a fairly substantial amount of time to accomplish. However, the waitress was friendly and polite and still retained the impression of attentiveness. I would recommend going to Lucky Star when you have at least a leisurely mindset--so I wouldn't go here for a business lunch or anything of that nature. Nevertheless, I truly enjoyed sitting and talking with my friend and noted that the ambiance is definitely conducive to conversation.

Overall, I would certainly recommend my friends to try Lucky Star Lounge. I intend to return for Sunday brunch in the near future, to see if their quiche and breakfast food is as good as they claim it is. I'm glad there's a new good quality, reasonably-priced place right on Main Street!

A New Direction

I want to take this blog in a new direction. The main reason for this is that I want to blog more and to say things, and I think this might be the right place for it. I don't mean thoughts and musings, more like events and commentary. As always, everyone is welcome to post anything they like. I will begin with current events.

This weekend was Homecoming weekend. This may be obvious to some, but to others not so much! I heard from more than one person that Homecoming may have suffered from insufficient publicity, because they didn't know until the last minute that the day had come upon them. Another factor for the seemingly low turn-out could have been the economic downturn. Besides that, it was a sunny, beautiful holiday weekend, and who wants to waste it going to their old alma mater?

I certainly did! I had a fantastic time, not to say a nostalgic time. It was just lovely to see people I hadn't seen in a while, even just the students, and to enjoy a slice of the bubble after being mostly out in the world. Of course, I'm technically a student because I go to the grad school, but I am very far from my undergraduate days. The dance was one of the most fun ever because, like Caroline Bingley, I can appreciate that if conversation and not dancing were the order of the day, it might be more rational. Of course, I also love to dance!

I could continue with a more detailed recap, but instead I want to alert whoever might be reading this that Fr. William is going to give a talk on Wednesday night at 8 p.m. in the Library basement on the Tridentine Mass. Fr. William Fitzgerald, for those who don't know him, is the delicious new associate chaplain who, Dr. Poterack and I agree, knows all (at any rate, about the liturgy). He really does. You can tell he's one of those people who keep reading, keep studying, keep absorbing, and have an amazingly high capacity for retention within a big picture framework. I had a delightful time talking to him for the first time on Saturday night at the alumni reception, so I highly recommend anyone who's at all interested in liturgy and the Church to come to his talk and ask questions!

That's all for now.

Eternal rest grant on to him, O Lord...

Mr. Vanderwoode, former director of athletics at Christendom, died yesterday saving his son.

http://www.christendom.edu/news/releases.shtml#vw

Take Courage

I finally saw Master and Commander last night, as part of an ongoing attempt to watch the movies that people tell me I just have to watch (also taking advantage of a free Blockbuster Online trial membership). I must say, that was an awesome movie! It was awesome because it was extremely manly. For Captain Jack Aubrey and the seamen aboard the Surprise, constant courage was a way of life and cowardice not an option. They constantly faced death as part of their daily duty. Moreover, they lived out their fortitude in obedience--without obedience, they could not survive. Besides the theme of courage, there were many other examples of virtue in the movie: true and difficult leadership for the common good as exemplified in Aubrey, camaraderie among men pursuing the arduous good, unflinching perseverance towards a nearly impossible goal, respect for authority, guidance for boys becoming men. I can definitely see why Dr. Fahey watched this movie with Christendom guys in Ben's.

Promotion for Archbishop Burke

Did you see the news? Archbishop Burke of St. Louis--a man from Richland Center, WI, and my former bishop in the diocese of La Crosse--has been promoted. He will now serve as the prefect of the Apostolic Signature, the Church's supreme court.

This is so incredibly cool. I served Mass for this man on at least three occasions and I received confirmation from him. I saw some of the hard lines he drew while back in Wisconsin, and I saw how effective they were. He really is an incredible man.

He also was the one who offered the Mass for Christendom's 30th anniversary, and I have heard that he was almost our graduating speaker in 2007.

God Bless Archbishop Burke!

Log On

Was anyone trying to log on to this blog? I got a user account information request from Blogger the other day. Does anyone even look at this anymore?

Subidiarity and Solidarityh

Check out this incredible speech the Pope delivered at the fourteenth plenary session of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. The topic is subsidiarity and solidarity, and how they work together.

Mass at Yankee Stadium

Hey all,
I had a chance to attend the Pope's Mass at Yankee Stadium. Check out these pictures:

Parade down 5th Ave. on Saturday

Pope processing out from after the Papal Mass

Are Pro-Lifers Failing?

I read an interesting paragraph on the blog FiveFeetofFury today:

I sometimes suspect pro-lifers are (unconsciously) hoping to just keep on failing because martyrdom is more appealing to them psychologically than success.

They talk a lot about the millions of fetuses aborted since the 1970s, but how many of them could have been saved if pro-lifers had been humble enough to accept criticism of their strategies by "unacceptable" almost- sympathizers: young, worldly, sexually active women?

I figured that this was as good a topic for discussion as any. How many pro-lifers have adopted a fatalistic attitude toward their cause, and is that damaging the cause as a whole? Thought it was an interesting question to raise.

You can read the entire post here.

Christendom Stuff

Hey all,
Did you guys see the Christendom news lately? James Tillman and John Jalsevac placed first and third respectively in ISI's intranational essay contest. http://christendom.edu/news/releases.shtml#isi

That's pretty impressive from a school of 400.

On the other hand, check out the newest Instaurare. http://christendom.edu/images/instaurare/instaurare_spring_2008.pdf

There is an image of the JPII statute that our class gave (i.e. Class of 2007), with a caption saying that it was a gift from the class of 2006...

Tertullian's Insanity

That Tertullian... what a nut.

From an article on Fr. Sirico's Acton Institute site: http://www.acton.org/publications/randl/rl_article_66.php

"Some radical apologists developed a “conquest theory” of the state in an effort to delegitimize the Roman Empire. Tertullian argued that “all secular power and dignities are not merely alien from, but hostile to, God.” Secular governments “owe their existences to the sword.” All institutions of the Roman government, even its charities, are based on brute force. This is contrary to the way of Christians, among whom “everything is voluntary.”

I think, however, that the author of that article is way out of line in suggesting that Tertullian came up with these conclusions not because his logic and reason led him to these conclusions, but rather, that he came up with this theory in order "to delegitimize the Roman Empire." Tertullian didn't try to delegitimize the notion of coercively-funded government. He tried to point out that coercively-funded governments are incompatible with the teachings of Christ, and for this reason, they are already illegitimate. I just came across these statements by Tertullian yesterday. I think that I'm in decent company.

-Geoff

Sweet!

First Catholic church ever in Qatar--and they have St. Pio's relics! :)

A sad day

I propose a national day of mourning...
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-packers-favre&prov=ap&type=lgns

Do you like to drink water?

Eek!

Why Hasn't Ron Paul Dropped Out?

Some people might read that title and insist, Rocky-like, that the race isn't over until it's over.

My contention is that, if Super Tuesday has come and gone and your caucus results are consistently negligible, the race is over. The states have spoken, and all they have for Mr. Paul is single digits. In my opinion, it has been conclusively proven that Ron Paul is not viable presidential material, at least this time. There's no way around it.

Some point to media bias in the lack of reporting on Ron Paul, but, truth be told, there just isn't that much to say about him. He's losing badly, just like Guiliani and Thompson before him. The difference is, in gentlemanly fashion, these candidates dropped out and let the others pick up their vote percentages. Ron Paul has not only refused to do this now, he doesn't seem to plan on it in the future. This leads me to wonder: what's the idea? What's his master plan?

There are only 2 reasons a candidate stays in a presidential race: (1) He has reasonable hopes of winning, or (2) he recognizes that he cannot win, but wants to use the momentum/funds/fame gained toward some other political end.

A good example of this second point would be the famous Green Party candidate Ralph Nader, who ran for president again and again in the 1990's with no hopes of success. Nader was no fool, he understood that he had no hopes of actually gaining ascendancy, but he ran anyway. His goals were to get federal funding for his embryonic party, and to bleed votes from the other candidates. Though he wasn't able to get enough votes for the former goal, the latter campaign was so successful that Nader himself takes some of the credit for George W. Bush's victory over Al Gore in 2000 (Nader's book, Crashing the Party, talks about this in more detail).

While I disagree with Ron Paul ideologically, I don't think him to be an idiot. Surely, he must see his own poll results. The point of this post is not to demonize him, but rather to raise legitimate questions about what is touted by many as a noble or crusading presidential campaign. Ron Paul would be a very naive man indeed if he did not realize that he cannot take this election, so that leads me to conclude that his reason for staying in the race must be some other agenda. But what?

Libertarian though Paul's record may be, he is running this race as a Republican, and it is as a Republican that he shall be judged. Therefore, his purpose in running cannot simply be trying to legitimize some fledgling third party, since he is running as a member of the Grand Old Party. So much for that.

It is also unlikely that he is simply in it for the money, running a campaign to run up donations, then backing out of the race when his caucus results prove unfavorable. I may not agree with Mr. Paul, but I think he's a better man than that.

The only other reason that I know of that a losing candidate stays in a presidential race is to bleed votes from the other candidates. Sadly, I'm afraid that this is what Ron Paul is doing.

Like Fred Thompson, who waited just long enough to drop out of the race to effectively kneecap Mike Huckabee in the South Carolina caucus, Ron Paul knows that he, too, is regularly stealing votes from his fellow Republicans. I believe that this is why he ran as a Republican to begin with, and why he continues to show up in caucus after caucus, splintering his party into a messy 4-way battle. Paul makes no bones about his differences with his party and with his running-mates, and the fact that his touted "man apart" campaign image is slashing at the votes of his colleagues. Ron Paul is running the Pat Buchanan campaign; the stick-it-to-your-party-like-the-voice-in-the-desert campaign, the campaign with nothing to win and therefore nothing to lose.

All this, while the Democratic giants Obama and Clinton loom higher and higher on the ever-nearing horizon.

Paul lacks the pragmatism to see the danger he poses to his party, and the boon he offers to whoever ends up becoming the Democratic nominee. American politics is an inexact science; and even though most of us would love to see the best man win, we don't mind seeing the OK man beat the absolutely awful one.

Clinton and Obama are both pretty awful. I'm OK with Mike Huckabee and I could even come to grips with McCain or Romney if need be. Pragmatically speaking, one of these is going to be the nominee, not Ron Paul.

Mr. Paul needs to take the hit like a gentleman, doff his cap to the other candidates, and step down.

Giuliani Bows Out

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31campaign.html

So it looks like the Republican Party at the very least will not have its first pro-choice nominee since Reagan '80. The question now is whether it will have a pro-life nominee...

Want to know more about Ron Paul?

Right now, the media wants to narrow the Republican race down for us: it's either McCain or Romney, in Florida and also in the nation. I'm sure even Mike Huckabee supporters are annoyed by this premature slant. Anyway, the chances are you are not going to find a news article this week about Ron Paul, though like Huckabee he is still in the race. However, the other day one of my friends forwarded me this article from the NY Times; though I am generally not a fan of the Times, I found the article interesting in its profile of Paul as a man and fairly balanced overall (but of course Paul is "anti-abortion" instead of "pro-life"). Previously, I had also read An Open Letter to Catholics on Ron Paul, which focuses more on the main issues at stake in the upcoming election.

Catholic Backlash Against Mike Huckabee: Come Again?

I am a political moderate. That being said, I've been consistently impressed with presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, who, no matter what you think of him, definitely stands in contrast to the rest of the Republican establishment. The reasons I am impressed with him (and consistently unimpressed with Ron Paul), however, are material for another post.

What I'd like to bring up for discussion is the seeming explosion of anti-Huckabee sentiment, sometimes bordering on hatred, arising from traditional Catholic circles. What gives?

I read political commentary every day, but this goes far beyond that. I'm a reasonable man; I don't ask everyone to agree with my stance on Huckabee. What I've been finding, more and more, though, is that Catholics hate Huckabee not because they disagree with him on the issues, but because he's an Evangelical Protestant and has a Southern accent. You think I'm kidding. I'm not.

The majority of what I read from Catholics about Huckabee shows a remarkable ignorance of the issues, as well as a decided lack of tact and common charity. In the course of this election year, I've seen Huckabee labeled as a right-wing extremist, an evangelical nut job, who "wants to replace the Constitution with the Bible" (actual quote) and who is just "crazy." Most Catholics I've read won't even talk about him, simply saying things like "he scares me."

Why? Nobody will tell me. This isn't political debate, this is just embarrassing.

This is not to say that all Catholics who dislike Huckabee are doing so for non-rational reasons. Of course not. I'm impressed with Huckabee, but I'm not asking everyone to be. All I'm asking is that we as Catholics hold ourselves to the same standards we hold others to. Let's judge a person on his own merits, which in politics is obviously a tricky thing. Huckabee may be a lot of things some Catholics disagree with, but he is not a right-wing nut job or an evangelical theocratic dictator. Catholics, you have the fullness of truth. Now get up to speed on your politics.

Spe Salve

The Pope's new encyclical on hope is out. I was just reading it (instead of the contract cases I should be reading). I would be interested in hearing what you guys think of it.

http://www.americanpapist.com/spe%20salvi.doc

Salem Place: Check Them Out!

Hello all! Lately I've been busy with a job, a baby in the oven, and a new rock band. I've shared the job, I can't share the baby (yet), but I can share the band. Here is the link to our myspace. Enjoy!

http://www.myspace.com/salemplace

2008 Olympics Officials to Athletes

Leave your Bibles at home!

UPDATE: The above report appears to be false!

Handing out Miraculous Medals on Halloween . . .

Is this idea totally POD or what? As for me, I didn't go out and buy candy. I have some leftover candy and whatnots in a bag that I will hand out if anyone happens to knock. I live in an apartment complex, though, so I'm not anticipating a huge crowd. Happy All Hallows Eve!

On a lighter note....

This weekend is Medieval Fest/Parents' Weekend at Christendom, and I'm going to go enjoy it one more time. Hopefully, I will be able to actually see the various things planned, instead of being responsible for some of them. I was looking at pictures from then, and found these two, which seemed very appropriate for this blog.

Huh?

Yes, this is the kind of world in which we live . . .

Bella is coming...

The theater info is now out....Make plans to get out on openning week!

John Paul II on the Use of Violence

Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Tertio Millennio Adveniente (November 10, 1994). As the Jubilee year for the new millennium approaches, the Pontiff calls for "a spirit of repentance" for the historical acquiescence of "sons and daughters of the Church" in "intolerance and even the use of violence in the service of truth", especially during the second millennium now ending. He goes on (#35):

It is very true that an equitable historical judgment must include an attentive study of the cultural conditions of that time. Under their powerful influence, many, perhaps, considered in all good faith that a sincere witness to the truth required the simultaneous suppression, or at least the isolation, of contrary opinions (sinceram veritatis testificationem simul iubere alienas opiniones extingui vel saltem secludi⁴²). Many causes often converged to sow the seeds of that intolerance and immoderate zeal from which only a relatively few great and truly free minds, deeply penetrated by God, were able to detach themselves. Nevertheless, recognizing these mitigating circumstances does not dispense the Church from the duty of profoundly lamenting the weakness of so many of her own sons who disfigured her countenance, preventing it from fully reflecting the image of the crucified Lord who was the supreme witness to patient love and humble meekness. From these painful episodes of the past a lesson for the future emerges, namely, that every Christian should be led to keep firmly in mind this golden principle enunciated by the Council: "Truth does not impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, which wins over the mind with both gentleness and power" (Dignitatis Humanae, #1).

http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html

The Use of Analogy

Sometimes analogies and examples can help, but sometimes they just make things more confusing. I think the "government" discussion would go a lot farther if everyone refrained from further analogies or real-life examples until the basics are hammered out. It might also make the posts shorter and easier to read. Just a thought...

Pro-Life Prayers

Hey all,
Just asking all of you to keep pro-life work in your prayers the next couple months. There is a national campaign kicking off tomorrow that will put a prayer vigil on the doorstep of Planned Parenthoods in 89 cities across the nation for forty days. Here in Ann Arbor it will be a 24/7 prayer vigil. In addition, there is a great campaign going on in Illinois right now and the movie 'Bella' comes out nation wide on October 26. It could be a great few months!
God Bless!

What is Caesar, and what is due to Caesar?

Interesting. And, I regret to say, a good segue. Sorry.

He's suing God for "Making terroristic threats, inspiring fear and causing 'widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants.'"

If his God is Caesar, (the State) then he's certainly suing the correct entity. But if he believes he is suing the omnipotent, all-good creator of the universe, I think he's slightly confused. Death, violence and terror are the domain of coercive, tax-based government. Mercy, kindness, forbearance, long-suffering, charity and justice are of God and his followers. The two dominions are always juxtaposed, by their respective natures.

I don't think God believes that having men forcing (at gunpoint, ultimately) other men to surrender the fruits of their labor (even for a good end) is justifiable. It reeks of consequentialism.

To believe that taxation qua forcibly depriving another of their property is necessary because of fallen human nature is to say that taxation is an evil that you can justifiably intend in itself, not an evil you may merely allow. (Unless, in some twisted way, one considers being forced to surrender that which belongs to you a "good?") Many do consider it a "good. "

Can taxation be compared to a painful medicine that benefits an ailing body politic? Is it like a lancet, which causes pain while draining an abscess, thereby benefiting the whole body? No.

First, the body politic is not one leviathan conglomeration of humanity. It is a conglomeration of men with power and and men who allow it to have certain powers (which the men with power invariably enhance and abuse.)

Second, the ailment afflicting any body politic is sin. The nature of the body politic (fallen human nature) is sinful. However, all sin is individual. Unless one believes that force can change human nature, one can only treat the symptoms of the illness. Some of these symptoms (individual sins) are actions that violate the rights of other individuals. Anyone can, in theory and practice, justly prevent or correct such violations. The state, in practice, has proven itself incapable.

Third, medical care must be voluntary. Even the state legal system recognizes this: a man may refuse medical assistance while he is still conscious. If he lapses into unconsciousness, it is considered consent for treatment. Do any of you consider yourselves unconscious? If so, do you think that those in power are somehow magically more conscious than you, now that they are in possession of power?

Can one compare taxation to commandeering another person's property, in a grave extreme, to escape harm? (Robbers, for example?) Certainly, one may morally commandeer a vehicle to escape from people who wish to unjustly kill you. Is this at all a good comparison, however? It would be a mistake to think that this is a Hobbesian world in which we live, where one must lock one's doors, because failure to do so would mean someone would doubtless enter your house and deprive you of life and property. Somehow, I don't think that a mere common robber could deprive me of half my annual income. It takes a special kind of robber to do that. One with a pretentious claim to moral legitimacy. One who says he's taking my property for a good cause, and if I don't comply, he will kill me or ruin my life. Even though I may give 50% of the contents of my wallet to a man with a gun stuck in in my ribs, and though he assures me he will do good things with my money, it does not justify his doing it. Does it?

The fact is, we do not live in a world where it is continually necessary to take from others to escape dire evil. In fact, a good many of the evils we suffer come from believing that we do live in such a world. Such a world view is paranoid in its truest sense. To live in such paranoia is to really a possess a cynical view on human nature, whether this cynicism is deliberately possessed or not.

Coercive government is not a part of true human nature. It is merely a symptom of fallen human nature. It is, as Augustine believed, the result of sin. Anyone can treat the manifested symptoms of fallen human nature, when manifested in acts against the life, liberty and property of human beings sharing an equal nature. One can only correct the underlying cause of sin by voluntary means. The coercive state isn't about "voluntary." At all. It merely considers itself (and is considered by its supporters) as an impartial rectifier of the symptoms, and sometimes the "causes," of fallen human nature. It isn't impartial. And it has no serious incentive to be impartial. The coercive state is partial to itself, and it perennially violates the rights of others in order to give itself partial treatment. Individuals do have incentive to be partial to others. (Christ commanded it, in fact.) But in some cases, individuals have the right to deny others from pursuing an injustice against another human being: (self-defense against rape or arson, recovering stolen goods on one's own.) There is no reason why a set of men chosen by 51% of a population have some God-given proprietary claim on the administration of justice. Especially when it has rendered such a laughable claim null and void through its patent lack of administering true justice.

Thought you might be interested

This is the second story on this topic:


''God'' responds to legislator's lawsuit, saying Nebraska court lacks jurisdiction
By NATE JENKINS,
AP
Posted: 2007-09-20 20:30:10
LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) - A legislator who filed a lawsuit against God has gotten something he might not have expected: a response. One of two court filings from "God" came Wednesday under otherworldly circumstances, according to John Friend, clerk of the Douglas County District Court in Omaha. "This one miraculously appeared on the counter. It just all of a sudden was here - poof!" Friend said. State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha sued God last week, seeking a permanent injunction against the Almighty for making terroristic threats, inspiring fear and causing "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants." Chambers, a self-proclaimed agnostic who often criticizes Christians, said his filing was triggered by a federal lawsuit he considers frivolous. He said he's trying to makes the point that anybody can sue anybody. Not so, says "God." His response argues that the defendant is immune from some earthly laws and the court lacks jurisdiction. It adds that blaming God for human oppression and suffering misses an important point. "I created man and woman with free will and next to the promise of immortal life, free will is my greatest gift to you," according to the response, as read by Friend. There was no contact information on the filing, although St. Michael the Archangel is listed as a witness, Friend said. A second response from "God" disputing Chambers' allegations lists a phone number for a Corpus Christi law office. A message left for that office was not immediately returned Thursday. Attempts to reach Chambers by phone and at his Capitol office Thursday were unsuccessful. Associated Press Writer Anna Jo Bratton in Omaha contributed to this report.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
09/20/07 20:29 EDT

Boycott Celebrity "News"

I had this idea today that we should all band together to boycott fake news about celebrities. It has been thrust upon my notice that this is an insidious form of slander, gossip, or detraction that masquerades as news, causing two detrimental effects. First, the spread of such gossip or detraction (for, sadly, the news is often true) is extremely harmful to the culture at large. It increases envy in those who hear it, who rejoice in the misdeeds of the very rich and very famous. This attitude is so common that I accuse no one in particular by mentioning it, but I do want to underscore how serious it is to the soul. Also, as always, gossip kills three parties: the one whose reputation it injures, the one who propagates it, and the one who hears it. Second, in occupying the attention of the media, such reports serve to clog the airways and prevent us from receiving the real news about what is happening in the world. All serious journalists must cringe to see report after report about Britney Spears while truly grave and terrible things happening around the world every day get pushed to the back page of the paper. We should cringe too. However, we should also take action!

Here is my proposed plan of attack: Refuse to buy any publication that has celebrity gossip on the front page or in a prominent place (I assume that everyone here already avoids tabloids and entertainment/celebrity magazines). If you happen to be watching the news on television and a report about a celebrity comes on, change the channel. Never click on any link or online advertisement having to do with a celebrity. If people are talking about such reports, try to change the subject (in a charitable way, of course). Pass this message on to your friends. I know this problem is so widespread that it seems naive to think we could make a difference in the U.S. entertainment culture, but I think it's worth it to make an attempt. We have to build a culture of life!

What do y'all think?

Meanwhile, on the home front...

Yum yum.

http://www.newsobserver.com/nation_world/story/706636.html

The Associated PressMONCKS CORNER, S.C. -
An alligator bit a 59-year-old man's arm off Sunday at a Lake Moultrie recreation area, officials said.
Bill Hedden, 59, was in critical condition at the Medical University of South Carolina. His arm, retrieved from the belly of the alligator after wildlife officers shot it, was on ice while doctors evaluated whether it could be reattached, said Bill Salisbury, Berkeley County Rescue Squad captain.
Wildlife officials said it was one of the worst gator attacks in the state, but no one saw it except the victim.
Hedden stumbled into a party of picnickers with his arm missing and blood gushing from his wound. Five nurses were among those at the gathering and put ice on his wound and kept him awake until paramedics could arrive.
Jerome Bien followed the man's trail of blood to the shore, where he saw the gator with victim's arm in its jaw. "He was just smiling at me," Bien said.
Department of Natural Resources officers showed up later and shot the animal, which was nearly 12-feet long and weight about 550 pounds. The officers cut the gator open and removed the man's arm, which was bagged, put in an ice cooler and rushed to the hospital with a police escort.
"The arm, surprisingly, was not chewed up like you would think it would be," Salisbury said.
A hospital spokeswoman said medical laws prohibited her from discussing Hedden's treatment.
There have been no confirmed deaths involving an alligator attack, state wildlife officials say.
"To my knowledge this is the worst case scenario we've had in the state," said Sam Chappelear, wildlife regional coordinator for the state Natural Resources Department. He said it's rare to see an alligator so large.
Officials think Hedden was snorkeling when he was attacked. "Basically until we talk to him, no one knows exactly what happened," Chappelear said.
Bien said the man's arm was completely torn off. "He was bleeding bad," Bien said. "His arm was clean off the socket."

The report in our local paper added that despite all this, the man "was in high spirits."

Bitterness in Italy

Wowzers. Talk about a frigid reaction.

NAPLES - He is known as the bishop of tolerance. Of immigrants. Of deprived persons. He has opened diocesan structures for Muslims to say their Friday prayers, and Ukrainian/Moldavian Orthodox to use for their worship.
But now he has prohibited the celebration of the 1962 Mass restored as of September 14 by Benedict XVI's Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.
With a telephone call, Mons. Raffaele Nogaro ordered the rector of the Shrine of Sant'Anna in Caserta, Don Giovanni Battista Gionti, to stop the Mass he was planning to celebrate at 8 p.m. today.
"This case has nothing to do with tolerance," Nogaro said later.
"The Mass in Latin is a distortion of religious fact. Not even university professors who teach Latin pray in Latin. It is not an appropriate instrument for establishing a true relationship with God. To help people to pray is an honorable effort. That is what I try to do in allowing the Tent of Abraham to be used by Muslims and the chapel next to the Cathedral, to be used by the Orthodox.
"But to assail the faithful with sacred images, theatrical choreography and esthetic embellishments does the opposite. The faithful should be offered something valid and educational, not an occasion for disorientation. In short, murmuring prayers in Latin is good for nothing."
Strong words. A clear dissociation from Pope Benedict XVI's decree regarding the traditional Mass.
"The authority for the theological, liturgical and moral correctness of a diocese is the bishop," Nogaro continued, "even if the Pope has decreed an opening in favor of other rites. I am the only bishop in Campania who has asserted this so far to control the application of the Papal decree.
"Besides, the request of 30-40 persons is not sufficient in order for the traditional Mass to be celebrated. The parish priest is obliged to report it to his bishop. And I was never informed."
In his sacristy, Don Gionti is surrounded by many of those who had requested him for the traditional Mass, and is visibly disconcerted: "I will obey the bishop," he said, "even if this loses us the occasion for a liturgical experience that is important for our community, many of whom requested this. I considered it an experiment, certainly not a replacement for the post-Conciliar Mass.
"I think a priest should respond to a request by his congregation. But the bishop has ordered me to suspend the scheduled Mass, telling me that this would create a dangerous precedent. Though I still do not understand what danger he means."
In short, the Caserta case is everything but "Nulla veritas sine traditione" (Nothing is true outside tradition) as the followers of St. Pius V love to quote.
Fr. Louis Demornex, who studied at the Collegio Russium of Rome and has been the traditionalist parish priest of the Aulpi-Corigliani district in Sessa Auruna near Casertano, commented: "The Tridentine rite is not 'democratic' but for more than a millennium, it was the backbone of the Church. By destroying a traditional valid form of teh mass, one is tearing down the Church itself. The Pope knows this and that is why he issued this decree."
Nogaro, while protesting that he did not wish to be involved in any controversy, said further: "(Celebrating the traditional Mass) is like watching a statue passing in procession and simply admiring its artistic beauty. One cannot say that this is an act of faith or an occasion to inspire spirituality. This is what happens if we communicate in a language which no one knows at all, no one uses anymore, no one understands. The practice has nothing to do with the faith and someone must speak out on what the common thinking is about this."

(from http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1897765/posts)

For your consideration

Do any of you agree or disagree with the following statement:

"The Church has a philosophy that she canonizes in preference to others."

Benedict XVI in Austria

Happy feast day!

A few words from our Holy Father:

Today as in the past, it is not enough to be more or less like everyone else and to think like everyone else. Our lives have a deeper purpose. We need God, the God who has shown us his face and opened his heart to us: Jesus Christ. Saint John rightly says of him that only he is God and rests close to the Father’s heart [cf. John i, 18); thus only he, from deep within God himself, could reveal God to us – reveal to us who we are, from where we come and where we are going.

Certainly, there are many great figures in history who have had beautiful and moving experiences of God. Yet these are still human experiences, and therefore finite. Only he [Christ] is God and therefore only he is the bridge that brings God and man together. So if we call him the one universal Mediator of salvation, valid for everyone and, ultimately, needed by everyone, this does not mean that we despise other religions, nor are we arrogantly absolutizing our own ideas; on the contrary, it means that we are gripped by him who has touched our hearts and lavished gifts upon us, so that we, in turn, can offer gifts to others.

In fact, our faith is decisively opposed to the attitude of resignation that considers man incapable of truth – as if this were more than he could cope with. This attitude of resignation with regard to truth lies at the heart of the crisis of the West, the crisis of Europe. If truth does not exist for man, then neither can he ultimately distinguish between good and evil. (Pope Benedict XVI, Mariazell, September 8, 2007)

Grad school?

Hi everyone. We all seem to be pretty busy lately. It's amazing what law school and a full time job have done to the writers of long political posts :)
Anyway, as some of you may know, I'm planning on leaving my hotel job and moving to Front Royal. A number of circumstances have led me to believe God is pushing me in a different direction than the hotel industry. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what yet. I'm thinking I'd like to work at a Catholic school or organization. Or maybe go to grad school.
So, the point of this post is to ask if anyone has any suggestions or knows of a place that I might look for a Catholic job. Right now, I'm feeling adventurous, and open to going anywhere in the country.
Gracia, amici. You are all in my prayers.

Nick and Elizabeth Dye

Hello everybody! For those of you who don't know, my brother Nick and his girlfriend, Elizabeth Dye, just got engaged yesterday. Keep them in your prayers as they enter this exciting time.

Embrace the Youtube

It is no use trying to resist. We are on the brink of a new world order--the Youtube generation! My 12-year-old brother posts things on Youtube. I am often pointed in the way of "hilarious" videos on Youtube. Youtube comes up in conversation over Sunday brunch. It's part of the our Internet world now, like it or not. Anyway, not everything on Youtube is just for laughs. Check out this short masterpiece by our very own Colin M.:

The Human Race

He also points out in a thoughtful article how important it is to use what he terms "viral marketing" (I must say that sounds rather unpleasant) for the renewal of culture and morality. [Thanks to Sarah M. for the links.]

Check it out

John Jalsevace did a story on Shield:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/aug/07080807.html

News

I hate to break up the discussion, but I just wanted to let everyone know.

Sarah is pregnant.

God be praised. I'm a dad.

1 Sam 8

First of all, Geoff, I am not arguing that anarchy or "people's courts" are good or bad. In fact my argument depends on the legitimacy of "people's courts". Read what I wrote:

As long as men pursue things in common there will be disputes and disagreements...[An offende party] at least may seek to have the dispute resolved in his favor. For this he seeks an outside party whom Person Y and Person X will both agree to obey, and they have the outside party judge the matter.

Often, to expedite justice or fairness (so that the common purpose can be better pursued), societies (be they fraternities, cults, families, businesses, etc.) will set up a process or processes to resolve these differences through the judgment of an authority. However, in order to ensure that justice and fairness will be done in the society, the authority making the judgment will need some compulsory power in case (1) one of the persons involved refuses to participate, or (2) people involved refuse to comply to the judgment. In fraternities and business, for example, an authority might have someone fired for not participating or complying.

I clearly argue the ligitimacy of private arbitration, but I also point out obvious weaknesses in private arbitration, weaknesses you have not addressed and weaknesses that make it reasonable to establish a civil authority in a society with coersive powers to brimg matters to judgment and see judgments exucuted.


Now, you wrote: Found an excellent article that shows there is no contradiction between anarchy and Scripture.

I haven't looked at it, but I am not arguing that anarchy is against the Bible.

In this section I am arguing your position that 1 Sam 8 "Says as much" as "taxation, 'eminent domain' property seizures, and conscription are immoral means and ends of...governments."

It doesn't. Samuel says such and such will happen if they establish a King. He implies that these are things the Isrealites should not want. He implies that establishing a King would create a society worse than the one they alreacy had.

However, Samuel was speaking to the people of a tribal-oriented theocracy. Tribal-oriented theocracy was the system they had. You instead are arguing for a libertarian society.

Samuel was a prophet. He does not specify whether these bad consequences of a kingship necessarily happen, or will only conditionally happen (remember Job and "Nineva will be destroyed" - prophet words are not always absolute). Furthermore, even if these things will happen, he does not specify whether they will happen by nature or they will happen as a particular punishment from God (remember, God punished the Pharoah not by nature but by unnatural plagues for his hardness of heart). Furthermore, even if these things will happen by nature, is it because of the nature of all governments, because of the nature of monarchy, or because of the nature of monarchy in that particular setting?

Samuel said that if the Isrealites change their society, creating a monarchy (which is a particular form of civil government), then such and such bad things happen. You say it is clear that such and such bad things happen in any civil government. This does not follow. You can't say that because *person Q said in a particular instance that if a particular R does S, creating a particular T (which is a particular type of U), then it will lead to in this instance to Z,* then Z is a quality of U. Z is at best a quality of this particular T.

Furthermore, on the point of taxation (which is the only one of the "bad powers" that I have tried to justify so far - and even there I have only tried to justify taxation for a particular end (i.e. providing a ligitimate and established civil authority (the possible existance of which I have only positted, not demonstrated) with a recompense for services rendered)), I have said merely said that it is reasonable to establish (if its establishment is possible) a civil authority to judge disputes - an authority with the power of coersion to bring suits to judgment when one party wants them judged and the other party does not, and the power of coersion to see judgments executed - and that a system of taxation is a reasonable means to raise money to pay the judge for his services. Let me make myself very clear:

*I have not said that the system of taxation needs to be or ought to be coersive taxation*

You seem to argue that because I posited a system of taxation, I am arguing for a system of coersive based taxation. I have not said anything of a coercive taxation system. For purposes of this argument I am considering "any system in which people have an obligation to pay a civil authority for his support" a "system of taxation". (Note that I have not even said that all people must have this obligation.) Now it is my understanding that in the time of the Isrealite Judges, the people had an obligation to pay for the support of their priests (the system of tithes). It is my understanding that these priests exerciced not only the power of the priesthood, but also civil power (such as the power to judge disputes). It is my understanding that the priests had certain punishments they could levy on those who impeded judgment in matters that someone brought to them, and they had the power to punish people if they did not execute the judgments. If this is the case, then the people were obligated to pay for the support of a person charged with exercizing civil authority. If this is the case then 1 Sam 8 does not apply to my argument hereto ennunciated (an argument in favor of taxation), because the "evil power (of taxation)" that you say Samuel associates with the new, wicked government, is not necessarily the taxation sytem that my argument has proposed. In fact, if I am correct, then the sort of taxation that I have defended thus far was a taxation system in established for the Isrealites by Divine command! (see Lev. 27:30, Deut 14:22, Num 18:21).

A couple more notes:

"I don't see why I should have to pay for services I might never use."

I will discuss this in my next post.

"As it is, who today can afford to effectively get his lawsuit heard?"

I am not defending the system as it is today.

"And in criminal cases, I think the fact that a government judge, prosecutor and public defender are all being paid by the same employer and are required to prosecute/judge (some)unjust laws made by the government has a real potential to "color their judgment" in its own right."

I have said nothing of criminal cases thus far, and again I am not necessarily defending the system as it is today.

"Andy, as a believer in the free market, I don't see how you can say that a greater accountability for actions and higher efficiency is possible in a tax-dollar funded monopoly on arbitration services, as opposed to market services."

I have not argued that the establishment of a civil authority is the best/most accountable/most efficient solution. I have argued that it was a reasonable solution because a private system of arbitration has no obvious solution for two situations: the situation in which one party refuses to resolve a dispute because he has the advantage as long as the dispute is unresolves, and the situation in which the party who recieves the bad side of the judgment refuses to execute the judgment. A civil authority (if it is possible to establish one) has an obvious solution: the criminal charge of contempt of court. (I might also point out that in the contemporary circumstances, the reason why private arbitration such a good option is not only because it is more cost efficient and such and such, but also because the parties still have the option if things go bad to take the matter before the civil authority. In otherwords, it is good presently in part because civil judgment is never a precluded option, as you would have it in your society. I would try to settle the matter first myself, but if I wasn't able to and they had actually wronged me, you can bet that civil authority is where I turn to see justice done).

"Not only that, but the premise that "everyone benefits either directly or indirectly from the justice system/police, so it is reasonable to tax people to support it" is indefensible."

I have not posited nor defended such a premise. I have not said that everyone benefits from a justice system with coercive powers. I have only said that if a legitimate one can be established, then anyone might find themselves in a circumstance in which they need to appear before the judge. I argued that a system in which the parties before him are directly responsible for his material well being, they mey be situations in which bad judges allow that to color his judgment. Thus, a system to pay the judge independent of the parties is reasonable, and (since anyone might sometime come before a judge) a system of taxation was reasonable.

"I could be providing a valuable service to the community, by cleaning up garbage from the roadsides, or shoveling driveways for free, but I couldn't force anyone to pay me for my services."

I have not posited or defended any alledged power to force people to pay for services rendered. Once again, I have not said that the taxation system need be or ought to be coersive. (The Isrealites had a non-coersive obligation to pay for their civil authority).

"Why? They didn't ASK for me to do it!"

I will respond more to this argument in my next post.

Forgive me for being repetitive

God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence.

"Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority to preserve its institutions and to devote themselves as far as is necessary to work and care for the good of all."15

By "authority" one means the quality by virtue of which persons or institutions make laws and give orders to men and expect obedience from them.

Every human community needs an authority to govern it.16 The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.

The authority required by the moral order derives from God: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." --CCC 1884, 1897-1899

I have quoted these lines before, in the comments. What I am curious about, in this entire debate, is how what everyone is saying is consonant with the Church's teachings and tradition. I am tempted to say that what Geoff has written (I cannot claim to have read all of it) does not really speak to my point, and indeed he and Andy are having a difficult time really touching each other's points about anything because Andy is speaking about government in very broad and general terms, whereas Geoff at least appears to be focusing his criticism on the government of the United States of America. This focused approach appears in such statements as, "Without a centralized coercive authority chosen by a numerical majority, why would there be any more injustice than there is now, if the majority of men are rational and good the majority of the time?" The "centralized coercive authority chosen by a numerical majority" is clearly the U.S. government. However, in response to this, I would wish to ask a very direct question: What is your picture of authority? I must venture to be so rude as to say that I will entirely lose interest if the response is over three paragraphs and chock-full of newsreport examples. I simply want a vision of how authority would work in a society constructed according to your ideal.

I will also make a clear and very blunt statement myself: The majority of men are decidedly not rational and good the majority of the time! If you are taking this as a premise in how a society should be ordered, then you need to seriously rethink it. The reason why is that, unfortunately, we are all endowed with a little sickness that mars the splendour of our nature. This sickness is original sin, which as St. Thomas puts it, "is an inordinate disposition, arising from the destruction of the harmony which was essential to original justice, even as bodily sickness is an inordinate disposition of the body, by reason of the destruction of that equilibrium which is essential to health."

Ok, no more time for blogging. :)

Society is not a Volitional Entity

Andy: "However, because it is reasonable for a society to establish such an authority, the existence of such an authority in society is not necessarily a violation of natural law or natural rights.

Furthermore, because this authority labors to provide a service to the society, then he has a right to an award from society for services rendered."

You say that it is reasonable for "society" to establish such an all-encompassing authority [someone who makes judgments upheld by coercion.] Yet "society" is not a singular volitional being capable of making decisions: it is not a leviathan, if you will. To illustrate the difference, let me state that I do not think it is possible for a "society" to choose to go to war. When people say that "a society" goes to war, they really mean that "many individuals in a spatial region are going to war." Because a society is a collection of individuals with a common end. If I am a conscientious objector, and do not adhere to the end of that war, I'm not really a part of that society at all, am I? It is only the majority of individuals who are going to war: not society. The two terms are not synonymous.

Most true societies want justice. I'm all in favor of that end. I'm with them on that end. I am not, however, part of the particular society (the numeric majority) that wants to support a particular system of meting out justice that I believe uses unjust means to accomplish that end. I am still a member of a justice-seeking society, even though I refuse to espouse the means espoused by other members of the whole society. I am not a member of the "coercively-funded majority-dictated justice system," society. I believe that because every member of the justice-seeking society did not in fact agree on this system, that its means are contradictory to its end. The good end of upholding justice does not legitimize coercive taxation as a means, and not just because there are other means of upholding justice.

The argument you use is a non-sequitur: "Because this majority-chosen justice system is the only means of securing the end of justice, the means of forcing even the minority to pay for its upkeep is the only means that will work, and therefore, it is obviously a just means." It's like saying, "I have a wife and children I need to support, and it is my duty to support them. You must give me your money or else." No: there are proper means of achieving this end. And you wouldn't even necessarily have to work to achieve the end of supporting your family: it's not the only means. You could have a huge bank account already. Or you could solicit donations from people who were willing to pay you to support your family. That would be morally legitimate as well. If you have to take money from others against their wills, (especially those who have a reasonable claim that justice is not being done in such a system, and the end would be better served in another system,) then it is really time to re-examine the morality and effectiveness of both the means and the end such a system.


Anyway, back to a society and how one can remove himself from it.

If I am a robber or rapist, I have, by the very nature of my actions, recused myself from pursuing the common end of those who live together for mutual material security. I am inimical to that society, and no longer a part of it. In addition, whether I am caught or anyone knows about my crime is immaterial. (There would be no justice for such acts in a private or majoritarian justice system, anyway.) I could have a card saying I was in the organization of the KKK, but yet not hate blacks and Catholics. Would I really be a member of that society, even if the other Klansmen didn't know I wasn't racist?

Just as someone who commits a mortal sin has removed himself with the heavenly society until he has done penance, a criminal is not a member of a non-criminal society until he has repented and made restitution.

A true society of men pursuing a common goal would rapidly develop into a working system of justice. Without a centralized coercive authority chosen by a numerical majority, why would there be any more injustice than there is now, if the majority of men are rational and good the majority of the time? Would there still be injustice? Yes, from time to time. Would there be constant private reclamations for injustices? Not so many or of such a degree that they would be disruptive or unduly escalatory. Consider driving on a freeway: most people freely choose to conduct themselves safely and considerately not because they're going to get caught by a cop, but because their actions have immediate repercussions, if not from physics, then from other drivers. There is nothing that says these repercussions would be of a "legal" or even a morally just nature! Nonetheless, these repercussions do exist, and do maintain order on the roads more so than any legal ramifications for misbehavior. Rational self-interest suggests that you not endanger others on the road.

I fail to see why a centralized (majority-chosen) coercive entity would be required for a justice system. Private, voluntary arbitration happens all the time right now. In the absence of a coercive central government, other coercive entities would form, and would be directly accountable to their clients, and truly, "society" as a whole, so long as they want to maintain a reputation with which they can remain in business. Right now, we have a centralized coercive entity that really isn't accountable to anyone. The government is not synonymous with any society except the society of government: and it is only a very loose representation of the will of the majority of individuals in a region, with whom the minority still interacts in society. Government doesn't even necessarily reflect the will of the majority, as you know, considering 70% of people are in favor of banning abortion except in cases of rape and incest.

Government stays within its boundaries (but even then, not really) right now only because it feels like it. Nothing but the threat of armed revolt keeps it from instantly raising taxes to 90% or killing off dissidents. No lion stays in a parchment-and-ink cage because it can't tear out of it. It can, whenever it chooses to, or something startles it. But of course, the lion likes to eat and grow, and people like to feed the lion, because it makes them feel safe to have it around, for some reason. It's STILL A LION. You should count on individual human beings to be just and to work out justice between themselves, not threaten to sic the communal lion on them.

Every man, in other words, should have the lion's share of power. If a man becomes aggressive and begins to hurt others, other men will take him to task for it. This is a method that is in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Men would not long tolerate disorder in a true society. But order does NOT have to be imposed from a majority-chosen coercive entity. Order naturally arises through the interactions of men themselves: government is merely an unwise means of trying to maintain an already pre-existent order. Order can be better maintained by individuals voluntarily choosing a local mediator, complete with the terms of mediation and payment.

Remember St. Paul's monita to the Christians? To paraphrase, "Do not be so willing to go before pagans to be judged! Aren't you better than that? Can't you work it out between yourselves?" Yes, we can. And so can the pagans, because it's part of our human nature and in our natural self-interest to resolve cases without the mediation of a even a voluntarily-chosen third party, if possible. If it is not possible to come to an agreement between two people, let them go to a third party. It's what happens on "People's Court" all the time. If they shirk the ruling after they had agreed to follow the ruling, it would have happened under a central majority system, or ANY OTHER system.

Nothing makes the majority-chosen "justice" system more just than any other system. In fact, it is less so, due to the patent lack of accountability. Like those 20 robberies those two rapist-murderers in CT had under their belts. After 20 robberies each, they were out on parole. They raped and murdered a doctor's wife both of his young daughters. Oh, no. Heck, no. Not in a private justice system would that have happened! Because even if they had not been forced to pay restitution by a coercive private party, and thereby actually turned away from a life of crime the first time they were arrested, they would have been removed from society long before they were able to commit these heinous crimes. Permanently.

I've come up with a new slogan. "Think outside the State."