Monday, May 05, 2008
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.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Mass at Yankee Stadium
Pope processing out from after the Papal MassWednesday, April 16, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, April 14, 2008
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...
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...
Monday, March 24, 2008
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
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
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
A sad day
I propose a national day of mourning...
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-packers-favre&prov=ap&type=lgns
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-packers-favre&prov=ap&type=lgns
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
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...
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...
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
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.
Monday, January 21, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
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
http://www.americanpapist.com/spe%20salvi.doc
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
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
http://www.myspace.com/salemplace
Friday, November 02, 2007
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
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!
Saturday, October 27, 2007
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. 
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Monday, October 01, 2007
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)