Notre Dame Zombies

Here's a question for the moral theologians among you.
"there is much concern over the direction Notre Dame has taken, especially with the diminishing number of Catholic faculty as well as the scandalous honoring of President Barack Obama in 2009, "

Let's say there were a pro-abort politician out there who had a policy on cleaning up the number of dead cats on the street. I *LOVED* the dead cat policy.

I want to donate to make sure the pro-abort politician is elected. I don't like his pro-abort policies, but I'm fascinated with his dead cat policy. I want to make a substantial donation: $200,000. But I don't have that kind of money.

So, I took out a $200,000 loan gave it all to the pro-abort politician, and spent the next 20 years of my life working to repay the loan.

Formal cooperation in evil occurs when the organization freely and directly participates in the objectionable action of another agent and/or shares in the object of that agent’s intention, either for its own sake or as a means to some other goal.

Because of the loan, I have now essentially dedicated my life's work to making sure the pro-abort politician can accomplish his goals. Is that moral?

How is a Notre Dame student, who gives ND at least $200,000 or more via tuition, different?

Homosexuality and Sharia

Riddle me this: how is homosexuality like being Muslim?
Answer: Neither one allows you to convert away.

In Islam, those who commit apostasy can be legally killed by anyone. 
Homosexuals deny that anyone can stop being homosexual.
Anyone who converts to heterosexuality is considered dead by society.

Whatever happened to the sacrosanct doctor-patient relationship, into which government was not supposed to enter? Or has that all changed with Obamacare?

Just another reminder that leftists and Muslims are cut from the same cloth.

Why Outlawing Guns Will Work

You see, havnig the really smart people get together and agree to outlaw guns will absolutely work.

As an historian, I know it will work because the Kellogg Briand Pact of 1928 worked so well.

You see, the Kellogg Briand Pact, also known as the Pact of Paris, outlawed war. Just about every nation on earth signed it, with France, Germany and the United States the first ones to ratify it.

Notice that we have had zero armed international conflicts since that 1928 pact.
QED.

Darwin Taught Intelligent Design

It has been argued that explanations in terms of final causes remain common in modern science, including contemporary evolutionary biology,^[14][15] and that teleology is indispensable to biology in general for (among other reasons) the very concept of adaptation is teleological in nature.^[15] In an appreciation of Charles Darwin published in Nature in 1874, Asa Gray noted "Darwin's great service to Natural Science" in bringing back to Teleology "so that, instead of Morphology versus Teleology, we shall have Morphology wedded to Teleology". Darwin quickly responded, "What you say about Teleology pleases me especially and I do not think anyone else has ever noticed the point."^[14] Francis Darwin and T. H. Huxley reiterate this sentiment. The latter wrote that "..the most remarkable service to the philosophy of Biology rendered by Mr. Darwin is the reconciliation of Teleology and Morphology, and the explanation of the facts of both, which his view offers."^[14] James G. Lennox states that Darwin uses the term 'Final Cause' consistently in his Species Notebook, Origin of Species and after.^{[16]  (source)}

I have argued this extensively, and been roundly attacked for making such wild assertions.

But, apparently, modern evolutionists never actually bother to read Darwin.
When they do, they are apparently incapable of understanding what he said.

And these are the people we are supposed to trust.

Giving to the Church (State)

The Germans tell the story of a man condemned to death, who pleads for his life before the king.

"Release me, Lord, and I will teach your horse to converse with you as a man speaks with a man!"
"That's impossible!" replied the king.
"It is not!" insisted the condemned man.
So, the king deferred the man's execution for a year, to see if what the man said was true. Every day thereafter, the man went into the stable and tried to teach the horse to talk. A few weeks passed, and the livery boy finally had enough.
"You aren't doing any good, you know. You can't teach a horse to talk."
"Perhaps," replied the condemned man, "But who knows what might happen in a year? The horse may die. I may die. The king may die. Or perhaps the horse really will learn how to talk."

In the spirit of the condemned man, I propose an idea.

The USCCB has the odd habit of insisting that the government should take care of the poor instead of insisting that the Church should take care of the poor. That is, they seem to think that when the State confiscates our money via taxes in order to redistribute our money to the poor, this action is morally superior to NOT having the State confiscate our money so we can individually give what we will to the poor.

It occurs to me that I should take them at their word.

Now, a couple of things should be explained first.

Can. 222 §1. The Christian faithful are obliged to assist with the needs of the Church so that the Church has what is necessary for divine worship, for the works of the apostolate and of charity, and for the decent support of ministers.
§2. They are also obliged to promote social justice and, mindful of the precept of the Lord, to assist the poor from their own resources.

Anytime I do the work of the Church, or give to a cause that is the work of the Church, then I am financially supporting the Church herself, as Canon 222.1 explains.

That is,  when I give my children a Catholic education, I *AM* giving to the Church.
When I feed my family, I *AM* giving to the Church.
When I house my family, I *AM* giving to the Church.
And since parents are an ordo of the Church, when I feed, house and clothe my wife and myself, I am providing for the decent support of the Church's ministers. Sure, we may not be ALL the Church's ministers, but it's not possible for me to give money to EVERY minister in the Church, so we do what we can.

My family is the essential cell and ground of the Church.
As John Paul II said, without the family, we don't have a Church.

Now, sure, we should give what we can to the collection basket.

But I am responsible for my family before I am responsible for the parish.
The Church got along without parishes for the first thousand years.
It has NEVER gotten along without families.

And, in any case, when someone with a gun takes my money, that's money I don't have to give anymore. That's what the State does - it takes my money, money that I COULD have given to the Church. It takes it under threat of jail time for me and/or my wife. And the bishops are fine with that.

In fact, the bishops encourage the State in confiscating more and more of our money so that the poor can be cared for by the State. The bishops apparently don't trust us lay Catholics to do anything so noble. Only the government can really be trusted to exhibit virtue.

Fine!

So, if the bishops feel that I should give more to the government, then I must necessarily assume that first and basic Catholic principle - money that goes towards a work of the Church is going towards the Church itself.

The Catholic bishops believe the US Government to be the pre-eminent tool of Christian charity. That is, the bishops must want me to assume that the money going to the government, intended for works of charity, is thereby going to the Church. Since the government is doing the Church's work of charity, when I tithe to the government (or double-tithe by giving the State 20% of my income via taxes, or quadruple-tithe by giving 40% or more), then the bishops already have their share.

If they want any more money, they can go to the government and get what they want from their pre-eminent tool of Christian charity. I have given, at the point of a gun, to the State/Church and now my family gets the rest.

And if the bishops don't like that arrangement, then maybe they should change their attitudes about what the proper work of the State actually is. Perhaps they could spend some time in reflection on what the word "tithe" means, or meditating on what level of contribution American families already make.

And perhaps, if we try hard enough, we really can teach the horse to talk.