The pagan Chinese remind us that lynch mobs aren't just driven by Christian sentiments, but by sentiments of natural law written on our stony hearts. They remind us that even people who have no understanding of Christ do understand that some attitudes are simply too selfish to be permitted.
On the other hand, the individual the great mass of Chinese have chosen to attack, a person who feels no empathy for thousands dead and tens of thousands injured, wasn't created ex nihilo. The atheistic culture of China - a culture our parasitic elites want us to emulate - helped produce her and many more like her.
The wish that the old would simply die and get out of the way, that the injured would shut up and quit moaning, that the bereaved would be quiet and quit mourning, these ideas are enshrined in both capitalist and communist cultures.
In both cases, the sorrow and pain serve "no useful purpose".
Indeed, without the Cross, neither sorrow nor pain can make sense to anyone.
Yet, like every pagan religion, Confucius and his descendants understood that the inability to fully understand something didn't strip that something of its power to awe. They acknowledged a need to stand or kneel in silence before the mystery of suffering and death.
This silence before the mystery, this is what both capitalism and communism abhor. It implies that there are things outside of human control, that we are more than the sum total of our chemical constituents. This silence cannot be borne.
Christians aren't abhorred because our faith makes no sense.
Rather, we are abhorred precisely because our Faith does make sense.
But the understanding it brings, the facts it supplies, are at variance with the illusions the elites would prefer, whether those illusions be the phantasms of our favorite television shows or our favorite sins.
The television shows us a lot of little pictures, and through its lens it is easy to mistake Hollywood's creation from God's creation or our own.
God creates the good, we create the suffering.
Through the lens of the television set, we compare the glory of Hollywood's creations to the reality of our own.
We see the suffering we created and reject it.
"That has nought to do with me," we insist.
And in that moment, when our defiant voices ring defensively around our illusions, in that moment the stones themselves cry out for justice.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
Solving the Problem
If America just permitted public school teachers to get married, this kind of thing wouldn't happen.
I blame the women-only priesthood of middle school teachers.
I blame the women-only priesthood of middle school teachers.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Best Laid Plans
As regular readers know, I'm a nut about doing restored order for the sacraments, i.e., trying to get Confirmation done before First Eucharist, and for adult catechesis.
This story describes a diocese in which the bishop has restored the order of the sacraments and insisted that parents undergo formation at the same time as their children. They call it "family catechesis," other dioceses refer to it as "whole community catechesis."
Great idea, right?
Well, yes, the idea was great.
The execution....
As the reporter unwittingly illustrates, even when a bishop does the right thing, if the parish catechists are clueless, nothing really gets better.
Sigh. The article even started with commentary from the diocesan spokesman emphasizing that Confirmation is not a sacrament of maturity, but no one at this parish seems to have gotten the word.
So, what's the lesson here?
When the catechists are uncatechized and/or idiots, it doesn't matter where you have moved the deck chairs. The ship is still going down.
This story describes a diocese in which the bishop has restored the order of the sacraments and insisted that parents undergo formation at the same time as their children. They call it "family catechesis," other dioceses refer to it as "whole community catechesis."
Great idea, right?
Well, yes, the idea was great.
The execution....
As the reporter unwittingly illustrates, even when a bishop does the right thing, if the parish catechists are clueless, nothing really gets better.
"Parents at St. Thomas More attend separate formation sessions for part of each class. They learn the same topic as their children and then prepare a skit or poster for the young learners.
[Editorial Note: Nice that parents and kids learn the same topic at the same time, but why force adults to do childish things like "skits" and "posters"? Posters are so out of date. Maybe if parents created web pages... I'm kidding. How about we just let the parents interact with their own children naturally? Why force them through these stupid kindergarten exercises? But wait. It gets worse.]
....The older students are staying involved in the parish, too.
Alexis LaBenz, a seventh-grader at St. Andrew the Apostle Parish in Chandler, said her family has become more active. She began liturgical dance and will be confirmed later this year. [liturgical dance? Is this some sort of sick joke?]
“It’s kind of nice that you get to do it now and be a member of the Church earlier,” she said. (emphasis added) [Oh, glad to see she has been reading the Catechism. And here I thought that BAPTISM made you a member of the Church...]
“We’re lucky,” said St. Theresa sixth-grader Jared Wagner about being confirmed now.
Barb Lishko, coordinator of youth ministry at St. Andrew the Apostle, fosters continued parish involvement. She already asked the youth what ministries they are interested in and will hold training during confirmation class later this month."
Sigh. The article even started with commentary from the diocesan spokesman emphasizing that Confirmation is not a sacrament of maturity, but no one at this parish seems to have gotten the word.
So, what's the lesson here?
When the catechists are uncatechized and/or idiots, it doesn't matter where you have moved the deck chairs. The ship is still going down.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Einstein's Error
I have been searching for quotes from scientists in support of faith. During the course of this search, I've run into quite a few misunderstandings about how the two interact, but the subtlest of the errors was here:
That's not quite right.
God did not put us in this universe in order to choose between good and bad. He put us in this universe so that we might grow. We were never meant to choose evil, evil was never meant to be part of this universe.
God created everything.
God created everything good.
Evil is, therefore, not a created thing - it is a distortion or twisting of the good, an absence of the good.
Evil does not have its own existence because God didn't create it and nothing else has the power to bring existence out of nothing. Thus evil cannot have its own existence. At best, it is something that is less good than it should be, sometimes radically less good. Evil is that which lacks the good it should have.
In short, evil is illusion, it is the illusion that something exists where nothing actually exists.
That's why Aquinas said the doing of evil is the choice of the good instead of the best. When we mistake the good for the best, when we choose the good instead of the best because we have confused the two, we have committed evil. When we confuse ourselves deliberately, we commit sin.
To say that God created the universe so that we had to choose implies that evil MUST exist alongside good.
This is the heresy of the Manichees: the idea that evil is necessary to the universe.
It isn't.
The purpose of the universe is, indeed, to be morally, physically perfect, but that perfection is something we are meant to attain through growth in our knowledge and understanding of God. As we grow in our intimacy with God, we are supposed to train creation to attune itself more and more towards God.
Our knowledge of God is supposed to make our faith, our trust in Him, grow, mature, become unshakeable. We do not grow through choice, we grow through delving ever deeper into intimate communion with the Persons of God.
It isn't choosing the good over the best, but choosing the best over and over again, and learning something new each time we do it - that is what we were originally meant to do.
It is what we are still meant to do.
In heaven, we cannot choose evil.
But that is not because evil doesn't exist, rather it is because our knowledge, our understanding, our communion with God has expanded to such an enormous degree that it overflows the full capacity of who we are.
In heaven, I have such an enormous understanding of God's goodness, it is so immediate, so pure, so powerful, that there is no more room for the illusion that anything else approaches His goodness.
I can't choose evil anymore because there is no room in me to be fooled anymore. My growth is complete, my knowledge has reached its zenith, my understanding has reached its depth, my intimacy has reached its perfection.
It isn't about choice.
It never has been.
However, according to Christianity, the purpose of the universe is not to be morally or physically perfect, but to provide a place where spiritual creatures can choose to love or reject God - to live with Him forever in a new, perfect universe, or reject Him and live apart from Him for eternity. It would not be possible to make this choice in a universe in which all moral choices are restricted to only good choices. Einstein didn't seem to understand that one could not choose between good and bad if bad did not exist. It's amazing that such a brilliant man could not understand such a simple logical principle.
That's not quite right.
God did not put us in this universe in order to choose between good and bad. He put us in this universe so that we might grow. We were never meant to choose evil, evil was never meant to be part of this universe.
God created everything.
God created everything good.
Evil is, therefore, not a created thing - it is a distortion or twisting of the good, an absence of the good.
Evil does not have its own existence because God didn't create it and nothing else has the power to bring existence out of nothing. Thus evil cannot have its own existence. At best, it is something that is less good than it should be, sometimes radically less good. Evil is that which lacks the good it should have.
In short, evil is illusion, it is the illusion that something exists where nothing actually exists.
That's why Aquinas said the doing of evil is the choice of the good instead of the best. When we mistake the good for the best, when we choose the good instead of the best because we have confused the two, we have committed evil. When we confuse ourselves deliberately, we commit sin.
To say that God created the universe so that we had to choose implies that evil MUST exist alongside good.
This is the heresy of the Manichees: the idea that evil is necessary to the universe.
It isn't.
The purpose of the universe is, indeed, to be morally, physically perfect, but that perfection is something we are meant to attain through growth in our knowledge and understanding of God. As we grow in our intimacy with God, we are supposed to train creation to attune itself more and more towards God.
Our knowledge of God is supposed to make our faith, our trust in Him, grow, mature, become unshakeable. We do not grow through choice, we grow through delving ever deeper into intimate communion with the Persons of God.
It isn't choosing the good over the best, but choosing the best over and over again, and learning something new each time we do it - that is what we were originally meant to do.
It is what we are still meant to do.
In heaven, we cannot choose evil.
But that is not because evil doesn't exist, rather it is because our knowledge, our understanding, our communion with God has expanded to such an enormous degree that it overflows the full capacity of who we are.
In heaven, I have such an enormous understanding of God's goodness, it is so immediate, so pure, so powerful, that there is no more room for the illusion that anything else approaches His goodness.
I can't choose evil anymore because there is no room in me to be fooled anymore. My growth is complete, my knowledge has reached its zenith, my understanding has reached its depth, my intimacy has reached its perfection.
It isn't about choice.
It never has been.
A tough question
For all those people who already know the difference between a terrorist and a liturgist (you can negotiate with a terrorist), I have written this new and deeper contemplation:
I am waiting for the day when someone repeats this joke back to me...
What's the difference between a suicide bomber and a liturgist?
A suicide bomber only ruins your day once.
I am waiting for the day when someone repeats this joke back to me...
Silver Lining
The Huffington Post, Camille Paglia and Lifesite News are all in agreement: Barack Obama might choose Governor Sebelius as his vice presidential candidate.
While the successful election of an Obama/Sebelius ticket would be an absolute disaster for the United States, such an election would hold out real potential to force the Catholic Church in the United States to become faithful again.
If nothing else, such a win would have ENORMOUS potential to embarrass Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington DC.
The good Archbishop has said that any decision to deny the Eucharist belongs to the bishops of the dioceses from which a pro-abortion politician hails, not to him. Given that a bishop has the duty to teach to the Church universal, with a particular stress on safeguarding the reception of sacraments within his own diocese, this has been a very convenient, if not entirely truthful, way to pass the buck. None of the local bishops with such publicly heretical Catholics have had the guts to do their job in this regard.
But what if Obama won with Sebelius at his side?
The very possibility would give Archbishop Wuerl nightmares.
After all, Arcbhishop Naumann of Kansas City has already publicly told Governor Sebelius that she is not to approach for reception of the Eucharist.
If Obama/Sebelius win the election, Archbishop Wuerl would be in the peculiar situation of denying the Vice President of the United States the Eucharist, while giving Jesus to Ted Kennedy, who is incidentally dying from a brain tumor in no small part because of his insistence on receiving the Eucharist during a papal Mass.
Archbishop Wuerl would be hoist by his own petard into highlighting the absolute rank stupidity of the current USCCB policy on Eucharistic reception and the de facto schism it has already wreaked upon the Catholic Church in the United States.
The USCCB policy could not long endure such a public spectacle.
Either all pro-abortion politicians would begin to be denied, or the entire hierarchy of the United States bishops who espouse giving the Eucharist to men like Kennedy and women like Pelosi would have to make plain their schism from the Church.
And we know which way that will go.
Men who don't have the guts to stare down Kennedy and Pelosi certainly don't have the guts to stare down Pope Benedict XVI. They would toe the line, even if they didn't believe it. And, as Pascal's Wager made plain, if you live the Faith for a year, you start to understand in your bones how to believe the Faith and accept it in your life. Such a public spectacle could force our bishops back to orthodoxy.
So, there is a possible silver lining even to the Obama cloud.
But, sadly, this is why Sebelius probably won't be chosen as the VP candidate. If she is, the USCCB will have an extremely vested interest in making sure Obama is NOT elected. Not because Obama is pro-abort, but because Sebelius is sanctioned, and it could get publicly messy for the bishops if she got in, therefore Obama has to be kept out.
While the successful election of an Obama/Sebelius ticket would be an absolute disaster for the United States, such an election would hold out real potential to force the Catholic Church in the United States to become faithful again.
If nothing else, such a win would have ENORMOUS potential to embarrass Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington DC.
The good Archbishop has said that any decision to deny the Eucharist belongs to the bishops of the dioceses from which a pro-abortion politician hails, not to him. Given that a bishop has the duty to teach to the Church universal, with a particular stress on safeguarding the reception of sacraments within his own diocese, this has been a very convenient, if not entirely truthful, way to pass the buck. None of the local bishops with such publicly heretical Catholics have had the guts to do their job in this regard.
But what if Obama won with Sebelius at his side?
The very possibility would give Archbishop Wuerl nightmares.
After all, Arcbhishop Naumann of Kansas City has already publicly told Governor Sebelius that she is not to approach for reception of the Eucharist.
If Obama/Sebelius win the election, Archbishop Wuerl would be in the peculiar situation of denying the Vice President of the United States the Eucharist, while giving Jesus to Ted Kennedy, who is incidentally dying from a brain tumor in no small part because of his insistence on receiving the Eucharist during a papal Mass.
Archbishop Wuerl would be hoist by his own petard into highlighting the absolute rank stupidity of the current USCCB policy on Eucharistic reception and the de facto schism it has already wreaked upon the Catholic Church in the United States.
The USCCB policy could not long endure such a public spectacle.
Either all pro-abortion politicians would begin to be denied, or the entire hierarchy of the United States bishops who espouse giving the Eucharist to men like Kennedy and women like Pelosi would have to make plain their schism from the Church.
And we know which way that will go.
Men who don't have the guts to stare down Kennedy and Pelosi certainly don't have the guts to stare down Pope Benedict XVI. They would toe the line, even if they didn't believe it. And, as Pascal's Wager made plain, if you live the Faith for a year, you start to understand in your bones how to believe the Faith and accept it in your life. Such a public spectacle could force our bishops back to orthodoxy.
So, there is a possible silver lining even to the Obama cloud.
But, sadly, this is why Sebelius probably won't be chosen as the VP candidate. If she is, the USCCB will have an extremely vested interest in making sure Obama is NOT elected. Not because Obama is pro-abort, but because Sebelius is sanctioned, and it could get publicly messy for the bishops if she got in, therefore Obama has to be kept out.
Sunday, June 08, 2008
Angels and Monkeys
You know, I have heard endless numbers of atheists make fun of the Middle Ages because philosophers debated how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.
Today, we are much more sophisticated.
We argue about how many monkeys it would take to type a legible sentence on a typewriter.
Which just goes to show that technology DOES transform discussions.
Right?
Today, we are much more sophisticated.
We argue about how many monkeys it would take to type a legible sentence on a typewriter.
Which just goes to show that technology DOES transform discussions.
Right?
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Scripture Alive Today
In April, Ted Kennedy receives the Eucharist at a Papal Mass.
In May, Ted Kennedy has a stroke and is diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor.
Is there a connection?
Some would point out that engaging in Ted Kennedy's kind of behaviour is explicitly warned against by several leading experts. For instance, St. Paul points out:
But several pro-abortion, schismatic, heretical politicians received communion, only one is dying.
Why is it only Kennedy got the terminally malignant brain tumor, when Giuliani, Dodd, Pelosi and Kerry all appear to be equally culpable, that is, each also received while in a state of grave sin? Jesus explains that in the Gospel of Luke:
Pray for Senator Kennedy, that he might repent of his heresies before his death.
Then go ye, and tell the Good News: Scripture is alive today "living and active, sharper than a two-edged sword..." (Heb 4:12)
In May, Ted Kennedy has a stroke and is diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor.
Is there a connection?
Some would point out that engaging in Ted Kennedy's kind of behaviour is explicitly warned against by several leading experts. For instance, St. Paul points out:
Now in the following instructions, I do not commend you, because when you come together, it is not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all I hear that when you come together in the church, there are schisms among you. And in part I believe it. For there must be heresies among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized....
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come.
Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself and so eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
1 Corinthians 11:17-30
But several pro-abortion, schismatic, heretical politicians received communion, only one is dying.
Why is it only Kennedy got the terminally malignant brain tumor, when Giuliani, Dodd, Pelosi and Kerry all appear to be equally culpable, that is, each also received while in a state of grave sin? Jesus explains that in the Gospel of Luke:
"Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:4-5)But surely the Catholic Church doesn't believe in or teach this kind of thing anymore, does She? Well, let's find out by looking in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
CCC 1385 To respond to this invitation we must prepare ourselves for so great and so holy a moment. St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself." (1 Cor 11:27-29) Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.
CCC 1509: "Heal the sick!" The Church has received this charge from the Lord and strives to carry it out by taking care of the sick as well as by accompanying them with her prayer of intercession. She believes in the life-giving presence of Christ, the physician of souls and bodies. This presence is particularly active through the sacraments, and in an altogether special way through the Eucharist, the bread that gives eternal life and that St. Paul suggests is connected with bodily health. (cf. John 6:54, 1 Cor 11:30) (emphasis added)
Pray for Senator Kennedy, that he might repent of his heresies before his death.
Then go ye, and tell the Good News: Scripture is alive today "living and active, sharper than a two-edged sword..." (Heb 4:12)
The high praise of God shall be in their mouth: and two-edged swords in their hands:
To execute vengeance upon the nations, chastisements among the people:
To bind their kings with fetters, and their nobles with manacles of iron.
To execute upon them the judgment that is written: this glory is to all his saints. Alleluia.
(Psalm 149:6-10, Liturgy of the Hours)
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Crush the Infamy!
If we support the separation of Church and state because Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, then what do we do with these quotes?
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs. ~Thomas Jefferson
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their
children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. ~Thomas Jefferson
The system of banking [is] a blot left in all our Constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction... I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity ... is but swindling futurity on a large scale. ~Thomas Jefferson
The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution. I am an enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but coin. If the American people allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered ~ Thomas Jefferson"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws our country". ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan, Nov. 12th, 1816.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
New Plenary indulgence
Thanks to Fr. Z over at www.wdtprs.com/blog
VATICAN CITY, 10 MAY 2008 (VIS) – According to a decree made public today and signed by Cardinal James Francis Stafford and Bishop Gianfranco Girotti, O.F.M. Conv., respectively penitentiary major and regent of the Apostolic Penitentiary, Benedict XVI will grant the faithful Plenary Indulgence for the occasion of the two-thousandth anniversary of the birth of the Apostle Paul. The Plenary Indulgence will be valid throughout the Pauline Year which is due to run from 28 June 2008 to 29 June 2009.
"With the imminence of the liturgical Solemnity of the Prince of the Apostles", says the decree, "the Supreme Pontiff … wishes, in good time, to provide for the faithful with spiritual treasures for their own sanctification, that they may renew and reinforce … their purpose of supernatural salvation from the moment of the First Vespers of the aforementioned Solemnity, principally in honour of the Apostle of the Gentiles the two-thousandth anniversary of whose earthly birth is now approaching.
"In fact, the gift of indulgences which the Roman Pontiff offers the Universal Church, facilitates the way to interior purification which, while rendering honour to the Blessed Apostle Paul, exalts supernatural life in the hearts of the faithful and spurs them on … to produce fruits of good works".
The means to obtain the Plenary Indulgence are as follows:
"All Christian faithful – truly repentant, duly purified by the Sacrament of Penance and restored with Holy Communion – who undertake a pious visit in the form of a pilgrimage to the papal basilica of St. Paul on Rome’s Via Ostiense and pray in accordance with the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff, are granted and imparted Plenary Indulgence for the temporal punishment of their sins, once they have obtained sacramental remission and forgiveness for their shortcomings.
"Plenary Indulgence may be gained by the Christian faithful, either for themselves or for the deceased, as many times as the aforementioned acts are undertaken; it remains the case, however, that Plenary Indulgence may be obtained only once a day.
"In order that the prayers pronounced on these holy visits may lead and draw the souls of the faithful to a more intense veneration of the memory of St. Paul, the following conditions are laid down: the faithful, apart from pronouncing their own prayers before the altar of the Blessed Sacrament, ... must go to the altar of the Confession and pray the ‘Our Father’ and the ‘Creed’, adding pious invocations in honour of the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Paul; and such acts of devotion must remain closely linked to the memory of the Prince of the Apostles St. Peter".
"Christian faithful from the various local Churches, under the usual conditions (sacramental Confession, Eucharistic communion, prayer in keeping with the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff) and completely unattached to any form of sin, may still obtain the Plenary Indulgence if they participate devotedly in a religious function or in a pious exercise held publicly in honour of the Apostle of the Gentiles: on the days of the solemn opening and closing of the Pauline Year in any place of worship; on other days determined by the local ordinary, in holy places named for St. Paul and, for the good of the faithful, in other places designated by the ordinary". [May bishops everywhere, please God, take note!]
Monday, May 12, 2008
Coincidence?
Curiouser and curiouser.
Prior to Pope Benedict XVI's visit to the United States, the Pope had made clear that he was very much opposed to pro-abortion Catholic politicians receiving the Eucharist.
Despite this, several Catholic pro-aborts received the Eucharist during the papal Masses: Giuliani, Kennedy, Pelosi and Kerry all violated the sanctity of the sacrament so they could win votes by eating and drinking judgment on themselves.
Now, this would not normally be a huge news item, except....
Last week, Rome approved a Marian apparition from 1666. In that year, seventeen year old Benoite Rencurel was tending sheep in the high mountains of the southern French Alps. While among the high mountain caves, she began to receive visions of a beautiful lady who commanded her to build a church.
This by itself is not unusual, but it seems the Blessed Virgin also told the visionary to get a little cheeky with the local Vicar General (the bishop's second-in-command in a diocese). It seems he disliked the visions and planned to close the local chapel entirely rather than expand it as Mary desired. Benoite did exactly as the Virgin instructed and chastised the Vicar General for daring to try to interfere with the Blessed Mother's wishes. She won.
But there's still more.
Benoite was also given the ability to see souls. For the rest of her life (she died at the age of seventy-one) she frequently approached men and women already on their knees at the altar rail during Mass, tapped them on the shoulder and said, "Not today. Go to confession first."
Now, we could say that is was mere coincidence that Rome would approve such a visionary and such a vision just a few short days after American bishops dissed the Pope by refusing to have "a fight at the altar rail" except...
Just eight hours after the news of Giuliani's blasphemous communion hit the pages of the Washington Post, Cardinal Egan specifically and publicly told an unrepentant Rudy that he should not have done such a thing. And, while he could have said this was not acceptable because of Mr. Giuliani's sinful marriage situation, he didn't.
Instead, he told Mr. Giuliani, now a private citizen, that this was blasphemy precisely because of Rudy's unrepentant endorsement of abortion. In short, a man who was no longer in a position of public policy making was told that his support for abortion should have kept him from the communion line.
Now we hear that Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann has directed Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius to step aside as well, and for the same reason. She publicly supports abortion.
The disrespect paid to the Pope, the approval of Laus, the reaction of Cardinal Egan and Archbishop Naumann to their local scandals: are these all coincidences?
Perhaps.
But we must remember: God writes the world like men writes words.
Let's just hope the rest of the American episcopate can read the signs of the times.
Update: May 14, 2008 - for the first time in 35 years, a sitting Canadian archbishop has spoken publicly against contraception and specifically told his priests to preach against it.
May Pope Benedict live 100 years!
Prior to Pope Benedict XVI's visit to the United States, the Pope had made clear that he was very much opposed to pro-abortion Catholic politicians receiving the Eucharist.
Despite this, several Catholic pro-aborts received the Eucharist during the papal Masses: Giuliani, Kennedy, Pelosi and Kerry all violated the sanctity of the sacrament so they could win votes by eating and drinking judgment on themselves.
Now, this would not normally be a huge news item, except....
Last week, Rome approved a Marian apparition from 1666. In that year, seventeen year old Benoite Rencurel was tending sheep in the high mountains of the southern French Alps. While among the high mountain caves, she began to receive visions of a beautiful lady who commanded her to build a church.
This by itself is not unusual, but it seems the Blessed Virgin also told the visionary to get a little cheeky with the local Vicar General (the bishop's second-in-command in a diocese). It seems he disliked the visions and planned to close the local chapel entirely rather than expand it as Mary desired. Benoite did exactly as the Virgin instructed and chastised the Vicar General for daring to try to interfere with the Blessed Mother's wishes. She won.
But there's still more.
Benoite was also given the ability to see souls. For the rest of her life (she died at the age of seventy-one) she frequently approached men and women already on their knees at the altar rail during Mass, tapped them on the shoulder and said, "Not today. Go to confession first."
Now, we could say that is was mere coincidence that Rome would approve such a visionary and such a vision just a few short days after American bishops dissed the Pope by refusing to have "a fight at the altar rail" except...
Just eight hours after the news of Giuliani's blasphemous communion hit the pages of the Washington Post, Cardinal Egan specifically and publicly told an unrepentant Rudy that he should not have done such a thing. And, while he could have said this was not acceptable because of Mr. Giuliani's sinful marriage situation, he didn't.
Instead, he told Mr. Giuliani, now a private citizen, that this was blasphemy precisely because of Rudy's unrepentant endorsement of abortion. In short, a man who was no longer in a position of public policy making was told that his support for abortion should have kept him from the communion line.
Now we hear that Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann has directed Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius to step aside as well, and for the same reason. She publicly supports abortion.
The disrespect paid to the Pope, the approval of Laus, the reaction of Cardinal Egan and Archbishop Naumann to their local scandals: are these all coincidences?
Perhaps.
But we must remember: God writes the world like men writes words.
Let's just hope the rest of the American episcopate can read the signs of the times.
Update: May 14, 2008 - for the first time in 35 years, a sitting Canadian archbishop has spoken publicly against contraception and specifically told his priests to preach against it.
May Pope Benedict live 100 years!
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Catholic Church Right Again
I've spent the last couple of days reading through the papal speeches made last week. Pope Benedict consistently drove home the message:
a) the individual is in the image and likeness of God,
b) the family is the necessary context in which the individual is formed into this image and likeness, and
c) the Faith is the only thing which can effectively enable the family to do its task.
Oddly enough, social science confirms every one of those assertions. As both my book and
George Will's latest column point out, the family is the single best predictor for success in education. On average, if a child comes from a stable, husband-wife family, that child will learn better than children who don't.
This family effect is greater than all other influences combined. Class size, dollar expenditure, socio-economic class, education level of the teacher - all of it pales in comparison to family influence.
Home schooling works primarily because only stable families can do it.
Unstable families don't have the emotional resources, the willingness and ability to sacrifice and to make culturally unpopular decisions, that is necessary to handle the task.
Support for the family has to be paramount. The school, the parish, the diocese exists to serve and sanctify the family - that's how the Catholic Faith survives.
a) the individual is in the image and likeness of God,
b) the family is the necessary context in which the individual is formed into this image and likeness, and
c) the Faith is the only thing which can effectively enable the family to do its task.
Oddly enough, social science confirms every one of those assertions. As both my book and
George Will's latest column point out, the family is the single best predictor for success in education. On average, if a child comes from a stable, husband-wife family, that child will learn better than children who don't.
This family effect is greater than all other influences combined. Class size, dollar expenditure, socio-economic class, education level of the teacher - all of it pales in comparison to family influence.
Home schooling works primarily because only stable families can do it.
Unstable families don't have the emotional resources, the willingness and ability to sacrifice and to make culturally unpopular decisions, that is necessary to handle the task.
Support for the family has to be paramount. The school, the parish, the diocese exists to serve and sanctify the family - that's how the Catholic Faith survives.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Fallow Land
Thomas Sowell has just written an interesting column on the problem created by government subsidy of higher education. I greatly respect Sowell, but I think his column can be extended just a tad.
Why does the government waste national resources by subsidizing a kind of higher education that results in politically correct drones? If the question is framed in the right way, it answers itself.
Perhaps the government pays people to go to college for the same reason it pays farmers NOT to till their land. It is a subsidy to assure non-production.
If people are trained in non-production, they will more easily be rendered into indentured servants. And what is someone who owes tens of thousands to the banks if not an indentured servant of those same banks?
Indentured servants used to be tied to the land, because the land was the primary means by which to generate income. Now that income is no longer agriculturally based, but service based, getting people to sell themselves into servitude requires only control of what people know.
This is best managed by keeping them away from real knowledge and feeding them pablum instead: thus the modern liberal "curriculum." And - for bonus points - you get them to pay you for the privilege of being intellectually castrated.
It's a sweet system, if you own the means of production.
Seen in this light, the government subsidies to higher education make a ton of economic sense. Corporations get indentured servants who are made psychologically subservient, forced to pay off huge debts, and are thus unable to start businesses which might otherwise compete directly with the existing corporations.
It is no coincidence that a great number of the multi-millionaires in the nation today are college dropouts.
Update
Walter Williams, one of the leading economists in the nation, wrote a column this week (two months later) that paraphases my point above.
Why does the government waste national resources by subsidizing a kind of higher education that results in politically correct drones? If the question is framed in the right way, it answers itself.
Perhaps the government pays people to go to college for the same reason it pays farmers NOT to till their land. It is a subsidy to assure non-production.
If people are trained in non-production, they will more easily be rendered into indentured servants. And what is someone who owes tens of thousands to the banks if not an indentured servant of those same banks?
Indentured servants used to be tied to the land, because the land was the primary means by which to generate income. Now that income is no longer agriculturally based, but service based, getting people to sell themselves into servitude requires only control of what people know.
This is best managed by keeping them away from real knowledge and feeding them pablum instead: thus the modern liberal "curriculum." And - for bonus points - you get them to pay you for the privilege of being intellectually castrated.
It's a sweet system, if you own the means of production.
Seen in this light, the government subsidies to higher education make a ton of economic sense. Corporations get indentured servants who are made psychologically subservient, forced to pay off huge debts, and are thus unable to start businesses which might otherwise compete directly with the existing corporations.
It is no coincidence that a great number of the multi-millionaires in the nation today are college dropouts.
Update
Walter Williams, one of the leading economists in the nation, wrote a column this week (two months later) that paraphases my point above.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Pope Benedict's address to Catholic Educators
I haven't found much on what the Pope had to say on this subject, apart from this story from Catholic News Service.
I found three aspects of the excerpts I was able to find rather significant.
1) The first involves the Pope's reference to the reputation of Catholic schools in the United States:
2) President Lazarus, president of the University of Dallas, is reported to have been happy that the Pope emphasized the importance of academic freedom.
Those of you who heard the Guadalupe Radio Network broadcast on the blasphemy permitted on UD campus might recall that President Lazarus hid behind academic freedom. You might think I have egg on my face. Read the excerpt below and decide for yourself how accurate President Lazarus' summary of that portion of the speech seems to be:
I look forward to reading the whole speech when it is made available.
I found three aspects of the excerpts I was able to find rather significant.
1) The first involves the Pope's reference to the reputation of Catholic schools in the United States:
"I know from my own days as a professor, and I have heard from your bishops and officials of the Congregation for Catholic Education, that the reputation of Catholic institutes of learning in this country is largely due to yourselves and your predecessors," he said.Notice what he doesn't say. He doesn't say if that reputation was good or bad. He just said that the current instructors and their predecessors are responsible for the reputation Catholic education has now. That's quite a bit less of a statement than one might hope for.
2) President Lazarus, president of the University of Dallas, is reported to have been happy that the Pope emphasized the importance of academic freedom.
Those of you who heard the Guadalupe Radio Network broadcast on the blasphemy permitted on UD campus might recall that President Lazarus hid behind academic freedom. You might think I have egg on my face. Read the excerpt below and decide for yourself how accurate President Lazarus' summary of that portion of the speech seems to be:
He made one specific reference to Catholic college presidents, near the end of his address, telling them he wished to "reaffirm the great value of academic freedom." He also noted that any appeals to academic freedom "to justify positions that contradict the faith and teaching of the church would obstruct or even betray the university's identity and mission."3) The Pope seems to have read my book (or I seem to have read Catholic documents fairly accurately - take your pick):
"Catholic identity is not simply a question of the number of Catholic students," he said. It also is not "dependent upon statistics" nor can it be "equated simply with orthodoxy of course content." Instead, he stressed that the Catholic identity of a school or religious education program "demands and inspires much more: namely that each and every aspect of your learning communities reverberates within the ecclesial life of faith."
I look forward to reading the whole speech when it is made available.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Living Like Animals
Alright, I don't get it.
According to all the experts,:
We saw a similar situation play out with the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. The priests implicated in the scandal were simply living a vibrant and active homosexual lifestyle, but the press got upset about it. Now, the lifestyle they were living was, in this case, in direct opposition to the theology they claimed to espouse, but the media outrage was identical.
Why are the same news media who are so insistent on everyone accepting the bulleted principles above now so outraged when they find people living according to the very principles they espouse (pardon the pun)?
Because secular humanists are allowed to live this way, but people who profess belief in this Christ guy are NOT allowed to live this way, even if their distorted version of Christian theology teaches that they SHOULD live this way.
So, the next question is obvious.
Assume we had exactly the same situation, with one difference.
Assume everyone on the Texas compound prayed five times a day, gave alms, and made the hajj to Mecca. That is, imagine an identical situation, the only difference being that the deity references were all to Allah, the women all dressed in burquas, and the men all sported a fistful of beard.
Would a convoy of armed Texas deputies have come after them, separated husbands from their (underage) wives, and shipped 400 children away?
And if they had, who would be yelling the loudest about discrimination, racism, etc.?
Polygamy and pedophilia are crimes against humanity. But no one points out that the FLDS are hardly unique practitioners of these abuses. Over a billion people around the world engage in identical activity. Why doesn't anyone in the media point this out?
According to all the experts,:
- single moms make great parents,
- homosexuals make great parents (remember Heather Has Two Mommies?),
- it takes a village to raise a child,
- rape of underage girls is ok as long as it is an alcohol-fueled lesbian rape (ala Vagina Monologues),
- and we have to be accepting of alternate family arrangements.
We saw a similar situation play out with the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. The priests implicated in the scandal were simply living a vibrant and active homosexual lifestyle, but the press got upset about it. Now, the lifestyle they were living was, in this case, in direct opposition to the theology they claimed to espouse, but the media outrage was identical.
Why are the same news media who are so insistent on everyone accepting the bulleted principles above now so outraged when they find people living according to the very principles they espouse (pardon the pun)?
Because secular humanists are allowed to live this way, but people who profess belief in this Christ guy are NOT allowed to live this way, even if their distorted version of Christian theology teaches that they SHOULD live this way.
So, the next question is obvious.
Assume we had exactly the same situation, with one difference.
Assume everyone on the Texas compound prayed five times a day, gave alms, and made the hajj to Mecca. That is, imagine an identical situation, the only difference being that the deity references were all to Allah, the women all dressed in burquas, and the men all sported a fistful of beard.
Would a convoy of armed Texas deputies have come after them, separated husbands from their (underage) wives, and shipped 400 children away?
And if they had, who would be yelling the loudest about discrimination, racism, etc.?
Polygamy and pedophilia are crimes against humanity. But no one points out that the FLDS are hardly unique practitioners of these abuses. Over a billion people around the world engage in identical activity. Why doesn't anyone in the media point this out?
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Has America Lost Her Salt?
In his most recent column for Catholic Exchange, Mark Shea makes much of the fact that the press has, for the last three years, been intolerably cruel to Pope Benedict XVI. He uses as evidence word searches on Google.
But maybe everyone hates Hillary. Let's pick someone who has only been in the news for about three or four years, someone not quite so divisive... Hmmm... who could we pick?
Why the nasty numbers? Because Google counts a "hit" for every page that has those words, regardless of how the content is arranged. A news page may be talking about two dozen entirely different things (think the Washington Post or Drudgereport web pages), but that doesn't matter to the search engine. It doesn't distinguish between the appearance of Benedict's name in a religion lead and the appearance of the word "rigid" in a story about a new kind of plastic. As long as both words appeared on the same page, Google counts a hit.
The numbers are nonsense. But Mark Shea and Catholic Exchange apparently don't realize that, so they draw conclusions based on essentially no evidence at all.
Now, it may well be the case that the press is opposed to all things orthodox - in fact, I personally I don't doubt that it is. But we should be careful not to take scandal without good reason.
Quite frankly, the press doesn't know much about Pope Benedict, and probably never will. The man bemuses them, as did John Paul II, as does every Pope. In order to hate someone, you have to know them at least moderately well. There has to be a substance to hatred just as there is a substance to love. The press lacks substance, so it really isn't capable of hate or even strong dislike. It can manage only a puzzled shrug.
In times past, the Catholic Faith was, indeed, hated, but no more. Today, orthodox Catholicism is neither known nor considered enough of a threat to merit strong emotions. The elites literally don't know enough about real Catholics to care.
Perhaps we would like them to hate us, if only because that would make us more relevant in their world. We should recognize our desire to be hated as a perverse form of pride. After all, if they hated us, we must matter enough to them, we must hinder them enough, to make us a hated minority.
But what if we don't matter enough to them?
What if we aren't hindering them in any significant way?
That would mean we weren't living the Gospel very well.
Jesus made people angry enough to merit his execution.
Peter managed to proclaim the Gospel so effectively he got himself crucified upside down.
Paul started a fight in every town he entered, got scourged, beaten with rods, stoned and finally beheaded, martyred just like every one of the original apostles. Even John, the apostle of love who died a natural death, managed to make it to old age only by dint of miraculously surviving an attempt to boil him alive.
But when was the last time the holy example and sacred preaching of Catholics in America made our fellow Americans angry enough to burn down a convent, smash up a school or demolish church? When has our witness to the truth been so strong that those who follow demons ground their teeth at us, writhed in frustration, and ultimately martyred one or more of us?
The culture clearly doesn't love Catholics, for the conversion rate is not high enough to indicate that they treasure who we are or how we live. They aren't hot about us.
But at this point, it's not clear they really hate us. They aren't in a cold rage about us either.
Shouldn't we find that a little disconcerting?
Update: The latest Pew Forum survey (released two days after this blog entry) shows fully 32% of Americans know so little about the Pope that they are unable to form an opinion about him.
“Benedict XVI” rigid – 52,800The conclusion we're supposed to draw is that all of those terms are being attributed to the Pope. Well, let's test that assumption. We'll compare the Pope's hit count with someone that the press might not be so adversarial towards: Hillary Clinton. The Pope's numbers are in parentheses for ease of comparison.
“Benedict XVI” hardliner – 27,100
“Benedict XVI” inflexible – 10,300
“Benedict XVI” dominating – 290,000
“Benedict XVI” ruthless – 126,000
“Benedict XVI” enforcer – 28,800
“Benedict XVI” archaic – 22,400
“Benedict XVI” medieval – 169,000
“Benedict XVI” intolerant – 148,000
“Benedict XVI” backward – 122,000
“Benedict XVI” “Hitler Youth” – 30,700
“pope cracks down” – 1,080,000
“Hillary Clinton” rigid – 102,000 (52,800)Hmmm... Judging by the numbers, the press is roughly twice as hard on Hillary as it is on the Pope in every area except the Hitler Youth connection and "cracking down".
“Hillary Clinton” hardliner – 26,100 (27,100)
“Hillary Clinton” inflexible – 31,400 (10,300)
“Hillary Clinton” dominating – 215,000 (290,000)
“Hillary Clinton” ruthless – 125,000 (126,000 )
“Hillary Clinton” enforcer – 47,600 (22,800)
“Hillary Clinton” archaic – 53,300 (22,400)
“Hillary Clinton” medieval – 126,000 (169,000)
“Hillary Clinton” intolerant – 614,000 (148,000)
“Hillary Clinton” backward – 267,000 (122,000)
“Hillary Clinton” “Hitler Youth” – 11,700 (30,700)
“Hillary Clinton cracks down” – 426,000 (1,080,000)
But maybe everyone hates Hillary. Let's pick someone who has only been in the news for about three or four years, someone not quite so divisive... Hmmm... who could we pick?
“Barack Obama" rigid – 103,000 (Clinton: 102,000, Pope: 52,800)Wow! And that's even without the "Hussein." When it comes to press coverage, it looks like Barack has a lot more to complain about than the Pope does on most scores.
“Barack Obama” hardliner – 24,500 (Clinton 26,100, Pope: 27,100)
“Barack Obama” inflexible – 37,800 (Clinton: 31,400, Pope: 10,300)
“Barack Obama” dominating – 247,000 (Clinton: 215,000, Pope: 290,000)
“Barack Obama” ruthless – 354,000 (Clinton: 125,000, Pope: 126,000 )
“Barack Obama” enforcer – 93,800 (Clinton: 47,600, Pope: 22,800)
“Barack Obama” archaic – 105,000 (Clinton: 53,300, Pope: 22,400)
“Barack Obama” medieval – 131,000 (Clinton: 126,000, Pope: 169,000)
“Barack Obama” intolerant – 616,000 (Clinton: 614,000, Pope: 148,000)
“Barack Obama” backward – 272,000 (Clinton: 267,000, Pope: (122,000)
“Barack Obama” “Hitler Youth” – 8,500 (Clinton: 11,700, Pope: 30,700)
“Barack Obama cracks down” – 364,000 (Clinton: 426,000, Pope: 1,080,000)
Why the nasty numbers? Because Google counts a "hit" for every page that has those words, regardless of how the content is arranged. A news page may be talking about two dozen entirely different things (think the Washington Post or Drudgereport web pages), but that doesn't matter to the search engine. It doesn't distinguish between the appearance of Benedict's name in a religion lead and the appearance of the word "rigid" in a story about a new kind of plastic. As long as both words appeared on the same page, Google counts a hit.
The numbers are nonsense. But Mark Shea and Catholic Exchange apparently don't realize that, so they draw conclusions based on essentially no evidence at all.
Now, it may well be the case that the press is opposed to all things orthodox - in fact, I personally I don't doubt that it is. But we should be careful not to take scandal without good reason.
Quite frankly, the press doesn't know much about Pope Benedict, and probably never will. The man bemuses them, as did John Paul II, as does every Pope. In order to hate someone, you have to know them at least moderately well. There has to be a substance to hatred just as there is a substance to love. The press lacks substance, so it really isn't capable of hate or even strong dislike. It can manage only a puzzled shrug.
In times past, the Catholic Faith was, indeed, hated, but no more. Today, orthodox Catholicism is neither known nor considered enough of a threat to merit strong emotions. The elites literally don't know enough about real Catholics to care.
Perhaps we would like them to hate us, if only because that would make us more relevant in their world. We should recognize our desire to be hated as a perverse form of pride. After all, if they hated us, we must matter enough to them, we must hinder them enough, to make us a hated minority.
But what if we don't matter enough to them?
What if we aren't hindering them in any significant way?
That would mean we weren't living the Gospel very well.
Jesus made people angry enough to merit his execution.
Peter managed to proclaim the Gospel so effectively he got himself crucified upside down.
Paul started a fight in every town he entered, got scourged, beaten with rods, stoned and finally beheaded, martyred just like every one of the original apostles. Even John, the apostle of love who died a natural death, managed to make it to old age only by dint of miraculously surviving an attempt to boil him alive.
But when was the last time the holy example and sacred preaching of Catholics in America made our fellow Americans angry enough to burn down a convent, smash up a school or demolish church? When has our witness to the truth been so strong that those who follow demons ground their teeth at us, writhed in frustration, and ultimately martyred one or more of us?
The culture clearly doesn't love Catholics, for the conversion rate is not high enough to indicate that they treasure who we are or how we live. They aren't hot about us.
But at this point, it's not clear they really hate us. They aren't in a cold rage about us either.
Shouldn't we find that a little disconcerting?
Update: The latest Pew Forum survey (released two days after this blog entry) shows fully 32% of Americans know so little about the Pope that they are unable to form an opinion about him.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Third World Thinking
Science News has published the results of a new study on market economies in its March 15, 2008 issue. Economist Benedikt Herrmann of the University of Nottingham, England studied the difference between college students from 15 countries in a "public goods" game.
Students were broken up into groups of four and each were asked to contribute up to 20 tokens to a common pot. The pot total was multiplied by 1.6 and the resulting tokens distributed to the students. This was repeated 10 times, then the students were allowed to exchange their tokens for cash.
After each round, everyone's contribution was revealed. The members of each group could punish each other by paying a token to get the ability to take three tokens from some other group member.
Volunteers from democratic, market-based societies like the UK, the US, Germany, etc., uniformly punished low contributors for their lack of generosity. These low contributors would then contribute more on subsequent iterations of the game.
Volunteers from non-democratic societies such as Saudi Arabia, Greece, and Russia generally punished the high contributors for having the temerity to make the rest look bad. This led to a general drying up of contributions to the general pot.
The results of the experiment seem to have some bearing on various subpopulations in the United States. Where have we seen groups who like to tax high contributors versus groups who like to tax low contributors?
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and their confreres love to strip money from those with lots of it. Of course, they would argue that they are taxing people who don't contribute to the general good at all, and thus the comparison is really not fair. Still, it is interesting to see the parallels.
But couldn't we make the same assertion about Rush Limbaugh and company? After all, if tokens are merely representative of the amount of contribution, then why couldn't we argue that immigrants - who give their entire working lives to this country for a period of weeks, months or years - are making a larger contribution to the general public than people who merely convince others to make contributions on their behalf?
Now, one could argue that the head of a multi-billion dollar corporation is not only giving his time and money to the general public, he is also talking others into giving their time and talent, and putting part of it in his own name, as it were. Instead of simply taxing non-contributors, he is enticing non-contributors to make contributions for him by paying them to do so.
And what do we say of Rush and company when they want to strengthen immigration laws, on the grounds that Mexico's immigration laws are quite harsh, therefore ours should be as well?
They give all they have - themselves - and we punish them because it isn't enough? Isn't this identical to the kind of third-world thinking Barack Hussein Obama and Billary Clinton regularly display in the world of finance? After all, why would we want to emulate any aspect of a third-world country's laws, given that it may very well be this strict immigration policy that, at least in part, makes them a third world country?
There are several ways to argue this, depending upon which economic theory strikes your fancy and how you want to classify the contributions being made. But it is interesting that the very states with the highest tax rates - which tend to be the coastal states - are the states whose economies most closely align to the third-world worldview that Herrmann discovered.
Students were broken up into groups of four and each were asked to contribute up to 20 tokens to a common pot. The pot total was multiplied by 1.6 and the resulting tokens distributed to the students. This was repeated 10 times, then the students were allowed to exchange their tokens for cash.
After each round, everyone's contribution was revealed. The members of each group could punish each other by paying a token to get the ability to take three tokens from some other group member.
Volunteers from democratic, market-based societies like the UK, the US, Germany, etc., uniformly punished low contributors for their lack of generosity. These low contributors would then contribute more on subsequent iterations of the game.
Volunteers from non-democratic societies such as Saudi Arabia, Greece, and Russia generally punished the high contributors for having the temerity to make the rest look bad. This led to a general drying up of contributions to the general pot.
The results of the experiment seem to have some bearing on various subpopulations in the United States. Where have we seen groups who like to tax high contributors versus groups who like to tax low contributors?
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and their confreres love to strip money from those with lots of it. Of course, they would argue that they are taxing people who don't contribute to the general good at all, and thus the comparison is really not fair. Still, it is interesting to see the parallels.
But couldn't we make the same assertion about Rush Limbaugh and company? After all, if tokens are merely representative of the amount of contribution, then why couldn't we argue that immigrants - who give their entire working lives to this country for a period of weeks, months or years - are making a larger contribution to the general public than people who merely convince others to make contributions on their behalf?
Now, one could argue that the head of a multi-billion dollar corporation is not only giving his time and money to the general public, he is also talking others into giving their time and talent, and putting part of it in his own name, as it were. Instead of simply taxing non-contributors, he is enticing non-contributors to make contributions for him by paying them to do so.
And what do we say of Rush and company when they want to strengthen immigration laws, on the grounds that Mexico's immigration laws are quite harsh, therefore ours should be as well?
They give all they have - themselves - and we punish them because it isn't enough? Isn't this identical to the kind of third-world thinking Barack Hussein Obama and Billary Clinton regularly display in the world of finance? After all, why would we want to emulate any aspect of a third-world country's laws, given that it may very well be this strict immigration policy that, at least in part, makes them a third world country?
There are several ways to argue this, depending upon which economic theory strikes your fancy and how you want to classify the contributions being made. But it is interesting that the very states with the highest tax rates - which tend to be the coastal states - are the states whose economies most closely align to the third-world worldview that Herrmann discovered.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Radio Show
Because I'm not too bright, it failed to occur to me that some people may want to listen to the weekly radio show I do.
The Soundbites program airs from noon to 1 pm every Friday on Guadalupe Radio Network, the Catholic radio station in Dallas-Fort Worth.
Although we are off the air on Good Friday, our most recent controversy involved a piece of scatalogical artwork which depicted Our Lady of Guadalupe as a stripper. It was displayed at the University of Dallas. It was also removed by an unknown gallery patron and not returned.
The president of the University of Dallas called it theft.
We called it virtue.
The Soundbites program airs from noon to 1 pm every Friday on Guadalupe Radio Network, the Catholic radio station in Dallas-Fort Worth.
Although we are off the air on Good Friday, our most recent controversy involved a piece of scatalogical artwork which depicted Our Lady of Guadalupe as a stripper. It was displayed at the University of Dallas. It was also removed by an unknown gallery patron and not returned.
The president of the University of Dallas called it theft.
We called it virtue.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Forgot About This...
In all the controversy over various things in the last few weeks, I forgot about a letter I received on the subject from Rome a few years ago.
You can read it here.
You can read it here.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Crying Your "I"-s Out
How time flies. Just one year ago, I pointed out that when people's lives are full of turmoil, it is excellent news for the economy. Now, a scientific study has been released that verifies the point.
While capitalist societies may be superior to socialist societies, capitalism necessarily creates a culture of death because "thoughts and emotions about death -- [are] feelings that are already known to increase the urge to spend."
Depression-oriented and death-oriented cultures tend to have stronger economies. The more depressed the citizen, the more death-oriented the consumer, the more buying s/he does.
But depression alone is not enough. No, it has to be a narcissistic death-oriented culture. The focus has to be on self: why I feel bad, why me, etc.
Have you ever wondered why the mainstream media primarily reports bad news? Because bad news gets you to buy more papers. Why does the mainstream media focus on self-improvement? Why does it constantly exhort us to "Lose Weight! Look Great!" or "Fit Into That BIKINI!"?
Simple. Narcissists spend more.
And by blanketing the available media outlets in order to target the highest spending group (depressed narcissists), the MSM ineluctably turns everyone into a depressed narcissist.
Now, keep in mind that the decision to have a child is always a decision which is essentially up-beat and other-focused. As one wag said, a child is God's way of saying that the world should continue.
Conversely, anyone who is depressed will not really want the world to continue.
Depressed people get tubal ligations and vasectomies.
Depressed people use contraception.
Now, take this to its logical extreme and guess: who are the highest spenders?
That's right. Active homosexuals, men and women who are essentially narcissists interested only in their own pleasure despite, or even because, of the high risk of death it involves, spend more than nearly any other segment of the economy. Why?
Well, take the risk of death. As even leading homosexual activists now admit, AIDS is a homosexual disease:
So how do you wring the highest level of spending out of a population? Transform as many of them as possible into contraceptive users and/or homosexuals.
Why do so many seemingly sane companies give money to Planned Parenthood?
Because it's good for business.
The business of America is business, and business is killing us.
While capitalist societies may be superior to socialist societies, capitalism necessarily creates a culture of death because "thoughts and emotions about death -- [are] feelings that are already known to increase the urge to spend."
Depression-oriented and death-oriented cultures tend to have stronger economies. The more depressed the citizen, the more death-oriented the consumer, the more buying s/he does.
But depression alone is not enough. No, it has to be a narcissistic death-oriented culture. The focus has to be on self: why I feel bad, why me, etc.
Have you ever wondered why the mainstream media primarily reports bad news? Because bad news gets you to buy more papers. Why does the mainstream media focus on self-improvement? Why does it constantly exhort us to "Lose Weight! Look Great!" or "Fit Into That BIKINI!"?
Simple. Narcissists spend more.
And by blanketing the available media outlets in order to target the highest spending group (depressed narcissists), the MSM ineluctably turns everyone into a depressed narcissist.
Now, keep in mind that the decision to have a child is always a decision which is essentially up-beat and other-focused. As one wag said, a child is God's way of saying that the world should continue.
Conversely, anyone who is depressed will not really want the world to continue.
Depressed people get tubal ligations and vasectomies.
Depressed people use contraception.
Now, take this to its logical extreme and guess: who are the highest spenders?
That's right. Active homosexuals, men and women who are essentially narcissists interested only in their own pleasure despite, or even because, of the high risk of death it involves, spend more than nearly any other segment of the economy. Why?
Well, take the risk of death. As even leading homosexual activists now admit, AIDS is a homosexual disease:
Matt Foreman, outgoing Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, rattled the homosexual activist community by joining the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), pro-family organizations and a growing number of homosexual activists willing to admit that homosexual behavior is both extremely high-risk and primarily responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS in the U.S.What could be more depressing, more narcissistic, than a contracepted/homosexual lifestyle?Addressing the topic of AIDS, Foreman drastically deviated from the "gay" lobby's party line by admitting, "Internally, when these numbers come out, the 'established' gay community seems to have a collective shrug as if this isn't our problem. Folks, with 70 percent of the people in this country living with HIV being gay or bi, we cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease. We have to own that and face up to that."
A little over a year ago, Lorri Jean, CEO of the Los Angeles-based Gay and Lesbian Center, similarly shocked the "gay" community by stating that, "HIV is a Gay Disease. Own it. End it."
So how do you wring the highest level of spending out of a population? Transform as many of them as possible into contraceptive users and/or homosexuals.
Why do so many seemingly sane companies give money to Planned Parenthood?
Because it's good for business.
The business of America is business, and business is killing us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)