Disrespecting Islam

Pamela Geller recently held a "Draw Mohammed" cartoon contest in Garland, TX. Two Muslim men took offense, and took AK-47s to the event to express their offense. After grazing one officer in the ankle with a bullet, both gentlemen received a Texas welcome and are now cooling in the morgue.

 

Many commentators have responded to this event with two observations:

1. These Muslim men were completely out-of-line, but Pamela Gellar provoked it because she was "disrespecting Islam."
2. This country was founded on respect for religion and Gellar broke with that American tradition by holding the "Draw Mohammed" event at all.

 Both observations are complete crap.

Argument 1

If the commentators really believe that disrespect for Islam has no place in American society, then they must, by making the statements they have, plead guilty to disrespecting Islam. They have made a cartoon of Islam just as surely as any of Pamela Geller's contestants.

 

We can certainly agree that it is disrespectful to a religion to argue that some tenet of that religion is completely ridiculous. Geller's argument is that it is completely ridiculous to punish the drawing of images of Mohammed with the death penalty. Do you see the anti-Geller position's problem?

To be logically consistent, anti-Geller commentators cannot simultaneously insist that Geller was disrespectful AND that the death penalty for cartoonists is not acceptable. By the very fact that anyone says killing over a cartoon is ridiculous or unacceptable, they are making the SAME argument Geller makes. The only difference is, they are making the argument with words instead of pictures.

So, when they say that Geller is disrespectful for holding the contest, they are also admitting that they themselves are disrespectful when they assert that the death penalty should not apply to cartoonists. After all, that was the whole point of shooting the place up, right? Many Muslims insist that the death penalty MUST apply to cartoonists in order to show proper respect for Islam. Geller's critics can only avoid being hypocrites by agreeing with the gentlemen wielding AK-47s, and arguing that in order to show proper American respect for religion, we must allow Muslims to carry out their religious ritual of human sacrifice.

Argument 2

This country was built on a lot of different principles, but respect for religion was never one of them. Keep in mind that for America's first century, the First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty was understood to apply only to the federal government, not to state governments. If states wished to favor one religion over another, they were free to do so. Thus, Catholics were locked out of many states' government offices, even locked out of public teaching positions at the state level, right through the 1890s.

Why do you think Virginia had a religious liberty clause written into her constitution? Because without that clause, the state was free to discriminate, and Thomas Jefferson knew it. The Bill of Rights concerned federal government action, not state governments. The idea that the federal constitution's restrictions could be imposed on states only appeared after the Civil War, when we slaughtered large groups of our own citizens in order to establish the 14th Amendment principle that the federal government could force its will on state governments and the state governments had to sit still and take it.

I'm not saying the Fourteenth Amendment was a bad idea. Even the founders recognized that slavery was going to have to be outlawed at some point. I'm just pointing out that, until the Fourteenth Amendment, the Constitution was not seen as having any necessary applicability to states.


So, no, despite the best efforts of Catholic settlers to create such a principle, our country was not founded on respect for religious freedom. It's a happy myth we maintain in the 21st century, but it is a myth. And, to be honest, even Catholics don't follow the whole "religious respect" thing.

We don't have respect for a religion that performs human sacrifice. We crushed the Aztecs and the Incas because they performed ritual human sacrifice. Muslims have a tendency to do the same, and Catholics do not respect that aspect of Islamic faith. We don't have any respect for a lot of stupid ideas in other religious traditions, nor does our Faith require that we do.

As Catholics, we are required to respect ONLY those principles in other religions that reflect Catholic principles. It is our duty as Catholics to at least studiously ignore anything that does not resonate with Catholic principles while we educate the heathen in Catholic ways, and - if necessary - actively outlaw and suppress those aspects of any belief system which egregiously violate Catholic principles. Thus, the conquistadors and the crusaders were perfectly right to take up the sword against the practitioners of human sacrifice.

Pamela Geller's critics need to stop their hypocrisy, stop trying to pretend orthodox Muslims espouse Christian beliefs. They don't.

Kneeling Before the Poor

In a recent radio address, Pope Francis expressed his heart's desire: "How I wish," he said, "that Christians could kneel in veneration when a poor person enters the church."

Some Catholics are taking issue with the Pope. "We kneel only before Christ Himself!" they exclaim heatedly.

Now, before I take a step more, let me quote St. Augustine (all saint quotes are taken from the preceding link):

Try to acquire the virtues you believe lacking in your brothers. Then you will no longer see their defects, for you will no longer have them yourself.

Some would say I am not virtuous, because I see a lack of virtue in this response to the Pope. I absolutely cannot argue with that assertion. I wholeheartedly agree with it. I am not virtuous. That having been said, I will merely point out that the people who attack the Pope for this remark have a problem. The Pope is quoting, almost word for word, a saint of the Catholic Church:

The poor and the sick are our owners and they represent the very person of Jesus Christ.
St. Luigi Scrosoppi

So, by asserting that the Pope is wrong, they are asserting the saint is wrong. In fact, they are asserting Christ is wrong.

The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of theleast of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.' “Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.' "

I may not like the papal emphasis on the poor. But, the extent to which I don't like it demonstrates how NOT virtuous I am. In fact, it demonstrates how NOT Catholic I truly am. Catholics talk and act like Pope Francis, they don't talk and act like me.

Here are some additional saint quotes that prove Pope Francis is holier than you and I are:

No one has ever been accused for not providing ornaments, but for those who neglect their neighbour a hell awaits with an inextinguishable fire and torment in the company of the demons. Do not, therefore, adorn the church and ignore your afflicted brother, for he is the most precious temple of all.  St John Chrysostom 

He alone loves the Creator perfectly who manifests a pure love for his neighbor.
St. Bede the Venerable 

If you want God to hear your prayers, hear the voice of the poor. If you wish God to anticipate your wants, provide those of the needy without waiting for them to ask you. Especially anticipate the needs of those who are ashamed to beg. To make them ask for alms is to make them buy it.  St. Thomas of Villanova 

Let us not love by words alone, but let us love until it hurts. 
Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta 

So long as there are poor,
I am poor,
So long as there are prisons,
I am a prisoner,
So long as there are sick,
I am weak,
So long as there is ignorance,
I must learn the truth,
So long as there is hate,
I must love,
So long as there is hunger,
I am famished.
Such is the identification Our Divine Lord would have us make with all whom He made in love and for love.
Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

Now, no one cried "foul!" when Bishop Fulton Sheen said the same thing the Pope is saying today. If I dislike the Pope for saying this and things like it, then I dislike Christ.

That's a problem.

You and I, we need to solve our problems and remove the beams from our own eyes before we start attacking the Pope's vision.

On the "Missing" Work of Mercy

Some people who deeply dislike Pope Francis are making much of the fact that Misericordiae Vultus, the Pope's latest Bull on the works of mercy, seems to be conspicuously lacking one of the works. Specifically, it seems to lack the third spiritual work of mercy, "admonish the sinner."

Sigh.

Those same people never seem to consider that the Bull is directed towards all of us. We are all sinners who fail to do the works of mercy that we are supposed to be doing.

Thus, the entire Bull is an example of how to admonish the sinner.

Pope Francis lives the Faith.
Us?
Not so much.

God-Given Rights

So, recently Hillary has been mouthing off about the interaction between religion and rights. Let's see if she has a grasp of either one.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, 

America's founders refer to "unalienable Rights". How does that work?

God is Truth. Catholic Faith is the most accurate representation of Who God is, therefore it is the most accurate representation of Truth.

We are persons in the image and likeness of the original Persons. The three Persons of the Trinity are distinguished ONLY by the relationships between the three Persons: Begetting and Begotten (Father and Son), Spirating and Spirated (Father-Son and Spirit, Spirit and Father-Son).

Each Person defined by these relationships has Right relationship with the other two Persons. Each Person has a right way to interact with the other Two Persons. These are God's "rights". "Rights" refer to how a relationship is ordered, what is permissible within the relationship and what is not permissible.

Because God has rights, we have rights. Our rights flow from the image and likeness we are of God, they flow from our relationship with Him. Indeed, every "right" I have is merely an instance of my right relationship with God. Insofar as I do not have a right relationship with God, I have no "rights."

So, for instance, I do not have the "right" to murder because that would put my relationship with God in an un-right status. I only have the right to do that which keeps me in right relationship with God. That is what it means to say we are "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights."

Rights are absolute because God is absolute and my relationship with God is the norm for everything I do. There is a way to maintain the relationship and grow it (a right) and a way to destroy it (not a right).

Every action, whether religious or not, is a reflection of my right relationship with God. If I ignore this divine relationship, compartmentalize it, pretend it doesn't exist, then I am saying there is no "right" relationship with God.

The moment I deny God exists, my rights degrade. Now my rights can, at most, center around what I think my relationship with other people should be. Perhaps I think other people should define the relationship, perhaps I think I should. It doesn't matter. At that moment, my "rights" are based in what I like, not in any external norm.

Now, being a good Catholic, doing what a good Catholic does, maintains my rights because the exercise of Catholic Faith is the only way anyone has to maintain his relationship with God. There is no other way. This is what Vatican II means when it says:

This demand for freedom in human society chiefly regards the quest for the values proper to the human spirit. It regards, in the first place, the free exercise of religion in society. This Vatican Council takes careful note of these desires in the minds of men. It proposes to declare them to be greatly in accord with truth and justice... (emphasis added)

This Vatican Council likewise professes its belief that it is upon the human conscience that these obligations fall and exert their binding force. The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power.

Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ. (Dignitatis Humanae, #1)

The desire for free exercise of religion is "greatly in accord with truth and justice". Notice, the Council does NOT say that religious freedom is in perfect accord with truth and justice. As Aquinas points out, referring to St. Paul, the natural law is written on every person's heart, but written without the clarity and force we need, nor do we have the power of grace to follow what is written on our heart even if it were more clear (CCC 1954-1966).

We have "freedom of conscience" only in the sense that our natural knowledge is limited. In fact, our natural knowledge is often erroneous. Thus, our natural understanding of something may lead us to an action which is objectively evil, but whose evil we cannot recognize. We are blind to the evil, therefore God will not hold us accountable for the evil. Invincible ignorance is the basis for Vatican II's religious freedom of conscience claim. As the Council points out, free exercise of religion is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. The end, the object, the purpose is to join and live the true religion of the one Church of Christ. "Religious freedom... leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ"

So, "religious freedom" cannot be a right except insofar as it is the freedom to be a Catholic or to do what a good Catholic would do. The phrase "religious freedom", used in any other sense, is a shibboleth. It is a two-year old wielding a knife. The two-year old is not blamed by the Church for wielding the knife or for the damage the knife inflicts because the Church recognizes the invincible ignorance of the two-year old.  She is willing to suffer the damage the two-year old inflicts while She trains the child in the right way to use a knife.

For the word of God is living and effectual, and more piercing than any two edged sword; and reaching unto the division of the soul and the spirit, of the joints also and the marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)

Shilling for Donors

Case 1

Let's say you encountered a petition from a Catholic organization that purported to petition the Pope to support traditional marriage.

What would be the point of the petition, exactly?

1. Do you actually think the organization will send the petition to the Pope?
2. If the petition is sent to the Pope, do you seriously think he is going to change what he will do based on the petition? 
3. Do you seriously think the Pope holds a position other than the position the petition begs support for?
4. If so, what would this other position be, that we have to beg the Pope to change his mind?

There are several possibilities. None of them seem good. If the Catholic organization doesn't:

1. Intend to send the petition to the Pope, then why pretend, by putting in the premise, that it will be sent? Isn't the pretence that they WILL send it to the Pope then actually a lie?
2. Think it will change the Pope's mind because the Pope already agrees with the premise stated in the petition, then why gather the signatures to present to the Pope?
3. Think it will change the Pope's mind because the Pope already firmly disagrees with the premise stated in the petition, then are we trying to make the Pope Catholic? Doesn't the existence of the petition mean that we don't really think he is?

I asked Lifesite News this. This was the answer I received:

Steve Jalsevac The petitions that we undertake have the primary purpose of building movements around the issues that each petition addresses. That is the most powerful result of these petitions. it has been wonderfully effective. The petitions also allow us to increase our email list but we carefully ensure that signers receive additional information emails on the petition subject only if they wish to receive such follow up information. We follow a very ethical procedure on this. And yes, hopefully, after a time, some of those petition signers will donate to LifeSite. (emphasis added)

Alright. At no point during the response did Jalsevac reference the Pope or even Catholic teaching. We don't know if the petition is going to the Pope, nor if LifeSiteNews expects the petition to change (or not change) the Pope's mind. All we know is that one of the big reasons LifeSiteNews created the petition is to build a LifeSiteNews-centered movement with a strong subset of donors. In short, it looks for all the world as if Steve Jalsevac just admitted the whole thing was a marketing ploy.

A marketing ploy made at the expense of the Catholic Church.
LifeSiteNews was apparently willing to sow division among Catholics and imply the Pope needed begging in order to uphold Catholic teaching if that's what it took to fill a donor list and make some cash.

Case 2

Don't believe me?
Then what about this petition to the Pope about Archbishop Cardileone.

Now, why is this petition being sent to the Pope?

1. Does the Pope NOT support the archbishop? 
2. Do we suspect that the Pope may not support the archbishop?
3. Does the Pope need evidence from us that we support the archbishop?
4. Will the Pope remove or keep the archbishop based on this or any other petitions?

The people who are unhappy with the archbishop published a newspaper ad petitioning the Pope for removal of the archbishop. LifeSiteNews created this petition in response. At least one person who signed the LifeSiteNews petition expressed amazement that anyone thought the Pope read San Francisco papers, or, even if he did, that anyone would really believe the Pope would act on a newspaper ad petition in a San Francisco newspaper if he were to encounter one.

But how is LifeSiteNews and its petitioners different from the newspaper petitioners? After all, LifeSiteNews isn't sending its pro-archbishop petition to the newspaper, or to the people who signed the newspaper ad, or to the city government where the newspaper is published, or even to the archbishop. No, they invoke the Pope, as if they were going to send it to him. But as one of the people who signed the ad pointed out, they aren't even asking the Pope to take any action in regards to the archbishop. So what's the purpose of the "petition?"

If you're going to collect signatures to send to someone, shouldn't you send it to someone who disagrees with you or has power over the situation that you think may be exercised in the wrong way?

Why would you send a "petition" to someone who agrees with you and who you know will exercise power in the correct way? And if you aren't even going to send it to him, then in what sense is it a petition, since the document will never actually be used to petition anyone?

When I posed these questions, I was told by one of the signers (someone who self-identified as an individual involved in the governance of several non-profits) that a substantial number of signers  know the petition won't be sent to the Pope or to anyone else involved in the situation. I was also told, by the same person, that I was very uncharitable to use these facts to argue that the entire exercise was a lie on the part of the people who created the petition and a self-deception on the part of the signers.

Case 3

LifeSiteNews quotes janitor about cardinal-priest dispute. 

Actually, LifeSiteNews quoted a canon lawyer in a cardinal-priest dispute, but it amounts to the same thing. Disputes between a bishop (who may or may not be a cardinal) and his priests are the business of that group. Unless a canon lawyer is specifically invited in by one or both, or is at least a member of the diocese where the dispute is taking place, that canon lawyer has no business expressing a public opinion on the dispute.

Canon lawyer opinions are not binding on anyone. If the opinion is negative towards the cardinal, it can undermine the cardinal's authority. If it is negative towards the priests, it can undermine the priests' standing in their communities. Why would an American canon lawyer weigh in on a dispute in an English diocese with an uninvited opinion? Why would anyone care what he says?

This is especially true when the canon lawyer is employed by a diocese. Employees of dioceses are hired to be shills, ahem, paid spokesman, for the local bishop. They cannot weigh in publicly like this unless their own bishop wants to make somebody look bad. Normally, bishops are chary of making each other look bad.

The bishop will allow one of his minions to publicly attack whatever enemy the bishop has targeted. A fine example of this is how Dr. Edward Peters, canon lawyer, both misrepresented the facts and acted as his bishop's shill in the controversy with Michael Voris. And here we have the exact SAME shill attacking a cardinal. Looks like Ed got his bishop's directive to go attack a cardinal, for reasons known only to his own bishop. Remember, nothing happens in a diocese unless the bishop is willing to let it happen. If Ed is very publicly putting an oar in where his bishop doesn't want it, Ed would be looking for a new job right now. He isn't, so his bishop is good with the attack.

When I pointed out that Ed was just a shill, used by LifeSiteNews for their own income revenue generation, this was Karl Keating's Facebook response:

Karl Keating Steve Kellmeyer: if you keep making such comments, people will think it's you who has problems. (By the way, you don't seem to understand the definition of "shill.")

Steve Kellmeyer: Karl Keating, if you think Ed acquitted himself well in the whole "Mr. Voris, you should stop calling your organization Catholic" discussion, then you aren't as clear a thinker as I always considered you to be.

As the Voris discussion showed, Ed mostly spouts his cardinals opinion. That's what he's paid to do. He's a paid shill. 

Karl Keating: Steve Kellmeyer: Why did you bring up Voris? He's irrelevant to this discussion. Besides, I don't know what happened between him and Ed Peters, and I don't care.

As for Ed, it's no surprise that he "mostly spouts his cardinal's opinion" (even though Archbishop Vigneron isn't a cardinal).

Ed, like the rest of the faculty at Sacred Heart Major Seminary (among whom I have friends, including Ed Echeverria, Bob Fastiggi, Ralph Martin, and Janet Smith), is a believing Catholic, as is the archbishop, so of course Ed's opinion normally will match his boss's.

That isn't because Ed's paid to be a yes-man (which he isn't: otherwise he wouldn't have written against a cardinal [Nichols], cardinals tending to be friends with archbishops) but because he and Vigneron are in agreement on nearly everything.

That's how it should be, among the orthodox, whose religious opinions should be so in tune with the Church's teaching that these people seem to be echoing one another.

Steve Kellmeyer:Mr. Keating,

1) it isn't Ed's business to get between a priest and his bishop - which is exactly what Ed is publicly doing here. You would think a canon lawyer would have more sense. And since, in Christian charity, I can't imagine Ed is stupid enough to think otherwise, he must have another reason to put his oar in the water.

2) Ed's bishop may very well have reasons of his own for getting Ed to start a public campaign against another bishop. But it is certainly the case that Ed is the bishop's paid shill, which you haven't denied.

3) Having someone as a personal friend doesn't make them right. I find it remarkable that you would even raise that as a point. It's completely irrelevant.

4) Ed's past bad judgement and paid shill behaviour is relevant to his paid shill behaviour here

At which point, oddly, Mr. Keating disappeared from the discussion.

Now, I have been accused of being uncharitable. The accusation is perfectly accurate in the sense that I am not yet a saint, so I certainly lack charity.

But is it uncharitable to ask LifeSiteNews to stop invoking the Pope when they want to raise money for themselves?

Is it uncharitable to point out that a canon lawyer employed by a diocese is very publicly putting his oar into disputes that do not concern his bishop or his diocese, yet remains unrebuked by his boss? Why would a bishop allow his canon lawyer to stir up bad blood with another bishop? A cardinal? Nothing happens in a chancery office, nothing happens in a seminary, without the bishop's approval. Is it uncharitable to point this out? Or is it merely factual? 

In any case, LifeSiteNews seems to have pulled Pope Francis' name off the last petition, for which I applaud them. Perhaps they will take more care in the future. I certainly have high hopes that they will. 

Bad Idea: Rosary During Mass

Rorate Caeli, with the help of Pewsitter (the "Catholic" site whose attacks on the Pope are beginning to sound vaguely Masonic), has decided to defend the execrable habit of praying the Rosary during Mass. Because it is an indefensible position to take, RC simply tosses off a single line reference to an encyclical, pretending that this makes the practice ok.

The Pope has once again made his mind on the liturgical reform of the 1960's and Vatican II clear, and not without taking the opportunity to criticize the easiest of targets: the very few who still say the rosary at Mass (by the way, not a problem - cf. Mediator Dei, 181-184).

Let's take that apart. After all, what are the chances RC actually knows the Catholic Faith or papal encyclicals better than the Pope? Well, zero, actually.

To begin with, let me make clear that praying the Rosary during Mass is not just something done at Latin Mass. I've seen it done at Novus Ordo Mass as well. It is a practice born of the rankest of ignorance, generally performed by people completely unschooled in the Faith.

Liturgy: Highest Prayer of the Church

We must begin by understanding that liturgy is the highest and most ancient prayer of the Church. The Mass is the highest form of liturgy. All other forms of prayer are lesser and derivative. It is not possible for a Catholic to pray a better prayer than the Mass.

The Rosary, while a pleasant devotion, is simply nowhere near the same stature. The Rosary is a private devotion. It is certainly less than a thousand years old. The Rosary has never been a universal prayer within the Church. It is not part of the Mass, has never been part of the Mass and can never be part of the Mass. It is not liturgy. It is not even close to being in the same rank as liturgy.

The Mass can be traced back to the Last Supper. Compare this to the Rosary and the Hail Mary's which comprise it. These cannot be found in the West until over a thousand years after the Resurrection. The Rosary is not found in the East at all.

It is in any case certain that at the close of the fifteenth century the utmost possible variety of methods of (Rosary) meditating prevailed, and that the fifteen mysteries now generally accepted were not uniformly adhered to even by the Dominicans themselves.

The current form of the Hail Mary, which comprises the greater part of the prayer is not exactly ancient either.

In point of fact there is little or no trace of the Hail Mary as an accepted devotional formula before about 1050...In the time of St. Louis the Ave Maria ended with the words of St. Elizabeth: "benedictus fructus ventris tui"...it may be noticed that in some places, and notably in Ireland, the feeling still survives that the Hail Mary is complete with the word Jesus. Indeed the writer is informed that within living memory it was not uncommon for Irish peasant, when bidden to say Hail Marys for a penance, to ask whether they were required to say the Holy Marys too.

The rosary is a wonderful prayer, but it really has no more weight than the Divine Mercy Chaplet, the Memorare or any other non-liturgical prayer. Comparing liturgy with non-liturgy is like comparing God with His saints. Even Mary, Queen of Heaven, is infinitely less than God. The worth of an infinite number of Rosaries can never begin to remotely approach the worth of a single Mass.

An Extraordinary Exercise of Piety?

Now that we have a bit of the history cleared away, let's take a look at Mediator Dei's infamous articles #181-184

181. Any inspiration to follow and practice extraordinary exercises of piety must most certainly come from the Father of Lights, from whom every good and perfect gift descends;[166] and, of course, the criterion of this will be the effectiveness of these exercises in making the divine cult loved and spread daily ever more widely, and in making the faithful approach the sacraments with more longing desire, and in obtaining for all things holy due respect and honor. If on the contrary, they are an obstacle to principles and norms of divine worship, or if they oppose or hinder them, one must surely conclude that they are not in keeping with prudence and enlightened zeal.

Notice how article #181 fails to mention the Rosary at all. It talks about "extraordinary exercises of piety", but the test for whether these are actually acts of piety is whether or not they present "an obstacle to divine worship."  Since we haven't yet ascertained whether praying the Rosary during Mass presents such an obstacle, it's hard to argue that this article endorses praying the Rosary during Mass.

Indeed, for people who love to argue that the words of the Latin Mass are far superior to those of the Novus Ordo, it is striking that they also argue people can accomplish the same depth of meditation by focusing on any non-liturgical prayer. It is almost as if such people don't understand that the Mass, even a badly offered Mass which passed the test of validity but disobeyed the rubrics, is infinitely superior to even the most beautifully-said Rosary.

182. There are, besides, other exercises of piety which, although not strictly belonging to the sacred liturgy, are, nevertheless, of special import and dignity, and may be considered in a certain way to be an addition to the liturgical cult; they have been approved and praised over and over again by the Apostolic See and by the bishops. Among these are the prayers usually said during the month of May in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mother of God, or during the month of June to the most Sacred Heart of Jesus: also novenas and triduums, stations of the cross and other similar practices.

Alright, so RC should have quoted #182-184, instead of #181-184. But can we even admit #182? After all, look at the examples given for "addition to the liturgical cult". We see novenas, triduums, and stations of the cross, but no mention of the Rosary. Hmmm....

"Well," comes the rebuke, "of course the Rosary falls under 'other similar practices'!!!" Really? Does it? According to the Enchiridion of Indulgences, #63, in order to pray a legitimate stations of the Cross:

"A movement from one station to the next is required. But if the stations are made publicly and it is not possible for everyone taking part to go from station to station, it suffices if at least the one conducting the exercise goes from station to station, the others remaining in their places." 

Ok, so if we follow this line of reasoning, and argue that it is perfectly legitimate to pray the Rosary during Mass, then it is likewise perfectly legitimate for members of the faithful, or at least one member of the faithful, to do the stations of the Cross during Mass.

But in order to do the stations legitimately, that faithful Catholic would have to get up out of his pew during Mass, and move from station to station down the nave, standing, kneeling, genuflecting and praying aloud as appropriate for the stations, while others in the pew who choose to do so, pray along. So, say, as the priest ambulates down the nave during the Asperges, the faithful have the right to ambulate the nave praying the stations? During the consecration, there would be no issue with us praying the death of Christ on the Cross and fixing our eyes on that tableau rather than facing towards Christ in the Eucharist? That's your argument?

Because that's what you are doing when you pray the Rosary during Mass. Praying the Rosary during Mass is no different than saying, "Yes, I know Jesus Christ, present in the Eucharist, is available to me right now. But rather than go up and receive the actual Eucharist, I find my participation in the Mass is enhanced by always making a spiritual communion instead. Because, you know, spiritual. So, I'll just stay in the pew, me and my meditation, while you go up and do your Eucharist reception thing."

Rosary During Mass: A Protestant Attitude

In fact, it is essentially saying "What I do in prayer in the pew is the spiritual equivalent of what the priest does at the altar. My meditations are the focus of my presence at the Mass." People often wonder where the insane individualism of the post-Vatican II Church originated. They scoff when I point out that it began in the pre-Vatican II Church. It began with the people praying the Rosary during Mass.

183. These devotions make us partakers in a salutary manner of the liturgical cult, because they urge the faithful to go frequently to the sacrament of penance, to attend Mass and receive communion with devotion, and, as well, encourage them to meditate on the mysteries of our redemption and imitate the example of the saints.

For those with the eyes to see, #183 explains how all of this is supposed to work. You see, the novenas, triduums, devotions to Mary and the Sacred Heart, these devotions are to take place OUTSIDE of Mass. They are not liturgical.

They contribute to liturgy in the sense that when you pray them OUTSIDE of Mass, the prayers assist you in recalling to your mind and your being the graces you were given IN the Mass. Thus, these private devotions can help you spread the graces of the Mass into your day and into your life. But if you are focusing on these devotions while you are IN the Mass, then you aren't getting the graces of the Mass that you would get by actually... you know... participating in the Mass.

184. Hence, he would do something very wrong and dangerous who would dare to take on himself to reform all these exercises of piety and reduce them completely to the methods and norms of liturgical rites. (emphasis added) However, it is necessary that the spirit of the sacred liturgy and its directives should exercise such a salutary influence on them that nothing improper be introduced nor anything unworthy of the dignity of the house of God or detrimental to the sacred functions or opposed to solid piety.

See, you aren't supposed to turn the Rosary into a prayer of the Mass, because *the Rosary IS NOT a prayer of the Mass.* By referring to article #184 of Mediator Dei, Rorate Caeli actually provides the text that proves the exact opposite of what they intended to prove. These exercises of piety, such as the Rosary or the stations, are not to mix and mingle with the exercises of the liturgical rites. They Rosary complements the Mass, but it is not to be mingled with the exercises of the Mass.

So, not only do the articles referenced NEVER mention the Rosary, the articles referenced actually tell us NEVER to use the Rosary as if it were a liturgical prayer. That is, we should never pray the Rosary during Mass, because we thereby attempt (and fail) to turn the Rosary into a liturgical prayer when we do so.

The liturgy, particularly the Mass, is in every case an actual and direct participation in the eternal offering the Resurrected Christ makes of His Own Body and Blood. It is us lifted into heavcen, directly participating in the offering Christ makes of Himself to the Father in the Temple of Heaven itself.

The Rosary is, at most, a pleasant meditation. Praying the Rosary during the Mass is a distraction from participating in the Mass. Yes, even during the Latin Mass - it is still a distraction. Mary leads us to Christ, she doesn't lead us away from Him. Praying the Rosary during Mass is an abuse of Mary's prayer and it is an abuse of Mary. We pray the Rosary before Mass to prepare for Mass, after Mass to meditate on the riches given to us, but during Mass we pray the Mass, we do not pray the Rosary.

Anyone who tells you different is a Mason, a neocon or an ignoramus.

Assessing Your Parish

The Church has three primary tasks: to teach, to govern and to sanctify. Through the liturgy and the sacraments, we are sanctified, that is, we are given the power of grace, the ability to live the divine life. Through catechesis we are given the knowledge and motivation to live the divine life of love towards both God and our neighbor. All other aspects of the Christian life flow from The Church’s success in these tasks. Thus, the life of every parish is assessed by asking two questions:

(1) how well is the task of sanctification being carried out?(2) how well is the task of catechesis being carried out?

Sanctification:

1. Are sacraments readily available to all parishioners?
2. Are parents treated as priests of the domestic church (Familiaris Consortio, #38)?
3. Are all Catholics aware of and ready to embrace the salvific aspect of suffering?

Sacrament of Baptism

1. Are all Catholic parents aware of the importance of water baptism for their children as soon as possible after birth? 
2. Are all Catholics aware of how to perform an emergency baptism?
3. Are all Catholics aware of the effects of baptism? 

Sacrament of Confession

1. Is the Sacrament of Confession available on at least a bi-weekly basis at a publicly scheduled and easily accessible time?
2. Are all parish adults utilizing the sacrament?
3. Are parents, as primary educators, preparing their own children for reception of Confession? (CCC #2225)
4. Is the parish teaching parents how best to prepare their own children from reception of Confession?

Sacrament of Confirmation

1. Are all Catholic adults who approach the sacrament of marriage confirmed?
2. Are parents, as primary educators, preparing their own children for reception of Confirmation?
3. Are parents encouraged to prepare their children at or about the age of reason, as universal Church law recommends (Canon 97.2, 843.1, 852.1, 885)?
4. Are all children in the parish being confirmed no later than the maximum age set by the bishop?
5. Are priests aware they must confirm unconfirmed baptized persons in serious danger of death?
6. Are priests aware that all persons who approach the Church and have the use of reason must be both baptized and confirmed in the same ceremony?

Sacrament of Eucharist

1. Are parishioners aware of how to correctly receive Eucharist (do they know the signs of reverence, do they know how to examine their conscience, be in a state of grace, etc.)?
2. Are parishioners both knowledgeable about and made comfortable in exercising their right to receive Eucharist on their knees, after genuflection, after bowing, while standing, whether in the hand or on the tongue?
3. Are parishioners encouraged to take time to properly prepare themselves during Mass immediately before Eucharistic reception or do ushers, by word or action, distort the proper role of usher by instead dictating when the faithful can or cannot approach the sacrament during Mass?
4. Are parents, as primary educators, preparing their own children for reception of Eucharist? (CCC #2225)
5. Are the sacraments of initiation given in their proper order: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist?

Sacrament of Marriage

1. Are all Catholics approaching the sacrament of marriage aware that they must be open to life?
2. Are all Catholics approaching the sacrament of marriage aware that marriage is a life-long commitment?
3. Are all Catholics approaching the sacrament of marriage rejecting contraception and aware of NFP?
4. Are all Catholics approaching marriage aware of and do they embrace the three ends of marriage?

• The procreation of children
• The union of the spouses
• The remedy for concupiscence

Liturgy

1. Are EMEs kept to a minimum?
2. Does the parish liturgy typically incorporate Gregorian chant, as required by the Second Vatican Council (Sacrosanctum Concilium, #116)?
3. Are the musical instruments used at Mass “suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use, accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful.” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, #120)?
4. Is the Divine Office prayed regularly in a public way, so that the faithful may actively participate in the communal prayer of the Church?
5. Are all lay ministers in liturgical positions living an exemplary Catholic life?
6. Are all lay catechists living an exemplary Catholic life?
7. Do parishioners understand the Easter Vigil to be the "mother of all feasts"?

Catechesis:

Family catechesis

1. Are most parish catechetical sessions directed towards helping parents gain the necessary tools to be their own children's primary catechists (Catechesi Tradendae, #68, Familiaris Consortio#39)?
2. Are parents encouraged and expected to act as primary catechists, e.g., do the pastor and parish catechists dictate sacramental formation requirements, or do they advise, allowing parents the latitude to choose the most appropriate methods of formation for their own children (Familiaris Consortio, #40)?
3. Is the primary focus of parish catechetical efforts intended to give parents the tools to prepare their own children to receive first reconciliation, Confirmation and first Eucharist (CCC #2225)?

Primacy of Adult Catechesis

1. Is the primary catechetical task of the parish oriented towards adults (General Directory for Catechetics, #275, Catechesi Tradendae, #43, Our Hearts Were Burning, Chapter 1)?
2. Are weekly adult formation sessions being held for parents (Acerbo Nimis, #11)?
3. Are at least thrice-weekly adult formation sessions being held during Advent and Lent (Acerbo Nimis, #11)?
4. Are the best parish resources being focused on forming adult Catholics in their faith (OHWB, Chapter III)?
5. Is there a physical space appropriate to adults available in the parish in order to undertake adult catechesis?
6. Are teachings outlining how to live Church teaching regularly given (e.g., on sterilization, contraception, need for regular confession, etc.)?
7. Are regular doctrinal Scripture studies, encyclical studies and Church history sessions for adults made available in the parish?
8. Are lay church leaders (e.g., parish council members) thoroughly familiar with the documents of Vatican II and the catechetical documents?
9. Are parish catechists thoroughly familiar with the Magisterial documents on catechesis, such as the General Directory for Catechesis and Catechesi Tradendae?
10. Are parents thoroughly familiar with the Magisterial documents on marriage, family, and human sexuality, such as Familiaris Consortio, Letter to Families, Mulieris Dignitatem, Letter to Children, Humanae Vitae, and The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality?

Stations of the Cross

A great way to do the stations if you are snowed in.

FrancisChurch: Communist Given Sainthood!

A "Catholic" website recently headlined a story: "FrancisChurch: Bum given bishop's resting place"

This "Catholic" website likes to present itself as a voice for traditionalist Catholics, Catholics who are  tired of the way Pope Francis has allowed communists and socialists to take over the Church.

Let me tell you about one of the lousy socialist fakirs Pope Francis actually has the gall to admire and imitate.

A few years ago, a man had gained jurisdiction over a lot of money. Enormous wealth, in fact. Mind you, he hadn't worked for any of this loot, but he had it all the same. The government caught wind of it and decided it wanted a share. When the man was told he had to hand all this wealth over to the government, he demurred, indicating that he would need time to collect it all together. Treasury officials gave him three days to appear with the cash.

Just to prove what a liar the man was, and how spiteful he was, he didn't actually collect the cash at all. Instead, he spent the next three days giving away every cent to a bunch of stinking layabouts. Welfare queens, malingerers, wastrels - he just handed the money over to them. Word spread throughout the slums that this man was handing out free loot. He gave with such a free hand that by the end of the first day, crowds of them were following him around, hoping for more handouts. Typical FrancisChurch, isn't it?

Anyway, when the man finally appeared before the treasury official, he had no money at all, just a great crowd of stinking, lazy malingerers and wastrels behind him. When the treasury official demanded the money, the man turned to the crowd of welfare queens, he presented these poor, crippled, blind beggars, and said "These are the true treasures of the Church. The Church is truly rich, far richer than your emperor."

Thus did the stinking FrancisChurch communist, St Lawrence, the last of the seven deacons, suffer a martyr's death in 258 AD. Yes, you read that right. In FrancisChurch, this communist is actually considered a saint! Unbelievable!

He gave away the gold and jewels that belonged in the house of God! How outrageous is THAT!?!?  Why, if Pope Francis is going to take a man like that as an example, is it any wonder that FrancisChurch would bury a bum in the grave that by rights belonged to a consecrated priest? 

It's certainly not something that a traditionalist Catholic should have to witness!

Because I have always loved this story, and because I am a stinking FrancisChurch lover, I merely add this to the list of reasons I can never be a traditionalist.

Where Obama Got The Idea

Conservative circles have recently been making hay over Obama's comparison of the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition to recent jihadi activity. But, to be scrupulously fair, this wasn't Obama's idea.

In 2001, former president Bill Clinton delivered a speech at Georgetown University in which he discussed the West’s response to the recent terrorist attacks of September 11. The speech contained a short but significant reference to the crusades. Mr. Clinton observed that “when the Christian soldiers took Jerusalem [in 1099], they . . . proceeded to kill every woman and child who was Muslim on the Temple Mount.” He cited the “contemporaneous descriptions of the event” as describing “soldiers walking on the Temple Mount . . . with blood running up to their knees.” This story, Mr. Clinton said emphatically, was “still being told today in the Middle East and we are still paying for it.”

Both Clinton and Obama were playing to their Protestant base. After all, Protestants have advanced the "Crusades were evil" myth for a LONG, long time.

"This is the greatest of all sins and is one that no Turk commits, for Christ’s name is used for sin and shame and thus dishonored. This would be especially so if the pope and the bishops were involved in the war, for they would bring the greatest shame and dishonor to Christ’s name because they are called to fight against the devil with the word of God and with prayer, and they would be deserting their calling and office to fight with the sword against the flesh and blood." (LW 46:165) 

Luther believed that the pope used war as a means to steal from his followers. For him, the idea of a Christian crusade was nothing but a sham concocted to gain riches for the church. He states that “the pope never seriously intended to wage war against the Turk; instead they used the Turkish war as a cover for their game and robbed Germany of money by means of indulgences whenever they took the notion” (LW 46:164)

The original Martin Luther saw the papal attempt to stop Muslim encroachment as evil. Luther preached that the Muslims were a divine scourge on Christianity meant to pay Europe back for the evils of the papacy. Attempts to fight Islam were sinful attempts to fight against God. The Muslims of the era, on the other hand, saw the Crusaders as honorable opponents.

“During the Middle Ages you could not find a Christian in Europe who did not believe that the Crusades were an act of highest good. Even the Muslims respected the ideals of the Crusades and the piety of the men who fought them. But that all changed with the Protestant Reformation. For Martin Luther . . . argued that to fight the Muslims was to fight Christ himself, for it was he who had sent the Turks to punish Christendom for its faithlessness. . . . It was in the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century that the current view of the Crusades was born.”

The MSM smear is just the half-millennium old Protestant smear, writ large. Obama and Clinton repeat the smear because it sells to America's largely Protestant audience.

Unfortunately, conservative commentators who are now correcting the history on the Crusades are no more interested in the truth than were Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. After all, look at the facts. Like the popular history of the Crusades, the popular history of the Inquisition is at least as fictional, it is certainly as unrelated to the historical facts, as the popular history of the Crusades.

Yet the conservatives who want to wage war on Islam don't attempt to clear up the injustice done to the history of the Spanish Inquisition. It doesn't serve their purposes to do so. They want war. Whether that desire is a good idea or not is a separate question. The "Crusades were bad" meme interferes with their ability to make such a war popular. The inaccurate perception of the Inquisition doesn't harm their ability to wage war, so those inaccurate perceptions are ignored. Instead, they focus entirely on cleansing away the falsehoods surrounding the Crusades.

The Da Vinci Code was popular primarily because it simply re-packaged the Protestant version of Catholic history. The MSM "Crusades were bad" meme is just the same kind of re-packaging, a product that sells well in Protestant America. After all, you'll never hear about the Lutheran Crusades, or how the Zwinglians were willing to fight against the Islamic domination of Europe. Catholics were the only ones who put their bodies between Europe and Islam, defying the cruelty we see today.

Obama, Clinton, the MSM play the "anti-Crusade" meme because it is popular. All of them are playing to a VERY receptive audience. So, when conservative pundits claim Obama is wrong, they are - whether intentionally or not - completely missing the point of the comments. Protestants have fought to make Obama's remarks the truth for a long, long time.

Protestant American chickens, meet your historical roost.

Charlie Hebdo and Freedom of Speech

Many people argue that freedom of speech includes the right to mock someone else's religion. They seem to forget the origins of the First Amendment.

The first law concerning free speech on the North American continent was passed on April 21, 1649: Maryland's "Act of Toleration." Maryland was the only English Catholic colony on the eastern seaboard. The Act was the world's first prohibition on religious hate speech. It is universally acknowledged as the harbinger and model for the Constitution's first amendment protection of free speech.

So, what did the Act of Toleration say?

That whatsoever person or persons within this Province and the Islands thereunto belonging shall from henceforth blaspheme God, that is Curse him, or deny our Saviour Jesus Christ to bee the sonne of God, or shall deny the holy Trinity the father sonne and holy Ghost, or the Godhead of any of the said Three persons of the Trinity or the Unity of the Godhead, or shall use or utter any reproachfull Speeches, words or language concerning the said Holy Trinity, or any of the said three persons thereof, shalbe punished with death and confiscation or forfeiture of all his or her lands and goods to the Lord Proprietary and his heires.

And bee it also Enacted by the Authority and with the advise and assent aforesaid, That whatsoever person or persons shall from henceforth use or utter any reproachfull words or Speeches concerning the blessed Virgin Mary the Mother of our Saviour or the holy Apostles or Evangelists or any of them shall in such case for the first offence forfeit to the said Lord Proprietary and his heirs Lords and Proprietaries of this Province the summe of five pound Sterling or the value thereof to be Levyed on the goods and chattells of every such person soe offending, but in case such Offender or Offenders, shall not then have goods and chattells sufficient for the satisfyeing of such forfeiture, or that the same bee not otherwise speedily satisfyed that then such Offender or Offenders shalbe publiquely whipt and bee imprisoned during the pleasure of the Lord Proprietary or the Lieutenant or cheife Governor of this Province for the time being. And that every such Offender or Offenders for every second offence shall forfeit tenne pound sterling or the value thereof to bee levyed as aforesaid, or in case such offender or Offenders shall not then have goods and chattells within this Province sufficient for that purpose then to bee publiquely and severely whipt and imprisoned as before is expressed. And that every person or persons before mentioned offending herein the third time, shall for such third Offence forfeit all his lands and Goods and bee for ever banished and expelled out of this Province.

And be it also further Enacted by the same authority advise and assent that whatsoever person or persons shall from henceforth uppon any occasion of Offence or otherwise in a reproachful manner or Way declare call or denominate any person or persons whatsoever inhabiting, residing, traffiqueing, trading or comerceing within this Province or within any the Ports, Harbors, Creeks or Havens to the same belonging an heritick, Scismatick, Idolator, puritan, Independant, Prespiterian popish prest, Jesuite, Jesuited papist, Lutheran, Calvenist, Anabaptist, Brownist, Antinomian, Barrowist, Roundhead, Separatist, or any other name or terme in a reproachfull manner relating to matter of Religion shall for every such Offence forfeit and loose the somme of tenne shillings sterling or the value thereof to bee levyed on the goods and chattells of every such Offender and Offenders, the one half thereof to be forfeited and paid unto the person and persons of whom such reproachfull words are or shalbe spoken or uttered, and the other half thereof to the Lord Proprietary and his heires Lords and Proprietaries of this Province. But if such person or persons who shall at any time utter or speake any such reproachfull words or Language shall not have Goods or Chattells sufficient and overt within this Province to bee taken to satisfie the penalty aforesaid or that the same bee not otherwise speedily satisfyed, that then the person or persons soe offending shalbe publickly whipt, and shall suffer imprisonment without baile or maineprise [bail] untill hee, shee or they respectively shall satisfy the party soe offended or greived by such reproachfull Language by asking him or her respectively forgivenes publiquely for such his Offence before the Magistrate of cheife Officer or Officers of the Towne or place where such Offence shalbe given.

As a result of this act, Protestants whose own religions were persecuted in the various English colonies fled the other colonies to settle in Maryland. Within five years, the Protestant population had grown so large that the Protestants were able to revolt and overthrow the Catholic government of Maryland. The Protestants not only overturned the Act, they passed a law forbidding Catholics the right to worship in Maryland at all.

The Catholic governor managed to regain control and strike a deal, allowing the Act to be reinstated in 1658. That lasted until 1692, when the Protestants again overthrew the Catholic government, this time for good. The Act was again repealed, Catholicism again outlawed. By 1718, Catholics were denied the right to vote.

Prior to the Civil War, the Constitution was seen as only being applicable to the federal government, not to local state governments. Thus, many states in America's Constitutional Republic barred Catholics from various aspects of public life right up through the end of the Civil War.

When Pope Francis points out that no one has a right to mock another person's religion, he is echoing Maryland's 1649 Act of Toleration. He is invoking the Catholic history of the United States.

How many modern American Catholics realize this?

Infallible on Fracking?

Newsies are now saying the Pope is going to deliver an encyclical on the environment that will (a) denounce fracking, (b) embrace global warming and (c) give Greens throughout the world warm fuzzies because these statements will be infallibly stated in an infallible encyclical infallible. I threw that extra "infallible" in, because you're going to see that word a lot whenever the Pope says something the MSM thinks turns to their advantage. Might as well get used to it. We're going to see it a lot in the coming days. Sigh.

Anyway, we will ignore the fact that they are not similarly thrilled about the infallible teaching contained within Humanae Vitae, and get down to brass tacks. What is an infallible teaching?

This is almost always very badly explained.

We could yammer a bit about how an infallible teaching must be on a matter of (1) faith and morals, (2) to the whole Church, (3) pronounced with Peter's own teaching authority, and that it's very rare, yada, yada, yada.

But that all misses the point.

To begin with, infallible statements are not at all rare - they are extremely common. Second, anyone can pronounce an infallible statement - it isn't just restricted to the Pope. When I say, "God is Three Divine Persons in One Divine Nature", I have made an infallibly true statement. I have spoken infallibly.

To make an infallibly true statement, you need only teach what the Church has always taught. That's all. Period. Done. Infallible statements are made in every child's catechism class every day. They are made in every book that correctly enunciates Catholic doctrine, even books written by raging atheists. Teach what the Church has always taught and, boom!, you have spoken infallibly! You can do it, too! Try it!

Now, fracking is not a subject upon which the Church has always taught, therefore not subject to the charism. Same with global warming. Perhaps there is an underlying principle of preserving the environment - which arguably is a point upon which the Church has always taught. After all, Scripture, which is infallible Church teaching, talks about Adam (and therefore the rest of us, too), being set to steward the earth and the things within it.

All well and good. We must steward the earth, that is an infallibly true statement. But how we do it - that's a prudential judgement. The Pope is not infallible in matters of prudence. He is also not infallible on matters of technology or applied experimental science. Is fracking good or bad when it comes to stewardship? You have to know a whole lot, not only about the fracking process, but also about what would happen to people if we didn't do that and tried doing something else to get energy instead. Even if the Pope were to specifically denounce fracking in an encyclical (it won't happen, but let's say he did), good Catholics could look at the argument he brought forward and disagree.

Why? Well, because the Church doesn't have an eternal teaching on energy development and use. She has eternal teachings on the sanctity of human life, from its beginning to its natural end. How we use energy and the environment certainly impacts human life. But it isn't at the core of human life or the life of heaven. Energy use and environmental use are areas where we are to apply the principles of caring for each other as God cares for us, and figure out the best road given the tools we have developed.

IVF, contraception, euthanasia - these are at the core of human life. Doesn't matter what technology is being employed, people have a right to be conceived by two parents, spouses have a duty to be open to life, everyone has a right to food, water, and shelter and a right to not being murdered. Now, how we feed them - are GMOs good or bad? That's a prudential judgement. How we get the energy necessary to get them food, water and shelter. That's a prudential judgement. But having a lab tech conceive a kid in a Petri dish and then freeze him solid in liquid nitrogen? Yeah, that's not how God treats us, so that's not how we are supposed to treat each other.

So, what's the story with the three-point test and rarity and all that?

Well, there have been times in Church history when nearly the whole Church got themselves so confused on a doctrine that essentially no one was correctly enunciating the doctrine. Everyone was mis-teaching on it. In those situations, the Popes have stood up and clearly stated exactly what the doctrine is - those were infallible statements. But we, as a Church, were so crazy on the point that we had to go through that three-point list above to make sure we had heard it correctly and understood that he was authoritatively telling us to get our heads screwed on straight. That is the charism of infallibility - the ability to keep one's head and correctly teach what is necessary for salvation when everyone else is running around yelling nonsense like a lunatic.

Why Math Matters

I have done many things in my life, including teaching math at the college level.

The perennial question that math students ask is, "Why do I have to take this course? I will NEVER use this kind of math in real life."

Now, a lot of teachers will try to pretend that the student will actually use math. Heck, I tried to pretend that for a couple of years myself. But we all know it isn't true. Very few people outside of engineering use calculus. Calculus was required for my computer science degree, but I can honestly say I never used it for anything. At most, I've used a bit of algebra and a taste of geometry, and that's about it. Most people will never use the math they learn in school.

So why do so many college programs still require math?
Simple. Math is a marker for "meta skills." In order to do math well, you have to be:

1. Organized, 
2. Good at documentation,
3. Good at detailed work,
4. Good at following and trusting a procedure.

Those four skills are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to employers and to you.
You can't pass algebra unless you have those skills. In order to do any advanced math, you have to:

1. Learn many different procedures, 
2. Choose the right procedure from a multitude of different possibilities,
3. Be able to determine why your chosen procedure is or isn't correct for the situation, 
4. Be able to execute the chosen procedure correctly,  
5. Write down everything you do, every step of the way in an organized fashion so in case you DO forget anything or HAVE chosen the wrong procedure, you can find the problem and fix it quickly.

When every phone is a calculator, and life really doesn't involve much math, nobody really cares if you know math. Learning math is most assuredly not the point of math class.

However EVERYBODY cares about whether or not you have the skill sets listed above. The easiest way to teach those skills and demonstrate you have those skills is to say "I got an 'A' in [algebra, geometry, trig, calculus]."

You will do many jobs during your lifetime. All of them will have specialized procedures. The more you train your brain to quickly learn (seemingly) arbitrary procedures, the more jobs you will qualify for, the easier it will be to earn a living. THAT is the point of taking all those math classes. People want to know you have those skills. Math is the fastest way to prove you do. It is also the most straightforward way to teach you the skills if you don't have them, because math is nothing BUT those skills.

That's why every decent college program requires math.
If you're in a program that doesn't require math, you aren't going to college, you're going to a very expensive and pretentious grade school for grown-ups.

Deniable Intimidation

After teaching an American Political Science class over the summer, I realized why nearly every corporation is interested in "embracing diversity":

It is impossible to understand the politics of the Left without grasping that it is all about deniable intimidation. The real problem European anarchism solves is how to send bombs without seemingly sending them, or how to trash the Tory party headquarters in London without really doing it.

As you will soon see, the politics of the Left is really just the politics of those in power. The powerful want "deniable intimidation": the ability to intimidate the weak without looking like a bully. "Deniable intimidation" - that's what "diversity in the workplace" and "homosexual rights" is all about. If you have ever wondered why most corporations cave so readily to homosexual rights, or work so hard to implement "diversity" policies, you need look no farther than how power is structured in the workplace. You see, we know from political science exactly what diversity accomplishes in a population:

“in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down.’ Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.”

Studies make clear that workers are not comfortable in a "diverse" workplace. In fact, people don't like it at all.  People in "diverse" neighborhoods are less likely to be politically active than those in homogenous neighborhoods. In "diverse" settings, individuals aren't sure they can trust their neighbors so they tend to hunker down and say nothing.

…[E]verybody, well-educated and not well-educated, old-timers and newcomers alike, is affected negatively by increasing diversity. Holding constant socioeconomic resources, mobility, and many other things, as well, everybody is less likely to be engaged when they’re living in a more diverse town or city. That’s the research conclusion I found most startling: It’s not just that in the context of diversity people are less trusting of people who look different. It’s that in the context of diversity people are less trusting even of folks who look just like them.” (emphasis added)

So, why do politicians embrace diversity? Well, low turnout increases the likelihood an incumbent will win. High diversity means incumbent politicians get the low voter turnout they need.

How about the workplace? Why would businesses embrace diversity? In the workplace, low trust between workers means less likelihood of, say, union organizing activity. High diversity means low worker solidarity. Now, it is also true that having a diverse workplace means business problems tend to get solved faster, as many different experiences are brought to bear on a problem. Businesses talk endlessly about this advantage, but oddly enough, no one mentions the power structure advantages that a "diverse workplace" brings to management. "Diversity" is a win-win for corporate management, a lose-lose for the individual workers in that corporation. 

And that is why corporate America embraces diversity. That is why homosexual rights, Muslim tolerance and a rainbow workplace is considered the best environment for everyone: it is the best environment for everyone. Well, for everyone in power.

And now we can see why corporate America attacks and belittles Christianity. Christianity is a point of commonality, a rallying point for the 80% of Americans who still embrace a common set of values and a relatively common outlook on life. In America, Christianity is the opposite of diversity - it is unity and strength: the very opposite of what the powerful want from their little people. So, when businesses and media attack Christianity, realize that this isn't personal. It's just business.

Do you want to intimidate a group of men into being servile? Do you want to prevent their conspiring against or organizing against management, whether that management be corporate or political? Do you want to hang them separately to prevent them from hanging together? And do you want to do all this without being seen as a bully? Embrace diversity!