Fridays?

A while ago, I was surprised to learn that, for Catholics, all Fridays throughout the year remain days of obligatory penance.

I think (not sure), the most authoritative document on this subject is Paul VI's PAENITEMINI: The Apostolic Constitution on Fast and Abstinence. In Chapter III, he provides some norms for Catholics:

I. 1. By divine law all the faithful are required to do penance.

2. The prescriptions of ecclesiastical law regarding penitence are totally reorganized according to the following norms:

II. 1. The time of Lent preserves its penitential character. The days of penitence to be observed under obligation throughout the Church are all Fridays and Ash Wednesday, that is to say the first days of "Grande Quaresima" (Great Lent), according to the diversity of the rites. Their substantial observance binds gravely.

2. Apart from the faculties referred to in VI and VIII regarding the manner of fulfilling the precept of penitence on such days, abstinence is to be observed on every Friday which does not fall on a day of obligation, while abstinence and fast is to be observed on Ash Wednesday or, according to the various practices of the rites, on the first day of "Grande Quaresima" (Great Lent) and on Good Friday.

The USSCB echos this teaching when they write that "In memory of Christ's suffering and death, the Church prescribes making each Friday throughout the year a penitential day." This traditionally meant abstinence from meat, and the Church still holds this form of penance in highest regard. The U.S. Bishops have, with the authority of their office and permission from Rome, changed the regulations involved in the penance. Friday is still to be held as a day of penance, but abstinence from meat is no longer the only acceptable form. You can substitute some other penance.

Personally, I have found it difficult to practice some other form of penance. I am big fan of red meat, so I think that particular form of penance is appropriate for me. I also think there is something to be said for the universal obligatory abstinence from meat. It creates a sort of visible Catholic identity; in a way, a sign of the Cross.

Any Thoughts? From the Catholics? From the non-Catholics?

excluding and dividing people with labels

Henry Karlson, a contributor to Vox Nova, comments on some members of the anti-abortion movement he doesn't like:

I know many people who are pro-life who see that we must be pro-life in all aspects of our thought and culture, and that if you ignore life after the womb, which isn’t hidden, and find excuses to ignore it, it is obvious you will ignore what is also hidden. It’s why life at all stages must be protected. And aided. That which is more apparent has an effect and that which is hidden.

This is why I find many who are so-called pro-life are not; they are anti-abortion alone. They don’t know what it means to be pro-life. Their ability to shrug off death in front of them because it’s not in the womb is a disgrace.

It's an argument he's made many times before and in many different ways.

Where does he get the idea that, as a society, we “ignore life after the womb”? We certainly do not! Life at all stages after birth IS protected and aided by the law - in many respects!

Not advocating for a centrally planned health-care system is not “ignoring life after the womb”. Not advocating for a massive federal welfare system is not even close to “ignoring life after the womb.” Even less, could such advocates be considered, on the basis of their opposition to these programs, to be “anti-abortion alone”.

In my experience, and I suspect the experience of many others, people in the pro-life movement care about justice at all stages of life. It's just that - I don't know - most of them don't think Robin Hood is the greatest teacher of government and political philosophy.

Henry makes a very crass argument. Whether he intends it or not, his argument paints people who disagree with him, namely fellow Catholics and Christians, as somehow being enemies of the Gospel. Yuck.

Kass on the ethics of cannibalism

In the midst of his book The Hungry Soul Leon Kass provides a philosophical discussion of the ethics of cannibalism and their implications for human nature. Here is his disclaimer about the subject:

(I feel compelled to apologize to my readers for speaking about cannibalism, and not only because it is revolting. Some things should perhaps not be spoken of at all, for, especially in democratic times, familiarity breeds tolerance more often than contempt. Our sensibilities are blunted by frequent mentioning of the unmentionable, and the force of revulsion is weakened should an argument to defend the reasonableness of such revulsion fail to persuade. Still, unlike other once-upon-a-time horrors such as abortion, adultery, infanticide, suicide, sodomy, pederasty, incest, and bestiality, cannibalism is not an American temptation, and I doubt if my speaking about it can make it one. Moreover, we liberals ought to ponder the prohibition against eating human flesh - an act that, if the victim is already dead, is what we would call "a victimless crime." For we might thereby learn the insufficiency of our liberal belief that one does evil to a man only in violating his will or in not respecting his autonomy (read "mind"). Thus, by thinking about what's wrong with cannibalism, we might be able to re-discover the indispensable foundations of liberalism which are not themselves liberal.)

liberals, conservatives, and the American Constitution pt. 1

Modern liberals(progressives), following F.D.R. and some 19th century European intellectuals, do not believe in limited government. By and large, they reject the political order established by the American founders, which was a political order of separated and defined powers. They believe that the objects of all levels of the American government (local, state, federal) ought to be numerous and undefined, subject only to the whims of the people. Liberals want to progress beyond the limitations imposed by an earlier, and as they see it, benighted generation.

Conservatives, on the other hand, see good in the original American political order. Looking at the relative social stability, prosperity and progress the American nation has seen in the course of its 200-some-odd year history, they want to identify and conserve what is good in our particular tradition. Conservatives follow the Founders and some lessons from history and they argue that democracies can be unstable. Because of this, they say, the will of the people ought to be constrained to fight against the inherent instability. Conservatives believe the Constitution, in its constraints - the division and limitations of political power - has some valid purpose, and it is partially responsible for our stable political order. In short, they reject the idea that we should ignore entirely the advice of our Founders.

So, if liberals want to critique conservative ideas and vice versa, I would argue it has to be done on the level of principles. This is really the only way to make any progress in a conversation. And it is impossible to understand the principles that shape our government without attempting to understand the Constitution. Professor Russell Hittinger, in a previously mentioned lecture, has a masterful overview of our Constitutional principles. Here is a lengthy selection from his lecture, with some of my own emphasis.

But first, we must address a historical question. One of the framers of our Constitution, James Wilson, observed that the government created under the U.S. constitution was “hitherto a system unknown.” Why? Because the U.S. government was not just limited by law, or a feudal-rights system, customs and common laws, nor was it just limited by separation of powers (the executive, legislative, and judicial branches) Our new government was a brand new type of government, why? Because it was limited by other governments. Who has ever thought of such a thing? To create a government that is limited by other governments, according to a system of dual sovereignty. In fact, in Democracy in America, Alexis De Tocqueville contended that the entire genius of this new government is summarized in these four sentences from Federalist 45 (written by James Madison): “The power delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinable. The former will be exercised principally on the external objects of war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce, with which the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved for the several states, however, will extend to all of the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concerning the lives, the liberties, the properties of the people, the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the state.” Now, according to Madison, the political rule of this regime created in 1787 consists of two quite distinct governments. Not one government in a small version and one government in a big version, but two distinct types of government. For example, in Federalist 51, he writes “in the compound Republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is divided between two distinct governments, hence a double security arises to the rights of the people.” Now, on the one hand, there are the governments of the states, and as Madison says, there powers are “numerous and indefinable,” because the objects of there concern extend to all those things in the ordinary course of affairs that bear upon the common good – protecting happy hours, midnight basketball, education, crime, religion, just make a list, well make a list of everything President Clinton proposed in the State of the Union address a month ago and Madison would have thought they pertained to State government for the most part. Now, in this kind of government, which has numerous and indefinable powers, treating families, crime, education, hoot owls, all sorts of things, we would expect in this kind of government to be an abundance of moral language about government, because government is teaching things that are so immediately questions of morality and social morality – what is a family? What is a crime? - And so on and so forth. But, the U.S. government was not created to be that kind of government. The U.S. government was a government of few and defined powers, limited chiefly to foreign affairs and the collection of taxes to support the national government, having very few objects. SO the US government was not to be the kind of government in which Madison and his colleagues thought was a government that was going to be so quick to talk about moral discourse, because the objects that it reached were so few and far between. Remember, our Framers, by and large, were against even the government building roads – they thought they had really dropped the ball when they allowed the postal service, for Heaven’s sake. Our Framers did not conceive of the U.S. government as a general type of government. It was a government of few and defined powers.

It should be emphasized this does not mean the government is not informed by moral principles, but that those moral principles are kind of indirect. Rather than listing all the moral principles that ought to limit the U.S. government, our Framers simply decided to list the powers that it had. The Constitution is silent, by and large, on how the powers ought to be used from a moral point of view. Enumerated powers do not necessarily tell us whether any particular law made by the U.S. government satisfies or dwarfs natural rights. Nor does it tell us immediately whether liberties we have against the U.S. government are exercised rightly or wrongly from a moral point of view. Our Constitution is remarkable, among other reasons, because it does not talk about morality. It is not a target rich environment for moral discussion. Now, just a minute ago, I said that the word “right” is only mentioned once in our Constitution, it comes from Article I section 8 where Congress is given the authority grant temporary rights to inventors; but Article I section 8 does not tell us about whether or how this right is to reach something like a Kevorkian suicide machine, much less, which of any writings have any redeeming social value. Question: does Congress have authority under the Constitution to grant a temporary right to someone who is making a suicide machine? Yes, I think. Question: Should Congress use that power it has to give rights to the inventor of a suicide machine? My answer? Probably not! But the interesting issue is that the Constitution doesn’t tell us. The Constitution lets Congress make that judgment. It’s up to Congress to make the judgment about the morality of the use of that power. And who’s going to tell Congress? You and me, and other people as well. I’m sure corporations who want to get into the business of suicide machines as well. There will be a healthy conversation in Congress about Article I Section 8 power – how it should be used morally rather than immorally. The Constitution does not constitutionalize that issue. Is having the power to grant temporary rights to inventors and their inventions – is that in accord with natural law? Sure, it’s not out of accord with it. But the next question is – is any particular use of this power moral or immoral? That is not constitutionalized. To decide that question, it will do no good to read further into the Constitution. That question has to be decided by reflection and debate.

The key connection he makes here is the relationship between morality and the Constitution. The Constitution is silent on matters moral, and this upsets many thinkers. So the question for next time is: why is the Constitution silent on moral matters? Is this part of the problem of American government, or is it part of its genius?

neat Catholic stuff

A commentator named Fr. Andrew on Amy Welborn's website explains the distinctly Catholic concept of a parish.

...a parish is a geographical entity under canon law, so anyone living within the boundaries is technically a parishioner and their soul is the responsibility of the pastor and his parochial vicars. Though they may not be Catholic and so not be accorded certain rights (such as the Eucharist). The way modern language thinks of parishioners is a more protestant notion of individual decision and personal choice.

This is a great teaching and helps to explain exactly how the Church understands Herself - as universal, for every living soul.

the philosophy of biology

Leon Kass doesn't think the deterministic worldview makes any sense:

The living organism directs the comings and goings of molecules and all their inter-relations, as the legislative guides the executive or a musical score the musicians. And organization, legislation, and harmony, I remind you, are not themselves material.

None of this is altered by the marvelous findings of biochemistry and molecular biology, claims of molecular biologists or biochemists to the contrary nonwithstanding. We cannot here present a full argument. But suffice it to say that even DNA - the genetic material, the so-called molecular basis of life - functions not as a chemical material but as information carried by material. True, the information carried in DNA is borne by its material elements - that is, by the nucleotide bases (adenine, guanine, thymine,cytosine) - though here too the preservation of the same kind of base, not of this particular nucleotide molecule, is all that is required. True the nucleotides of DNA are chemically well suited to act as the coded letters of legislative messages for protein synthesis. But the medium is not the message. Call it a plan, a program, organization, whatever - this ruling principle is in itself immaterial. Proof: One can hold DNA molecules in a bottle, but one cannot physically hold or grasp the messages they carry.

This is an interesting argument but it leaves me with an odd feeling. It's spelled out a bit further in his book , The Hungry Soul. Not entirely sure what to think. In my mind, it seems to at least cast doubt on the capacity of science to explain, without ambiguity, all physical processes.

"Magic Johnson Shares 'Thoughts' On Lakers-Celtics Finals"

BOSTON — Appearing on ESPN's SportsCenter Wednesday, former Lakers point guard Magic Johnson provided his "thoughts," "insights," and "analysis" of the NBA Finals matchup between the Lakers and the Celtics, assuring viewers that the series will hinge on "whoever team does its things better more." "I think this, I think, this is really going to come down to basically overall game play and which team can win four or five games, and do it first," said the three-time NBA MVP, adding that scoring could also be as much of a major factor on the outcome as total points. "There's also a possible definite possibility of matchups occurring. Could happen, yeah. And we can't overlook the influence that—that that effect or effects, might have on something." When pressed by SportsCenter anchor Rece Davis as to which team was favored, Johnson responded by saying "the one that's going to win...Win the NBA championship."

bahah... I love the Onion, but poor MJ.

go Celtics!

blinded

The fashionable academic disposition is one that is critical of the status quo. Being privileged to observe our prosperous society 'from above', academics observe the relative levels of inequality in the world and tend to feel guilty (I'm not saying this is misplaced). This guilt manifests itself in a variety of ways, but it generally translates into a contempt for all things American. This turns into a blindness that corrupts their scholarly pursuit for truth.

However warranted their guilt may be, I do not think it is an excuse for not investigating the reasons that our society has been so successful, over and above others. We ought to be able to explain what is good about America without feeling bad about it. Likewise, we should be able to explain what is bad about America and prudently work to correct it.

I would argue that, being overcome with guilt, some academics are unable to honestly confront the foundational principles of our moral, cultural, and political system. It is obvious that, in America especially, human beings have been able to create a society where vast numbers of people live in a level of economic and social stability never before seen on the world stage. Faced with the massive inequalities created by the American experiment, should we buy into the Marxist argument that it is the result of the oppression of the working class? Or should we give the subject a more serious philosophical investigation before reaching our conclusions?

We are not simply what we eat

Socrates was wrong to say that all vice was the result of ignorance, and that all virtue can be instilled through education. But it's probably equally wrong to say that virtue cannot be taught at all. After all, good philosophers can be great teachers of virtue. If you would like to see evidence that substantiates this claim, I recommend Leon Kass's book The Hungry Soul. Kass is a masterful observer of those distinctly human things. Through his observations, we see clearly that the most distinctive human characteristic is the capacity for moral and spiritual greatness. By asking some simple questions about hunger, Kass demonstrates that even our physical nature is inclined towards greatness.

Over the next few days I will post a few highlights from Kass's overall argument so I don't forget them.

Here he is on one of my favorite subjects, wine:

Wine represents and encourages this elevated life beyond necessity and calculating rationality. Its very existence depends on surplus; one does not ferment the grapes or grain needed for survival. At a meal, too, it is a sign of freedom and grace, and also their cause. Offered to guests it betokens easy generosity, demonstrating that one clearly has more than the necessities for oneself. Indeed – to reconnect this discussion of the human food more explicitly to the humanizing custom of hospitality – drinking wine with someone goes beyond breaking bread. For wine permits and encourages us to let down our guard, to be at ease and in intimate communion with one another; the offer of wine expresses trust in and desire for such intimacy. For only with certain kinds of people, those who already are or we hope will become our friends, do we let wine dissolve our prudent caution. If basic hospitality, as was said, is an assertion against the dog-eat-dog character of the world, sharing a bottle of wine lifts us to the next step: the assertion of the friend-loves-friend possibility of the world, of human intimacy founded on more than common neediness.

But wine in excess does not elevate, liberate, or gladden: It makes men wild. Or perhaps one should say that it lets loose powerful animalistic forces latent in the soul; forces that wash out our ability to make distinctions; that work to overthrow our customs and restraints; that conduce to violence; that seek, as it were, to dissolve all form an formality into the primordial watery chaos. These wild and dangerous powers the Greeks attributed to the god Dionysus (Bacchus to the Romans), the god responsible for bringing wine to mankind. Though the Dionysiac is the enemy of civilization, civilized and upright man’s failure to recognize and placate the powers of Dionysus could lead to his ruin. Festivals that require ritualized drinking in large amounts – the Bacchanalia of the Greeks, Purim among the Jews – are an attempt to give the Dionysiac its due, but only by bringing it under strict regulation.

Wine, like the other human foods we have discussed, thus partakes of the moral ambiguity of the human. Like man himself it can enhance and it can destroy his humanity. Like the temptation to brutality connected with meat eating; like the temptation to domination and pride implicit in the institution of property, linked with bread and agriculture; like the temptation to excessive pursuit of the tasty at the expense of the healthful, implicit in the craving of salt and spices – so too the temptation to violent chaos is present in the gladdening fruit of the vine. Thus merely ruling out the eating of human flesh, though certainly just, is not enough to bring human eating under the aegis of virtue. How we eat, more than what we eat, will be decisive.

man as god as future president of the US

Well, it's finally over. With Obama securing the nomination, the Democrats have set themselves up for a super-victory come November. I don't think McCain has any chance, although I am historically very bad at these types of predictions. So with a future Obama-presidency in mind, it is worth taking a look at his deeper philosophical convictions. Here he is speaking in 2004 about his religion (HT: Closed Cafeteria)

Interviewer:
Do you believe in sin?

OBAMA:
Yes.

Interviewer:
What is sin?

Interviewer:
Being out of alignment with my values.

Admittedly this is a very clever answer, because he is able to satisfy all his possible constituents. First, he says everything necessary to maintain a critical distance from any real Christian belief. Thus it can be laughed off by party elite as something necessary to American politics at "this stage" in the greater progress of history. Second, he seems to be talking about values or something, so he gives comfort to people who have reduced Christianity to some type of governmental program that demands we redistribute wealth.

It's also worth pointing out the subjectivity of this response. Sin is being out of alignment with his values. But what are his values? Are his values his own, that is, of his creation? Or are they God's values? In which case, should they be everyone else's values too, or did God make different values for different people? How are we to know? Indeed, if we assume his values are of his own creation, than according to his definition, sinning is offending not another person (e.g. God), but only himself. In which case, what bearing should it have on anything at all?

Who the heck knows.

on the meaning of Atheism

The 'good' news of Bertrand Russell:

“That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins--all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built.”

-A Free Man’s Worship
1903

Understanding America

There are many different ways people understand the tradition and history of American liberty. Some perceive within the American experiment a radical individualism that threatens our solidarity and human brotherhood. Others perceive an insidious and inevitable march towards collectivism. More often than not, these two tendencies are viewed in opposition. Usually they are held by people of opposite political persuasions. But are these two understandings necessarily contradictory? I think not.

A distinction between our political tendencies and cultural tendencies is helpful here. The great Tocqueville, in his Democracy in America, argued (rightly, I think) that the movement of history was the unstoppable desire for more and more equality. This desire for equality, according to Tocqueville, tends to override all other concerns - even our desire for political freedom, our freedom from servitude. I think this is a strong force in our political culture. It is fair to say that both major parties value equality a priori, albeit in different ways.

And on the other hand, our culture is indeed poisoned by radical individualism. Most of us believe as a matter of faith that, so long as we do not intrude on someone else's freedom to do what they want, no wrong has been done. To see an example of this, think of those who argue for the legalization of suicide. It is accomplished with the specious 'don't tell me what to do with my body' argument, as if suicide has no effect on other persons or the well being of the community.

Both of these tendencies are poisonous to a healthy political community, and both of these tendencies are present in America today* . And they are related in a fundamental way. The radical individualism in our culture paradoxically affects our ability to control ourselves. As we isolate ourselves from each other and from moral truth, we start to lose control of ourselves. As we lose control of ourselves, we want the government to take control. This produces a something of a downward spiral towards some form of tyranny or corruption of the political order. Tocqueville and others thought American tyranny would be great but relatively benign - he was first to predict the nanny-state. But who knows how long the state will remain benign? What reason do we have to think that our power will always be used for the common good? I'm not sure.

So what is the necessary corrective to these two problems? Do we declare the American experiment a failure, as some are inclined to do? I think while the intentions of such an effort might be noble, it is ultimately wrongheaded. The problems we are discussing here are in no way unique American government. I think they can be traced to our fallen human nature, and will thus manifest themselves in any political community we establish.

So what is the solution? Both the Founders and Tocqueville though that the antidote was a religiously-informed people, a religious people. Why? Religion is the best teacher of self-government; of morals and mores; of discipline and prudence. And so I think this is what we should be demonstrating in our conduct in the public square - that we are a religiously-informed public. I'm not sure it's possible to recover such a thing, as it has already been lost. But I think we have to have hope, and I think we have good reason to hope if we get our principles right. There are great philosophical resources in the American natural law tradition that are worth rediscovering.

So the gist of this is as follows: the American experiment in self-government will fail if people who constitute the political community cannot self-govern. Individuals will not adequately self-govern unless commanded by some divine law. The more secularly-minded readers of this short essay might find themselves repulsed by such a conclusion, and that reaction is intentional. Criticism of any stripe is more than welcome!

(*I would argue both of these tendencies are in some way sown into human nature, but that's a topic for another day)

Selected Thoughts on Liberation Theology

I have begun a study of liberation theologies under the informal direction of Father James Schall, S.J. (this is a pretentious way of saying I'm reading his book). I beg your indulgence for the moment.

As much as the Marxist underpinnings of liberation theologies might repulse me, it is true that the greatest errors often reveal profound truths. Light can be found even in the darkest of places. I hope to put together my own thoughts on this subject sometime in the future, but honestly other people are more worth your time. And so, for now, I've selected some of the more profound passages of this book to share in hopes of some fruitful conversation.First up is a selection from an essay by a one I. Andre-Vincent.

Every human being carries within himself something which goes beyond uman society. This "beyond" arises from his direct relationship to the Absolute; it is lived in filial relation to God.

Politics must stop short at the threshold of the Absolute; it is not the whole of man. And in this thought lies the first principle of any true liberation: liberationist totalitarianism stumbles at this very threshold. The theologians of liberation must liberate themselves from totalitarianism; theirs is the worst of all totalitarianisms because it hides itself under the mask of liberty. In doing so they will not be denying the political dimension of their passionate concern and love. Perhaps they must exile themselves for a time from the drama of this world but only in order to reenter it with a deepened faith guided by divine love, with a new and freer capacity for involvement in human history.

For the sons of the kingdom, contemplation precedes involvement. Theology is born from that source where the eternal penetrates time, where God comes clothed in the flesh of the world. Daughter of the Word, theology precedes history as the redemptive Incarnation precedes salvation. Theology is the light of salvation, finding its first source in the gift of the Spirit.

No fact of history, no drama of humanity, even be it world-wide, can be the root of a theology of the liberation effected among men by Christ our liberator. The political situation of the Third World, no matter how extreme the state of oppression, no matter how urgent the cry for justice, cannot be the ultimate foundation of a theology. A political situation determines political actions, undertaken in the light of political principles. The fact that the Gospel illuminates political principles does not make them a theology. The liberation which Christ brings is not limited to a social drama but pertains to the drama of man face to face with God"

- PH.-I. Andre-Vincent, O.P in the "Theologies of Liberation"
trans. Rev. James McCauley, S.J., originally published in Nouvelle Revue Theologique 98 (1976) pp. 109-125.

Next up is that theological polymath, Hans Urs Von Balthasar. Herewith selections of his conclusions from an essay on Liberation theologies.

""1. At the Medellin Bishops' Conference there was much talk of estructuras injustas y opresoras (1, 2 and passim), of situacion de injusticia (1, 1 and passim) and situacion de pecado (2,1). Now, societal situations can be unjust, but in themselves they cannot be sinful. Only those persons can be sinful who are responsible for the existence of such situations and who continue to tolerate them though they could abolish or ameloriate them.

...

"3. Christians can share guilt in social injustice without actually realizing it, whether because of pure ignorance ... or because of an education that holds certain class privileges to be right which objectively are not so considering society as a whole. In such circumstances, the Church - both clergy and laity - has the duty to sensitive public opinion and thus usher in a more just balance of goods, without, for all that, globally condemning as "sinful" such a highly complex system as "capitalism".

...

"5. The urgency of the practical concerns of liberation theology is not called into quesiton by any criticism that may be made of it. But the totality of God's revelation to the world can in no way be reduced to political and social liberation, nor even to the general concept of liberation. Liberation theology has its specific place in a theology of the Kingdom of God. It is one aspect of the whole of theology and, in practical terms, it demands the Church's commitment to the shaping of the world as a whole in a manner conforming with Christ."

From Hans Urs Von Balthasar, "Liberation Theology in the Light of Salvation History" translated by Erasmo Leiva, originally published in Theologie der Befreiung (Einsiedeln: Johannesverlag, 1977)

Lastly a quote from Paul VI on use of the word liberation:

"We speak of 'liberation'. The Church esteems this term highly and makes it her own. In fact it is used most emphatically in her fundamental teaching, the good news of that redemption which brings freedom from evil and sin. It is evil and sin which constitute the principle obstacles to the true freedom of the children of God, the main link in that dreadful chain of slavery which drags mankind into indescribable chaos, ever aggravated by the dialectic of egoism and the corruption of the passions."

- Paul VI, in a talk on November 3, 1974. Doc. Cath., no . 1665 (12 Jan 1974), 1003

From my reading here, the main problem with liberation theology is that fundamentally alters the way we are to understand sin: sin is no longer something committed by an individual - sin is something that is committed by a society. This opinion, as the Church has consistently taught, is at odds with orthodox Christianity.

car bumper-sticker-er theory

Spending the majority of my time in a University town, I am privileged to see an usual variety and large number of bumper-stickers. Perceiving a distinct absence in the literature of serious philosophical and moral analysis of bumper-stickers, I have the somewhat modest hope of beginning such an endeavor here.

People like bumper-stickers for a number of interesting and contradictory reasons. Perhaps most noble goal of the car-bumper-sticker-er is to provoke thought. A witty turn of phrase might rouse an otherwise idle mind. And who knows where that will lead!

Bumper stickers are also a way to publicly display your affiliation, akin to a team logo or mascot. Bumper-stickers foster a certain solidarity - a "yeah, that's so true, I'm with them there." In turn, bumper-stickers also identify potential enemies: Yankees fans, liberals, neocons, anti-choicers, hippies, whatever. This affiliation also has the psychological benefit of making you feel like you have more friends than you really do.

Finally, perhaps the real reason people use bumper-stickers is to publicly demonstrate their moral or intellectual superiority. This makes car bumper-sticker-ers something like a self-conscious peacock. Maybe it's just the location and environment I'm in, but a large number of people I meet are convinced that everyone else is stupid. What better way to let those stupid people know they're stupid than to write it on your new Saab!

And so with that I would like to explore some of the sentiments of my favorite bumper -stickers seen around town. The bumper-stickers can often be understood in two diametrically opposite ways - positively or critically. I will attempt to fairly represent the thought process behind each reaction here.

Recently, I have seen what is perhaps my favorite bumper-sticker:

Positive reaction: I respect that driver's commitment to pacifism and general attitude of opposition to the military-industrial complex. Critical reaction: Really? No matter what? Why do you feel the need to tell us this?

Another popular one around campus is

Positive reaction: It's true! All religions say the same thing and so we should all stop disagreeing because disagreeing necessarily leads to fighting and violence. Critical Reaction: What? Not all religions are the same, and it certainly is possible to disagree with someone without fighting!

And I cannot forget the NH classic, the pie-chart

Positive reaction: Yes, of course! The federal government should spend all that money on war educating people and feeding poor people! Critical Reaction: In the first place, a pie-chart is not an argument, and in the second place, I'm not even sure that's a correct pie!

And finally, perhaps the most telling sticker of them all,





Positive Reaction: All I really want to do is smoke weed. Critical Reaction: Thought so.

(disclaimer: I write this as someone who has, in my life, put 1 sticker in the rear view window of my car. It is a regret of mine.)

life cannot be lived without joy

"Man cannot live without joy; therefore when he is deprived of true spiritual joys it is necessary that he become addicted to carnal pleasures."

- St. Thomas Aquinas

are there limits to politics?

This is a question I'd pose particularly to those of a democratic-socialist disposition (or anyone interested in thinking about politics). What, if any, are the limits to politics, and where do they come from? Father James Schall's website has an essay that touches on this subject. It also includes an interesting description of the intersection of Enlightenment optimism and political realism.

As a teacher in political philosophy over the years, I have become intrigued by the effect of reading with an average class of modern students both St. Augustine and Machiavelli, the archetypes of what is called in political philosophy "political realism". Often these same students are bent on saving the world, largely, as far as I can tell, by going to law school, itself something of a problem in political philosophy. For we can, in this context, recall St. Augustine's own sobering account of his early teaching career. In Rome, his own students failed to pay their bills. In Milan, he realized that preparing students for law and rhetoric would not lead either him or them to the highest things. Thus these youthful enthusiasms will not seem overly surprising or only confined to our own time and place.

Indeed, such suppositions about legal and political solution to moral and social problems form almost a recurrent phenomenon among those many who want to find the City of God in places wherein it is not likely to be discovered. Activism in our time seems so superior to contemplation; politics seems superior to mysticism. Charity has become, in effect, compassion, a very different thing as it is used. The first, charity, means God's love in everything; the second, compassion, implies that no one is judged by any criterion but his own, whatever that be. Compassion has replaced reason and obviated the need for forgiveness.

Within activism, and, probably as a consequence of the reversal of the classical priority of contemplation to action, furthermore, fewer and fewer intrinsic limits to politics and action are acknowledged or observed. The scope of a freedom in modernity is defined, to be brief, not by nature or by nature's God, but by a freedom itself subject to nothing further than the self. In a sense the heady freedom Machiavelli granted to the prince is substantially granted to or subsumed by everyone. "Every man a king" has come to have more sinister overtones in a world bereft handbooks for kings that also teach them to be morally virtuous.

When contemporary students first encounter St. Augustine, moreover, they are usually disturbed. They find themselves unsettled by Augustine's pessimistic view of human nature, even if they suspect that he might be right on the empirical side. They do not like to admit the legitimacy of his experience even when they admit, that is, that he might be a realist, that he just might accurately describe the dire things they see about them every day. In the moral order, we are reluctant to admit how little progress we have made, even more reluctant to relate this lack of improvement to ourselves.

To explain this instinctive dislike of the pessimism of an admittedly fascinating man like Augustine always is to contemporary students, we cannot forget that one component, conscious or unconscious, of any modern student's soul is always the Enlightenment heritage, itself not unrelated to the Pelagianism about which Augustine was so concerned. Thus, a student presumes that no evil is connected with our lot, with our choices. He assumes that improving the human condition is a relatively easy process brought about by changing a few political and economic patterns that are, apparently, unduly opposed by a few bad men. Just how, on the same presumptions, these same few came to be "bad" in the first place is not altogether certain. Rarely is the necessary change in society first to take place in one's own heart.

Schall's essay has a lot of food for thought, so I'd like to make just one brief comment.

I think political realism is difficult for most modern Christians to accept, because the Christian has to reconcile his eschatological hope with his teaching on original sin. Both of these Teachings must inform the Christian's politics. But all of us being children of the "enlightenment", we find it hard to imagine the ideal society on Earth being anything but the New Jerusalem. So we tend to put more practical emphasis on the hope and less on the reality of sin. And more simply, hope is easier to talk about than is sin!

mars!

via Bloomberg:

"We've passed the hardest part and we're breathing again,'' Mars Phoenix Project Manager Barry Goldstein said, according to NASA. The Red Planet's rocky terrain and equipment problems have led to the failure of more than half of all Mars missions, including a Phoenix predecessor destroyed in 1999.

Phoenix sent a signal confirming it landed safely in the northern polar region of Mars, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration said on its Web site. The message took 15 minutes to travel to Earth from Mars at the speed of light.

Obama's Supreme Court Nominees

Jennifer Rubin, a contributor to Pajamas media (Roger Kimball's weblog) investigates the Obama's probable nominees and overall judicial philosophy. Herewith some highlights:

Judge as Social Worker:

Taken literally, Obama’s conceives the role of the courts as roving advocates of the poor and disadvantaged who will look, not to the text and meaning of the Constitution, but to their own ethics and values — presumably very left-leaning ones — to override statutes, executive branch actions, and the American people themselves.

Given that, one wonders if confirmation hearings for Obama judicial appointees should skip over questions of the law and focus on the appointees’ religious and ethical views, their childhood experiences, and even their record of charitable giving. How else will we know whether they are “sympathetic enough”?

Defending abortion:

On abortion, Obama is an absolutist. Last April, he took strong exception to the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act (which had passed the House 281-142 and the Senate 64 [including 16 Democrats] to 33).

This is not simply then someone who believes women should have the last say in deciding whether to have an abortion, but one who believes that the courts should entirely displace the view of huge congressional majorities and public opinion to discern, as Calabresi bluntly puts it, “a constitutional right to dismember babies in a painful and somewhat violent way.” There is virtually no regulation or limit on abortion which Obama would likely find acceptable.

And perhaps the most important - the significance of his judges:

These issues and many others are not mere academic exercises. Under the next president, nearly 200 lower courts, which are in essence the “minor leagues” for future Supreme Court appointments, will be filled. And of course the entire Supreme Court could be refashioned.

We know from Obama’s vote (one of only 22) opposing the confirmation of now-Chief Justice Roberts that Obama will not be content to appoint a highly regarded Supreme Court advocate and judge. He apparently wants no part of a judge whose judicial philosophy can be summed up as: “Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules, they apply them.” We’ve seen repeatedly that Obama wants, not a referee, but a tenth man on the field — or rather one who always joins the team currently behind on the scoreboard.

It's all worth reading, check it out here.

A letter to my senator

Senator Sununu,

In light of your recent vote to approve the Iraq funding bill that includes a provision that gives Planned Parenthood a discount from drug manufacturers, I will be actively campaigning against your re-election in the fall. I will be encouraging all my fellow Republicans to do the same.

I hope you will reconsider your approval of the federal government sanctioning organizations such as Planned Parenthood.

Regards

a few laughs

The Microbe

The Microbe is so very small
You cannot make him out at all,
But many sanguine people hope
To see him through a microscope.
His jointed tongue that lies beneath
A hundred curious rows of teeth;
His seven tufted tails with lots
Of lovely pink and purple spots,
On each of which a pattern stands,
Composed of forty separate bands;
His eyebrows of a tender green;
All these have never yet been seen--
But Scientists, who ought to know,
Assure us that they must be so....
Oh! let us never, never doubt
What nobody is sure about!

- Hilaire Belloc