Dear readers: Gray Matters is moving! A friend of mine recently set up a new website for this blog, and it is now officially live!
Here is the link to the new website: catholicgraymatters.com. All of the old posts from this blog can be found on the new blog, as well.
I want to thank all of you who have followed Gray Matters over the past year and a half! Your support and readership has been invaluable; may God continue to shower you with blessings!
Monday, April 15, 2013
Saturday, April 13, 2013
The Media We Deserve
Many like to talk about how media outlets cover up major stories, like the abuse of drones. There are notable exceptions, but to a large extent, the charge of spiking stories contains an element of truth. For example, the lack of coverage of abortion provider Kermit Gosnell, which by all accounts is a monstrous horror, is truly appalling, and in large part ideologically based.
But the media is a business, which provides what its customers want. And what most Americans want is not cold, hard truth, which is what a free press should provide. Most people want to see celebrities making fools of themselves and politicians saying stupid things. We want news as entertainment: titillating sex scandals and lots of pictures of puppies and other cute animals.
We want from the media, in short, what we get. Our attention spans are too short for serious issues like debt and drones. Too many numbers, too many moral implications. And the media obliges our lack of healthy curiosity, and gives us a nothing cocktail.
It is indeed frightening that media outlets doesn't cover important issues. But what is truly frightening is that they don't cover major issues because our total lack of interest.
But the media is a business, which provides what its customers want. And what most Americans want is not cold, hard truth, which is what a free press should provide. Most people want to see celebrities making fools of themselves and politicians saying stupid things. We want news as entertainment: titillating sex scandals and lots of pictures of puppies and other cute animals.
We want from the media, in short, what we get. Our attention spans are too short for serious issues like debt and drones. Too many numbers, too many moral implications. And the media obliges our lack of healthy curiosity, and gives us a nothing cocktail.
It is indeed frightening that media outlets doesn't cover important issues. But what is truly frightening is that they don't cover major issues because our total lack of interest.
Friday, April 12, 2013
The Safe, Legal, and Rare Canard
Pro-abortion advocates often argue that abortion should be “safe,
legal, and rare.” In practice, however, they care little for the “safe” and “rare”
parts of that catchy and lying slogan. Their treatment of the horrific case of abortion "doctor" Kermit
Gosnell is proof of this.
The facts of the Gosnell case practically demand outrage. An
abortion provider – butcher would be a far better term for the man – plied his trade of
late-term abortions in horrific, disgusting conditions, with help from under-trained
and under-aged (One assistant was 15 years old) assistants. Gosnell’s
clinic was extremely unsanitary, crawling with venereal diseases, animal
feces, and severed baby feet in jars. (No, that last bit is not a typo.)
Gosnell was allowed to operate freely for over a decade, without interference or oversight. Gosnell’s nightmarish clinic was not inspected for 17 years –
17 years! – because
of "pro-choice politics", according to
a Philadelphia grand jury. Indeed, the horrors of Gosnell's clinic were discovered by accident. Other
abortion clinics also are
allowed to “self-regulate,” with (allegedly) disastrous results.
And for the most part, the media has been willfully and deliberately silent on the topic. Wikipedia is even
considering deleting its article on Gosnell, claiming that the incident is
a “local crime story.” Other “reporters” used similar
phrasing to justify their lack of coverage. Dishonest abortion advocates claim that pro-life advocates are responsible for the horrors wrought by
Gosnell – as though pro-lifers advocate for fewer restrictions on poor, already over-burdened abortion clinics. (Even as Gosnell’s trial is underway, reporters are
bemoaning “strict” new codes proposed for other abortion clinics.)
The obfuscation and silence from defenders of abortion is rather simple to explain. At least
two prominent writers
have stated that much of the reason for the media’s lack of coverage is due to widespread
support for abortion within the journalistic community, and a willingness to look away when their preferred “side” engages in indefensible activity. And until their fellow reporters are willing to open their eyes and expose evil (even done by their side) as evil, abortion will certainly be legal, but never safe and rare. And they will be just fine with that.
Gosnell and America's Moral Crisis
There is little that I can say about Kermit Gosnell, the infamous Philadelphia abortion "doctor" who (allegedly) brutally killed women and born children in a filthy "clinic," that others (including those whom I usually disagree with politically) have not already said. All that remains to say is this: when this house of horrors (warning - graphic descriptions) is buried by activist journalists, then America is undergoing a serious moral crisis of epic proportions, where even the most disgusting treatment of human life fails to stir the consciences of a callous nation.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
The Demise of Protestant Fundamentalism
The growing push among the intelligentsia to reject the exercise of religious influence in the public square (which is problematic on many levels) will prove highly detrimental to Catholics in the long run. But from a Catholic standpoint, this current push towards secularism has one silver lining: the death blow to the relevance of Protestant fundamentalism.
For the worldview of Protestant fundamentalists is completely dependent upon the primacy of Scripture. Protestant fundamentalists hold that the Bible is the sole source of revelation about God. Whenever science apparently conflicts with the Bible, Protestant fundamentalism chooses the Bible (or, more accurately, a literal interpretation of the Bible) over scientific evidence.
A fundamentalist belief system can flourish where Judeo-Christian norms are predominant. But the world has cast off Judeo-Christian norms, and the current intellectual climate rejects Scripture as an archaic book of fables. A belief system solely dependent on the Bible cannot flourish in a culture where the very concept of scriptural authority is considered balderdash.
While Catholics do rely on the Bible as a source of revelation, the Bible is not the sole source of revelation for Catholics. We also assert that Sacred Tradition is a source of divine revelation. Tradition allows us to understand how our Fathers in faith, guided by the Holy Spirit, used their reason to come to a greater understanding of thorny theological questions. The existence of Tradition necessitates reason in coming to understand God's revelation. Indeed, we Catholics believe that the moral teachings posited in the Bible are supported by reason; that God's existence is knowable and provable through reason as well as through revelation, and that the Church's doctrines do not conflict with science in any way.
In a culture which sets up reason as its highest principle (even as it rejects its use in practice), it is impossible to appeal to the authority of a centuries-old book, no matter how ancient or beautifully written, as an unimpeachable authority on faith, morals, and matters of science. The use of reason must be deployed to combat secularism in an age where reason reigns, to explain why the truths of the Bible are reasonable. This is why in a formerly Protestant country, resistance to the swelling tide of secularism increasingly takes on a Catholic character. It is also for this reason that Protestant fundamentalism is becoming increasingly irrelevant, since Protestant fundamentalism can only flourish in an already Christian culture.
For the worldview of Protestant fundamentalists is completely dependent upon the primacy of Scripture. Protestant fundamentalists hold that the Bible is the sole source of revelation about God. Whenever science apparently conflicts with the Bible, Protestant fundamentalism chooses the Bible (or, more accurately, a literal interpretation of the Bible) over scientific evidence.
A fundamentalist belief system can flourish where Judeo-Christian norms are predominant. But the world has cast off Judeo-Christian norms, and the current intellectual climate rejects Scripture as an archaic book of fables. A belief system solely dependent on the Bible cannot flourish in a culture where the very concept of scriptural authority is considered balderdash.
While Catholics do rely on the Bible as a source of revelation, the Bible is not the sole source of revelation for Catholics. We also assert that Sacred Tradition is a source of divine revelation. Tradition allows us to understand how our Fathers in faith, guided by the Holy Spirit, used their reason to come to a greater understanding of thorny theological questions. The existence of Tradition necessitates reason in coming to understand God's revelation. Indeed, we Catholics believe that the moral teachings posited in the Bible are supported by reason; that God's existence is knowable and provable through reason as well as through revelation, and that the Church's doctrines do not conflict with science in any way.
In a culture which sets up reason as its highest principle (even as it rejects its use in practice), it is impossible to appeal to the authority of a centuries-old book, no matter how ancient or beautifully written, as an unimpeachable authority on faith, morals, and matters of science. The use of reason must be deployed to combat secularism in an age where reason reigns, to explain why the truths of the Bible are reasonable. This is why in a formerly Protestant country, resistance to the swelling tide of secularism increasingly takes on a Catholic character. It is also for this reason that Protestant fundamentalism is becoming increasingly irrelevant, since Protestant fundamentalism can only flourish in an already Christian culture.
Monday, April 8, 2013
Ranking the Philosophical Systems of 5 Major Religions
A reader graciously commented on a recent piece I wrote defending the zeal of atheist leader Richard Dawkins. In the course of this conversation, I stated that Protestantism is the weakest of the major
philosophical systems that underlie major world religions, and was challenged to explain myself.
2. Atheism – This will surprise a lot of people, since I have written numerous posts attacking atheism. Why give such a lofty ranking to a system which I have spent an inordinate amount of time refuting? The answer is fairly simple: I write against atheism because I respect honest atheists as intellectual opponents, and because secularism is the biggest threat modern Catholicism faces.
1. Catholicism – Obviously, I am a Catholic writer - 250+ posts should suffice to prove that! But I am something of a reluctant Catholic. A world without many of the strictures of Catholicism is tempting. And my numerous posts on atheism should indicate at least a willingness to entertain the notion of a world without God serious thought, or at the very least an intellectual hearing. I have given the idea of switching faiths some thought – indeed, I believe that the question of God MUST be answered before any other question is asked, because the question of God's existence has so many implications for the rest of humanity.
This post will serve as an explanation for my assertion, by ranking the philosophical systems underlying five major
world religions/belief systems: atheism, Catholicism, Islam, Judaism, and mainline Protestantism.
I will not bother with cults like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which are patently absurd upon even cursory examination.
I will not bother with cults like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which are patently absurd upon even cursory examination.
5. Mainline
Protestantism – It will surprise many to think that a Catholic Christian
could rank the belief system(s) of fellow believers in Christ so low. After
all, most Protestants believe in the Trinity and the divinity of Christ, which
none of the other faiths presented in this post, save Catholicism, can claim.
There are three main reasons why Protestantism is last on this list. The first is the Protestant assumption of sola scriptura. Protestantism holds
that the Bible is the chief, if not the only, source of revelation from God. If
that is so, how was the Gospel preached before the works of the Bible were
written (The Gospel of John was written around 90 AD) and the canon of the Bible
was worked out (4th century AD)? Christianity predates the Bible; the Bible cannot be the sole source for revelation concerning the truths of Christianity.
The second is that personal interpretation of the Bible is inherently
fractious. Most sects of Protestantism hold that individuals can personally interpret the
Bible. If that is so, then why are there so many
denominations of Protestantism (and the chart shown in the link is only the
tip of the iceberg), many of which hold contradictory notions of God and whose moral teachings conflict with one another? Does this not contradict the prayer of Jesus for His followers, "that all of them may be one?" (John 17:21)
And the third is that Protestantism was
founded 15 centuries after the coming of Christ. What happened to Christianity
for 15 centuries after Christ? Were individuals who lived in the Middle Ages damned until Luther came along?
Protestants sometimes attempt to explain away this objection by claiming
that the church was corrupted
in its early days, and that true religion survived in the form of various
heresies suppressed by a corrupt Catholic Church. There are two problems with
this theory: 1) It contradicts Matthew 16:18, where Peter is told that the
gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, and 2) the heresies of the
Middle Ages contradicted each other.
4. Judaism – Judaism is the root of Roman Catholicism. So one might think that that a faithful Catholic would rank Judaism much higher on this list.
3. Islam – Islam ranks above Protestantism and Judaism? Surprisingly, in my estimation, yes. For Islam is not the deliberate rejection of one's own teaching, like Judaism and Protestantism, but a corruption of other teachings.
Protestantism and modern Judaism get so much right about God, yet hold to positions untenable throughout history. The very closeness of Protestantism and Judaism to the truth of Catholicism is the reason that they rank so low on this list – they come close to the truth, but miss the mark because they deliberately reject Catholicism. (Protestantism was formed in protest against the Catholic Church, while Judaism rejects their own Messiah.)
Judaism is based upon the longing for a promised Messiah who has already come. The Jewish people were the Chosen People of God, who were promised the Messiah, and were given certain signs to recognize the Messiah when He came. A man who fulfilled the conditions of the many prophecies of the Messiah came, and the Jewish people and elders rejected Him because they did not like the way in which He fulfilled the prophecies. And Christianity has risen since His coming, while Judaism has been eclipsed. There have been no Jewish prophets since the coming of Christ; there is only the endless wait in Judaism for a Messiah who has already come.
3. Islam – Islam ranks above Protestantism and Judaism? Surprisingly, in my estimation, yes. For Islam is not the deliberate rejection of one's own teaching, like Judaism and Protestantism, but a corruption of other teachings.
Islam believes in a God (Allah) of pure will. Allah is the maker of all things, the creator of both good and evil, unconstrained by anything. But if Allah is the creator of evil as well as good, then Allah must be in some measure evil - which would mean that His punishment of evil would be problematic, since evil is His creation. Why would He expect His followers to reject what He Himself created?
(In Catholic theology, God did not create evil; He creates beings with free will, giving them the opportunity to choose Him. If they do not choose Him, that is evil. He may permit human beings and angels to act contrary to His will, but He Himself is not the cause of that evil.)
An Islamic God might be possible, at least in an abstract sense, but He would have to be schizophrenic. There are other (lesser) problems inherent in Islam, such as the fact that Islam believes Jesus to be a prophet born of a virgin while the greatest prophet, Mohammed, was born naturally. Why would God allow a lesser prophet to receive a greater honor than His greatest and final prophet?
2. Atheism – This will surprise a lot of people, since I have written numerous posts attacking atheism. Why give such a lofty ranking to a system which I have spent an inordinate amount of time refuting? The answer is fairly simple: I write against atheism because I respect honest atheists as intellectual opponents, and because secularism is the biggest threat modern Catholicism faces.
It is possible to construct a semi-viable atheistic philosophical system. There are a few caveats: The problem of how exactly the “Big
Bang” took place is problematic: how and why did an unimaginably dense mass suddenly explode into the universe as we know it? Atheists have difficulty explaining
away certain miracles (the dance of the sun at Fatima comes to mind). However,
there is the possibility that naturalistic explanations can be discovered
for seemingly supernatural phenomena. Atheists can always point to the
possibility of scientists making future discoveries explaining previously inexplicable events.
The main problem with atheism as a philosophical system is
the problem of morality. For most atheists argue that morality
is a human evolutionary construct. It is perfectly logical to argue that human evolved to develop a system of morality, which prevents them from hurting
one another and facilitates the survival of the species.
However, the human species is composed of intelligent individuals who seek to maximize their own self-interest. Highly intelligent individuals recognize that morality is merely a tool to protect the weak from the strong, and that the strict practice of morality hinders their self-interest. If the most intelligent individuals of a species evolve to overcome their genetic hard-wiring, could not evolution be said to be working against itself? An atheistic worldview cannot logically preclude the vision of an amoral superman, who can transcend societal customs to impose his will on the rest of society.
However, the human species is composed of intelligent individuals who seek to maximize their own self-interest. Highly intelligent individuals recognize that morality is merely a tool to protect the weak from the strong, and that the strict practice of morality hinders their self-interest. If the most intelligent individuals of a species evolve to overcome their genetic hard-wiring, could not evolution be said to be working against itself? An atheistic worldview cannot logically preclude the vision of an amoral superman, who can transcend societal customs to impose his will on the rest of society.
Obviously, the atheistic inability to justify morality doesn't necessarily disprove atheism, per se. It does, however, render the atheistic insistence that morality is an evolutionary construct untenable.
1. Catholicism – Obviously, I am a Catholic writer - 250+ posts should suffice to prove that! But I am something of a reluctant Catholic. A world without many of the strictures of Catholicism is tempting. And my numerous posts on atheism should indicate at least a willingness to entertain the notion of a world without God serious thought, or at the very least an intellectual hearing. I have given the idea of switching faiths some thought – indeed, I believe that the question of God MUST be answered before any other question is asked, because the question of God's existence has so many implications for the rest of humanity.
I have written a fairly
literary defense of my Faith elsewhere, but much of it bears repeating.
Catholicism fuses the desire for the supernatural inherent in every human (and necessary for religion) with a grounding in the natural world and an appreciation for logic. Faith and reason work hand in hand in Catholicism;miracles and syllogisms happily coexist in the Catholic Faith.
Catholicism was founded by a man who claimed to be God and who wrought many miracles to prove His Godhood; a man whose simple yet profound teachings still strike like lightning across 2,000 years.
Catholicism was preached by uneducated cowards who ran away when their Master was killed, yet were so emboldened after their Master's death that all proclaimed His Godhood for the rest of their lives, and all but one were killed by secular authorities for their bold proclamation of their faith.
Catholicism fuses the desire for the supernatural inherent in every human (and necessary for religion) with a grounding in the natural world and an appreciation for logic. Faith and reason work hand in hand in Catholicism;miracles and syllogisms happily coexist in the Catholic Faith.
Catholicism was founded by a man who claimed to be God and who wrought many miracles to prove His Godhood; a man whose simple yet profound teachings still strike like lightning across 2,000 years.
Catholicism was preached by uneducated cowards who ran away when their Master was killed, yet were so emboldened after their Master's death that all proclaimed His Godhood for the rest of their lives, and all but one were killed by secular authorities for their bold proclamation of their faith.
The teachings of the Catholic faith on theology and morality have not changed, as befitting a Church claiming to be the keeper of the timeless teachings of Jesus Christ; Her customs have indeed changed greatly, as befitting a Church which claims to be the universal beacon of salvation to all men.
In short, I believe in Catholicism because the Catholic Church dares to claim that She is of divine origin, and 2000 years of history has more than proven Her claim.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Simplifying the Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage Debates (With Flowcharts!)
Political debates consist of highly opinionated individuals screaming at each other and misunderstanding (often deliberately) their opponents' arguments. Nowhere is this phenomenon more evident than during debates over abortion and same-sex marriage.
But these debates are surprisingly simple upon careful reflection. Out of the goodness of my heart (and a desire to protect my sanity from increasingly inane slogans and rhetoric), I am simplifying the abortion and same-sex marriage debates down to their barest essentials.
But these debates are surprisingly simple upon careful reflection. Out of the goodness of my heart (and a desire to protect my sanity from increasingly inane slogans and rhetoric), I am simplifying the abortion and same-sex marriage debates down to their barest essentials.
Regarding abortion: Is the fetus in a woman's womb human life or not?
If yes, then abortion should be outlawed, unless you go the Peter Singer or Mary Elizabeth Williams route and argue that terminating human life is acceptable in certain circumstances.
If no, then abortion should clearly be permitted.
If a fetus becomes a child at some point within the womb, then you permit abortion before it becomes a child, and outlaw it after that point.
Here's a flowchart explaining the abortion debate...
Here's a flowchart explaining the abortion debate...
Regarding same-sex marriage: For secular purposes (yes, I know Catholics like me consider marriage a sacrament, but we don't live in a society where Catholicism is the law of the land), is marriage an institution designed to encourage the procreation of children within stable families, or is it a legal contract recognizing the legitimacy of partners in a consensual relationship?
If marriage is a contract granting legal recognition to a consensual relationship, then same-sex marriage (and, for that matter, any consensual relationship) should be permitted by secular authorities.
If marriage is an institution designed to encourage the stable rearing of children, does the gender of the parents matter in the creation and raising of children?
If so, then same-sex marriage should be banned. If not, then same sex marriage should be permitted.
To illustrate this debate, here's a handy flowchart.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
The New Persecution
Last year, I wrote that a persecution is coming for American Catholics. Others wiser than I have made similar predictions. But the coming American persecution will not take the form of persecutions in previous eras and far-off lands. As a society, America has moved beyond wholesale execution (well, at least wholesale execution of the born). There will not be heaps of corpses left in the streets or arenas full of lions waiting to devour Christians. American Christians will not face wholesale red martyrdom.
White martyrdom is the future of the faithful American Christian. The new persecution will consist of relentless character assassination directed against those Christians who dare to uphold the teachings of the Faith, especially those teachings that conflict with the new morality of modernity (where reproductive freedom trumps all other rights).
This persecution will be severe enough to ruin reputations and careers. The continued media obsession with Catholic clerical sex abuse scandals that happened in the last century (and their utter unwillingness to discuss the epidemic of sex abuse of minors in America) is but a foretaste of the onslaught that will be leveled against faithful Catholics. The Church will be perpetually accused of aiding and abetting crime, scandal, and division. Christian morality will be attacked and blamed for every evil of modernity by a hostile press, no matter how fanciful or contrived the evidence. Christians will be forced to acquiesce in behavior they consider to be immoral (this is already occurring on a small scale), or face crippling fines or government sanction. Christian owners and administrators of charities and businesses will be shut down for failing to comply with the new morality.
Those who fight against the new morality will not face death; they will be branded as bigots and troglodytes and treated with utter contempt and hostility by the elites. Christians will serve as the scapegoats of the state, perpetually defeated but always treated as dangerous threats to the forces of progress. Like Snowball in Animal Farm or Goldstein in 1984, Christians will serve as omnipresent bogeymen, politically and culturally impotent yet somehow responsible for every societal ill afflicting America. Only at the end of this persecution (and most likely not even then), when the failure of the new morality is clearly evident, will government turn its sword against Christians.
But this will not happen for at least a generation, and it will be brief when it occurs. For as they did during all other persecutions, the forces of darkness will overreach, until they collapse under the weight of their own sin. Modern America will eventually follow the lead of other nations and blithely commit demographic suicide. Any society which embraces a culture of death is in the long run unsustainable.
The response of Christians to persecution must be the same as their predecessors' answer: unwavering fidelity to the truths of the Faith, trust in Christ's promise that His Church will not fail, and burning charity to friend and foe alike. Unwavering emphasis on the truth is the only real antidote to lies, constancy the eternal answer to despair, and charity the effective response to hatred.
White martyrdom is the future of the faithful American Christian. The new persecution will consist of relentless character assassination directed against those Christians who dare to uphold the teachings of the Faith, especially those teachings that conflict with the new morality of modernity (where reproductive freedom trumps all other rights).
This persecution will be severe enough to ruin reputations and careers. The continued media obsession with Catholic clerical sex abuse scandals that happened in the last century (and their utter unwillingness to discuss the epidemic of sex abuse of minors in America) is but a foretaste of the onslaught that will be leveled against faithful Catholics. The Church will be perpetually accused of aiding and abetting crime, scandal, and division. Christian morality will be attacked and blamed for every evil of modernity by a hostile press, no matter how fanciful or contrived the evidence. Christians will be forced to acquiesce in behavior they consider to be immoral (this is already occurring on a small scale), or face crippling fines or government sanction. Christian owners and administrators of charities and businesses will be shut down for failing to comply with the new morality.
Those who fight against the new morality will not face death; they will be branded as bigots and troglodytes and treated with utter contempt and hostility by the elites. Christians will serve as the scapegoats of the state, perpetually defeated but always treated as dangerous threats to the forces of progress. Like Snowball in Animal Farm or Goldstein in 1984, Christians will serve as omnipresent bogeymen, politically and culturally impotent yet somehow responsible for every societal ill afflicting America. Only at the end of this persecution (and most likely not even then), when the failure of the new morality is clearly evident, will government turn its sword against Christians.
But this will not happen for at least a generation, and it will be brief when it occurs. For as they did during all other persecutions, the forces of darkness will overreach, until they collapse under the weight of their own sin. Modern America will eventually follow the lead of other nations and blithely commit demographic suicide. Any society which embraces a culture of death is in the long run unsustainable.
The response of Christians to persecution must be the same as their predecessors' answer: unwavering fidelity to the truths of the Faith, trust in Christ's promise that His Church will not fail, and burning charity to friend and foe alike. Unwavering emphasis on the truth is the only real antidote to lies, constancy the eternal answer to despair, and charity the effective response to hatred.
Monday, April 1, 2013
Card Games: Rules for Veterans of War
No, this is not a post about our military. My brother and I invented a card game titled
Veterans of War back in high school. A friend asked me for the rules, so I
thought I’d share the rules of the game with my blog readers.
Veterans of War is a simple two player card game involving
both luck and strategy. All you need is a regular deck of cards to play the
game, which takes about 15-30 minutes.
The object of the game is to remove 13 cards from your deck before
your opponent. Cards removed from the deck become veterans of war.
Rules:
1.
Divide the deck up into two halves: red cards
(diamonds and hearts) and black cards (spades and clubs). Each player chooses
one half of the deck.
2.
Each card is ranked by its number or letter.
Aces are higher than kings, king are higher than queens, and so on and so
forth.
3. At first, gameplay proceeds as in the well-known card game War.
Both players sides shuffle their deck, and then each flip their top card over.
The highest card wins and is set aside in the victor’s pile. The lower card is considered captured and removed from play. In ties, both cards are removed
from the board. This process continues until both players go through their
hands.
4.
Players then sort through their victor’s piles,
set the order of their cards, and then repeat the process outlined in step 3. Play
proceeds until one (or both) players have all their cards captured or killed.
5.
If one player has a victor’s pile at the end of
the process outlined in steps 3 and 4, the cards in the victor’s pile become veterans of war. They are considered “retired”
from service, and cannot be used for the remainder of the game.
6.
Play continues as in steps 3, 4, and 5, with the
exception that veterans do not “fight.”
7.
Cards must “fight” in one battle to be
considered veterans.
8.
Gameplay is over when one player attains 13
veterans of war.
Tips:
Aces and twos can never be veterans of war. Use them strategically in later rounds.
If you find yourself with a larger victor’s pile
than your opponent, keep your lower-ranked cards in the back, where they will
not run the risk of dying. Having low-ranked veterans is a major advantage.
Have fun!
The Good Guys Don't Always Win
Humans are trained from an early age to expect the happy ending. In fairy tales and literature, the good guys win, the bad guys are imprisoned (or die) at the end, and everyone lives happily ever after.
But as we grow older, we learn that evil is practically omnipresent on earth. Theft, murder, lying, and laziness are all around us, and evildoers do gain from their actions. And "karma" is a sleepy avenger.
However, even in adulthood, there is a strong human tendency to cling to the comforting illusion that good triumphs over evil on earth; that progress is inevitable, that the "tide of history" that humanity is advancing onward to a new and glorious technological paradise, free of crime, war, disease.
Of course, this is complete and utter nonsense. On earth, evil triumphs over good a lot more often then we care to acknowledge. Murderers go unsolved. Men, women, and children are brutally enslaved. Dictators rule for decades at a time, and never receive punishment. In history, the victory goes to the dark side far more often then we like to think. Those who would seek a paradise on earth are perpetually disappointed.
The 20th century is the ultimate answer to the mistaken notion that progress is inevitable. Russia and China were overthrown by Communist revolutionaries, and their people enslaved under brutal dictatorships with a callous disregard for human life. (In fairness, Russia has had a penchant for brutal dictatorship for centuries, and China's regard for human life is cheap.) Germany elected a deranged dictator and came within a whisker of conquering the world, and managed to kill millions of Jews in its death knell. The world descended into brutal and bloody world conflict on multiple occasions.
One of the advantages of belief in an all-powerful, all-good God is that at the end, there is a reckoning for our deeds. The good are rewarded, and the wicked are punished. Indeed, for Christians all those fairy tales are a reminder that there is ultimate punishment for evil and eternal reward for doing good - just not in this life. As Christians, our hope is in the Lord, not in men.
But we are not in heaven yet; we are on earth, living in this "vale of tears," and the victory of good men is by no means certain What is constant is the never-ending struggle between good and evil - one that we must fight day by day, hour by hour, moment by moment.
But as we grow older, we learn that evil is practically omnipresent on earth. Theft, murder, lying, and laziness are all around us, and evildoers do gain from their actions. And "karma" is a sleepy avenger.
However, even in adulthood, there is a strong human tendency to cling to the comforting illusion that good triumphs over evil on earth; that progress is inevitable, that the "tide of history" that humanity is advancing onward to a new and glorious technological paradise, free of crime, war, disease.
Of course, this is complete and utter nonsense. On earth, evil triumphs over good a lot more often then we care to acknowledge. Murderers go unsolved. Men, women, and children are brutally enslaved. Dictators rule for decades at a time, and never receive punishment. In history, the victory goes to the dark side far more often then we like to think. Those who would seek a paradise on earth are perpetually disappointed.
The 20th century is the ultimate answer to the mistaken notion that progress is inevitable. Russia and China were overthrown by Communist revolutionaries, and their people enslaved under brutal dictatorships with a callous disregard for human life. (In fairness, Russia has had a penchant for brutal dictatorship for centuries, and China's regard for human life is cheap.) Germany elected a deranged dictator and came within a whisker of conquering the world, and managed to kill millions of Jews in its death knell. The world descended into brutal and bloody world conflict on multiple occasions.
One of the advantages of belief in an all-powerful, all-good God is that at the end, there is a reckoning for our deeds. The good are rewarded, and the wicked are punished. Indeed, for Christians all those fairy tales are a reminder that there is ultimate punishment for evil and eternal reward for doing good - just not in this life. As Christians, our hope is in the Lord, not in men.
But we are not in heaven yet; we are on earth, living in this "vale of tears," and the victory of good men is by no means certain What is constant is the never-ending struggle between good and evil - one that we must fight day by day, hour by hour, moment by moment.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Christ is Risen!
Christ is risen! Alleluia!
Below, you will find a video of the Exsultet (also known as the Easter Proclamation) being chanted. (Here is a translation.) The Exsultet is an ancient and beautiful hymn, celebrating this holiest of days. It perfectly conveys the glory and majesty of this day - the holiest day of the Church year, the anniversary of Christ's triumph over death itself.
Readers, have a blessed Easter!
Thursday, March 28, 2013
A Good Friday Meditation
Today is the anniversary of the day I, and every single one of us, killed God.
Oh, I did not personally hammer the nails into the cross of Christ, or wield the whip that scourged Jesus Christ, or demand of Pontius Pilate that He be crucified. None of us now living were even born during His Passion and death. But I am every bit as responsible for His death as those that hammered or scourged or jeered or spat at him.
For I (and every single one of us) am guilty of sin. And Scripture is clear: "the wages of sin is death." (Romans 6:23) We humans were barred from heaven because we chose to do evil. We chose death, and faced the consequence of eternal separation from our Creator.
But God loves us infinitely; He wants us to be with Him forever. And to pay the death sentence that by rights we should have suffered, Christ chose to die for us in an incredibly painful, excruciating manner.
This is how He died:
In an act of perfect love, Christ sacrificed Himself to open the gates of heaven and to pay the penalty that was the punishment for our sins. This is the same God who keeps us in existence in a continuous act of creation, without whom we could not exist for even a second. While He kept creatures in being, His creatures were killing Him. We murdered our Maker; He died to save those who killed Him.
Good Friday is the celebration of that unfathomable mystery of God's love, of how a deity who already gave us creatures our very being gave even His life to save His murderers from being punished for their crimes against Him.
Oh, I did not personally hammer the nails into the cross of Christ, or wield the whip that scourged Jesus Christ, or demand of Pontius Pilate that He be crucified. None of us now living were even born during His Passion and death. But I am every bit as responsible for His death as those that hammered or scourged or jeered or spat at him.
For I (and every single one of us) am guilty of sin. And Scripture is clear: "the wages of sin is death." (Romans 6:23) We humans were barred from heaven because we chose to do evil. We chose death, and faced the consequence of eternal separation from our Creator.
But God loves us infinitely; He wants us to be with Him forever. And to pay the death sentence that by rights we should have suffered, Christ chose to die for us in an incredibly painful, excruciating manner.
This is how He died:
In an act of perfect love, Christ sacrificed Himself to open the gates of heaven and to pay the penalty that was the punishment for our sins. This is the same God who keeps us in existence in a continuous act of creation, without whom we could not exist for even a second. While He kept creatures in being, His creatures were killing Him. We murdered our Maker; He died to save those who killed Him.
Good Friday is the celebration of that unfathomable mystery of God's love, of how a deity who already gave us creatures our very being gave even His life to save His murderers from being punished for their crimes against Him.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
A World Without Discrimination, and Other Fairy Tales
Eliminating government discrimination is an undesirable impossibility.
In an ideal world, people would agree to defend a specific list of rights. That way, individual conceptions of what constitutes "rights" would not conflict with one another, and the charge of discrimination would be impossible to make. Of course, it isn't an ideal world, and in practice, functional governments must practice some discrimination in some form.
Governments do not and indeed cannot outlaw personal discrimination in a world where people disagree on what constitutes a "right." But governments can and do choose which actions to discriminate against. Certain groups of like-minded individuals will always have the applications of their views limited by government.
Some forms of government discrimination are obvious and necessary. Obviously, governments discriminate against those whose belief systems encourage evils such as ritual murder, by not allowing those individuals to put their practices into action. Belief systems promoting actions harmful to life, liberty, and property are discriminated against by government.
There are other belief systems that are not directly harmful to life, liberty, and property that also face widely accepted government discrimination. Racism is a perfect example of a belief system that is (rightfully) discriminated against. Before the Civil Rights Era, a web of laws discriminated against people of color. Now, the shoe is on the other foot - businesses cannot, by law, discriminate against people because of their race.
Racist business owners could validly complain that they are being "discriminated against" by government. Their freedom to act in a manner which unfairly judges others based on the color of their skin would indeed be limited by law. And 95% or more of the US population would rightfully ignore their complaints, viewing discrimination based on race as detrimental to society.
Questions of discrimination are still being resolved in other areas. The members of the same-sex marriage movement are rapidly coming into conflict with defenders of religious liberty; the supposed "freedom to marry" is clashing with religious freedom.
These two freedoms cannot coexist peacefully. Society will be therefore forced to choose between upholding the old freedom of religious liberty, as outlined in the First Amendment, and the new "freedom to marry." And in making this choice, society must necessarily practice discrimination against one of these two groups. Either individuals in homosexual relationships will not have the freedom to marry, or the members of religious institutions will be forced to facilitate actions they oppose on religious grounds.
When government is forced to choose between two conflicting conceptions of rights, the defenders of at least one of these conceptions of rights will complain of discrimination.
In an ideal world, people would agree to defend a specific list of rights. That way, individual conceptions of what constitutes "rights" would not conflict with one another, and the charge of discrimination would be impossible to make. Of course, it isn't an ideal world, and in practice, functional governments must practice some discrimination in some form.
Governments do not and indeed cannot outlaw personal discrimination in a world where people disagree on what constitutes a "right." But governments can and do choose which actions to discriminate against. Certain groups of like-minded individuals will always have the applications of their views limited by government.
Some forms of government discrimination are obvious and necessary. Obviously, governments discriminate against those whose belief systems encourage evils such as ritual murder, by not allowing those individuals to put their practices into action. Belief systems promoting actions harmful to life, liberty, and property are discriminated against by government.
There are other belief systems that are not directly harmful to life, liberty, and property that also face widely accepted government discrimination. Racism is a perfect example of a belief system that is (rightfully) discriminated against. Before the Civil Rights Era, a web of laws discriminated against people of color. Now, the shoe is on the other foot - businesses cannot, by law, discriminate against people because of their race.
Racist business owners could validly complain that they are being "discriminated against" by government. Their freedom to act in a manner which unfairly judges others based on the color of their skin would indeed be limited by law. And 95% or more of the US population would rightfully ignore their complaints, viewing discrimination based on race as detrimental to society.
Questions of discrimination are still being resolved in other areas. The members of the same-sex marriage movement are rapidly coming into conflict with defenders of religious liberty; the supposed "freedom to marry" is clashing with religious freedom.
These two freedoms cannot coexist peacefully. Society will be therefore forced to choose between upholding the old freedom of religious liberty, as outlined in the First Amendment, and the new "freedom to marry." And in making this choice, society must necessarily practice discrimination against one of these two groups. Either individuals in homosexual relationships will not have the freedom to marry, or the members of religious institutions will be forced to facilitate actions they oppose on religious grounds.
When government is forced to choose between two conflicting conceptions of rights, the defenders of at least one of these conceptions of rights will complain of discrimination.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Palm Sunday Meditation
Today is Palm Sunday, and we are now (finally) nearing the end of Lent. The holiest time of the year is upon us. As such, the liturgies held during this time take on even more meaning than normal.
In Catholicism, there are two Gospel readings read on Palm Sunday. Every year, these same readings are read, and every year, I find myself meditating on a new reflection from these readings.
The first, shorter Gospel passage read today recounts Christ's triumphant entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, with the people of Jerusalem waving palms to welcome Him to their city. The second, longer Gospel passage tells of His betrayal and death just five days later, while the crowds mocked Him and called for His brutal crucifixion.
Today I found myself holding a palm during the long Gospel reading recounting Jesus's Passion. And then I, with the rest of my fellow parishioners, cried out: "Crucify Him!" while holding that very same palm. This was indeed fitting: in less than a week's time, those same people who proclaimed Jesus the Son of David called for his death, and I found myself in their number, calling for His demise while holding the very instrument of his welcome.
Of course, this was during the liturgy, during a scripted passage. But how striking it is that the same people who called for Jesus' death were those who proclaimed Him as their savior less than a week earlier! The Church wishes us to reflect on our own role in the death of Christ, and how we who claim Him as our King turn on Him every day through our own sin and selfishness. In a very real sense, I do turn from Him when I sin, and call for His death - He whom I claim as king.
Humanity is indeed fickle, raising men up to absurd heights in their hour of triumph and then turning on them instantly when they fall from power. And this quality of fallen humanity manifested itself during the period of Jesus's Passion 2000 years earlier, and still is all too familiar to us today.
In Catholicism, there are two Gospel readings read on Palm Sunday. Every year, these same readings are read, and every year, I find myself meditating on a new reflection from these readings.
The first, shorter Gospel passage read today recounts Christ's triumphant entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, with the people of Jerusalem waving palms to welcome Him to their city. The second, longer Gospel passage tells of His betrayal and death just five days later, while the crowds mocked Him and called for His brutal crucifixion.
Today I found myself holding a palm during the long Gospel reading recounting Jesus's Passion. And then I, with the rest of my fellow parishioners, cried out: "Crucify Him!" while holding that very same palm. This was indeed fitting: in less than a week's time, those same people who proclaimed Jesus the Son of David called for his death, and I found myself in their number, calling for His demise while holding the very instrument of his welcome.
Of course, this was during the liturgy, during a scripted passage. But how striking it is that the same people who called for Jesus' death were those who proclaimed Him as their savior less than a week earlier! The Church wishes us to reflect on our own role in the death of Christ, and how we who claim Him as our King turn on Him every day through our own sin and selfishness. In a very real sense, I do turn from Him when I sin, and call for His death - He whom I claim as king.
Humanity is indeed fickle, raising men up to absurd heights in their hour of triumph and then turning on them instantly when they fall from power. And this quality of fallen humanity manifested itself during the period of Jesus's Passion 2000 years earlier, and still is all too familiar to us today.
In Defense of Dawkins
Longtime readers of this site know that I am not impressed with the work of Richard Dawkins and his fellow atheists. His arguments against God and religion, to put it politely, are not very convincing upon even cursory inspection.
But he takes a lot of flak from many Christians for his virulent opposition to Christianity in particular and religion in general. For this strong opposition, it is hard to fault him, at least from a logical standpoint.
For if there is no God, then religion is a damnable lie - a lie that keeps millions in thrall to a non-existent God and enslaved by an absurd cocktail of rules. At the very best, religion serves as a money sponge to make gullible individuals people feel better - an expensive type of homeopathy of the spirit, so to speak. At worst, religion is an organized racket which causes millions to deny themselves pleasures for no purpose, allows unscrupulous individuals to wield arbitrary power over millions, and wastes countless hours of time and energy that could be spent in more valuable pursuits. If religion be wrong and contrary to reason, then it should indeed be destroyed.
And Dawkins and his fellows understand this better than most Christians. They have staked their souls and their reputations on the assumption that their is no God, and from their worldview religion truly is an evil which must be destroyed at all costs. If they believe that, they have every right to do all in their power to destroy religion.
Obviously, I believe they are wrong (this blog would look much different otherwise), and feel it is my duty to duel them. But they have the admirable courage of the conviction of their beliefs all too often lacking among Christians. There is a quote from the poet William Butler Yeats that describes them admirably: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are filled with passionate intensity." Would that Christians possessed so much zeal for their far worthier cause!
But he takes a lot of flak from many Christians for his virulent opposition to Christianity in particular and religion in general. For this strong opposition, it is hard to fault him, at least from a logical standpoint.
For if there is no God, then religion is a damnable lie - a lie that keeps millions in thrall to a non-existent God and enslaved by an absurd cocktail of rules. At the very best, religion serves as a money sponge to make gullible individuals people feel better - an expensive type of homeopathy of the spirit, so to speak. At worst, religion is an organized racket which causes millions to deny themselves pleasures for no purpose, allows unscrupulous individuals to wield arbitrary power over millions, and wastes countless hours of time and energy that could be spent in more valuable pursuits. If religion be wrong and contrary to reason, then it should indeed be destroyed.
And Dawkins and his fellows understand this better than most Christians. They have staked their souls and their reputations on the assumption that their is no God, and from their worldview religion truly is an evil which must be destroyed at all costs. If they believe that, they have every right to do all in their power to destroy religion.
Obviously, I believe they are wrong (this blog would look much different otherwise), and feel it is my duty to duel them. But they have the admirable courage of the conviction of their beliefs all too often lacking among Christians. There is a quote from the poet William Butler Yeats that describes them admirably: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are filled with passionate intensity." Would that Christians possessed so much zeal for their far worthier cause!
Friday, March 22, 2013
Should the Church Sell Her Artwork?
There is a common tendency among dissenting Catholics and opponents of the Church to criticize the supposed wealth of the Church. Many complain "If the Church would simply sell Her artwork, basilicas, and vestments, give them to the poor, and return to the simplicity of Christ, then I might be more inclined to listen to Her teachings!" This atrocious sentiment is apparently even shared by a certain disgraced Church Cardinal.
Those who believe this poor excuse for an argument exhibit extreme gullibility. It is naiveté bordering on deliberate self-deception to believe that those who criticize the Church for her poverty would simply convert en masse if She sold all Her artwork, vestments, and other beautiful possessions. (As an aside, shouldn't those who would buy the artwork be helping the poor instead of spending money on supposedly useless art?) Would the Church's critics, who mock or willfully distort practically every doctrine of the Catholic Church to suit their own ends, suddenly convert if the Church were to give all Her goods to feed the poor?
Not likely. Especially since the solution the Church's critics propose to end to poverty appears to consist of free birth control for everyone, having no children, and instituting higher taxes on others to fund government programs of questionable efficacy. (The willingness of the Church's critics to give away their own possessions to assist those in need is also questionable.)
Their complaints echo those in the Bible who complained against a woman washed Jesus's feet with expensive perfume in the Gospel. (Mark 14:1-10) Her detractors complained: "Why this waste of perfume? It could have been sold for more than a year's wages and the money given to the poor." Jesus rebuked them for their false concern, and reminded His followers that "the poor you will always have with you," but that He would not always be with them.
The Church is not foolish enough to sell off Her beautiful artwork in order to satisfy the hypocritical taunts of Her loudest detractors. In fact, She already does far more than any of Her critics for the poor. Her mission of service is not compromised by the beautiful gifts She owns. Besides, merely selling off all the Church's patrimony would not solve the plight of the poor; there are millions of poor individuals on this earth, and the money that would be gained from selling off the Church's artwork would prove to be at best a temporary solution (and more likely, not even that) for the plight of the poor.
But more importantly, the art and the decorations that the Church "owns," so to speak, are fashioned to reveal the glory of God. Artists labored to reveal the glory of God through their work. Their work is a foretaste of the beauty of heaven, and quite literally leads people to God.
And the Catholic Church generously presents this art to all. Most of the art She "owns" is located in churches open to the general public, available to be viewed free of charge. If the Church's art were located in private collections or even in museums, the poor would be unable to view the beauty contained within because of their poverty.
There are two paths to Christ and the truths of the Faith: intellect and beauty. The first path is the way of the intellect. But few are reachable by reason; the way of the scholar is not attractive to the common man with little time to think of the mysteries of heaven. And intellectuals are often led away from truth by their own arrogance and stubbornness.
The second, far more commonly taken path is the path of beauty. Yes, the example of good men and women serves as a spur to sanctity; the example of the saints inspires many to take on the sweet yoke of Christ. But beautiful objects which people create also can evoke a salutary wonder which can lead people to Christ. And the wonders of the liturgy, the glory of the basilicas, the spiritual messages of the artwork - these inspire men and women to think of a sublime God, and to think on higher things.
Update: After this was originally posted, a friend pointed out to me that the art in Catholic churches is available for all, including the poor, to view freely, whereas most museums charge for entrance. The Church makes Her beautiful art available to the public in a way that most museums do not. I have accordingly updated the post.
Those who believe this poor excuse for an argument exhibit extreme gullibility. It is naiveté bordering on deliberate self-deception to believe that those who criticize the Church for her poverty would simply convert en masse if She sold all Her artwork, vestments, and other beautiful possessions. (As an aside, shouldn't those who would buy the artwork be helping the poor instead of spending money on supposedly useless art?) Would the Church's critics, who mock or willfully distort practically every doctrine of the Catholic Church to suit their own ends, suddenly convert if the Church were to give all Her goods to feed the poor?
Not likely. Especially since the solution the Church's critics propose to end to poverty appears to consist of free birth control for everyone, having no children, and instituting higher taxes on others to fund government programs of questionable efficacy. (The willingness of the Church's critics to give away their own possessions to assist those in need is also questionable.)
Their complaints echo those in the Bible who complained against a woman washed Jesus's feet with expensive perfume in the Gospel. (Mark 14:1-10) Her detractors complained: "Why this waste of perfume? It could have been sold for more than a year's wages and the money given to the poor." Jesus rebuked them for their false concern, and reminded His followers that "the poor you will always have with you," but that He would not always be with them.
The Church is not foolish enough to sell off Her beautiful artwork in order to satisfy the hypocritical taunts of Her loudest detractors. In fact, She already does far more than any of Her critics for the poor. Her mission of service is not compromised by the beautiful gifts She owns. Besides, merely selling off all the Church's patrimony would not solve the plight of the poor; there are millions of poor individuals on this earth, and the money that would be gained from selling off the Church's artwork would prove to be at best a temporary solution (and more likely, not even that) for the plight of the poor.
But more importantly, the art and the decorations that the Church "owns," so to speak, are fashioned to reveal the glory of God. Artists labored to reveal the glory of God through their work. Their work is a foretaste of the beauty of heaven, and quite literally leads people to God.
And the Catholic Church generously presents this art to all. Most of the art She "owns" is located in churches open to the general public, available to be viewed free of charge. If the Church's art were located in private collections or even in museums, the poor would be unable to view the beauty contained within because of their poverty.
There are two paths to Christ and the truths of the Faith: intellect and beauty. The first path is the way of the intellect. But few are reachable by reason; the way of the scholar is not attractive to the common man with little time to think of the mysteries of heaven. And intellectuals are often led away from truth by their own arrogance and stubbornness.
The second, far more commonly taken path is the path of beauty. Yes, the example of good men and women serves as a spur to sanctity; the example of the saints inspires many to take on the sweet yoke of Christ. But beautiful objects which people create also can evoke a salutary wonder which can lead people to Christ. And the wonders of the liturgy, the glory of the basilicas, the spiritual messages of the artwork - these inspire men and women to think of a sublime God, and to think on higher things.
Update: After this was originally posted, a friend pointed out to me that the art in Catholic churches is available for all, including the poor, to view freely, whereas most museums charge for entrance. The Church makes Her beautiful art available to the public in a way that most museums do not. I have accordingly updated the post.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
The Price of Relevance
The eyes of the world have been upon
the Catholic Church since She chose Her new leader. Many of these eyes (especially in the press) have proven to be hostile to the new Pope Francis; highly speculative (at best) articles have already been written of the former cardinal's supposed indifference to sex abuse scandals and his supposed silence in the face of genocide. (Dr. Edward Peters has destroyed this last absurd charge.)
The intense media focus on the new Pope is to be expected, of course. Even before the conclave, speculation was thick and fast about who the new Pope would be. Journalists descended on Rome in droves. All prying eyes were shut out from the conclave which elected Pope Francis, so the products of a technologically advanced age found itself reduced to staring at a chimney, discerning the Pope's election through the color of smoke.
A Church which perpetually accused of being behind the times and irrelevant certainly receives an absurd amount of attention from the prophets of the new (im)morality of modernity. It is hilarious to watch the powers-that-be demand that She change Her doctrines to suit the modern age, as though acts of appeasement could satisfy the insatiable piranhas seeking Her destruction or Her alteration beyond recognition.
For Her implacable foes in the secular community know that She is their only opponent who could possibly halt their seemingly inexorable march to hedonism (and demographic suicide). Other sects of Christianity have doomed themselves to fracture into eternal oblivion. Other faiths (save Islam, but Islamic countries are choosing the same suicidal path as the secular world) pose no threat to their order. And the secular world despises Her for Her firm opposition to its brave new world.
The price of relevance is eternal hatred. This is why the Catholic Church stands apart from every other faith. She is relevant in a way that no other faith can or will be; a sign of contradiction in a troubled world, a conscience to a world which has mocked the very concept of conscience.
And those whom She must oppose will seek to destroy Her in any way imaginable. This is the reason that Her trolls levy constant filth at Her. It is the reason why the chattering classes so insistently demand She change. It is the reason opponents have chosen to rewrite history to denigrate Her. Unchanging in doctrine, She stands as the only viable challenge to those who would drive the world to suicide.
The intense media focus on the new Pope is to be expected, of course. Even before the conclave, speculation was thick and fast about who the new Pope would be. Journalists descended on Rome in droves. All prying eyes were shut out from the conclave which elected Pope Francis, so the products of a technologically advanced age found itself reduced to staring at a chimney, discerning the Pope's election through the color of smoke.
A Church which perpetually accused of being behind the times and irrelevant certainly receives an absurd amount of attention from the prophets of the new (im)morality of modernity. It is hilarious to watch the powers-that-be demand that She change Her doctrines to suit the modern age, as though acts of appeasement could satisfy the insatiable piranhas seeking Her destruction or Her alteration beyond recognition.
For Her implacable foes in the secular community know that She is their only opponent who could possibly halt their seemingly inexorable march to hedonism (and demographic suicide). Other sects of Christianity have doomed themselves to fracture into eternal oblivion. Other faiths (save Islam, but Islamic countries are choosing the same suicidal path as the secular world) pose no threat to their order. And the secular world despises Her for Her firm opposition to its brave new world.
The price of relevance is eternal hatred. This is why the Catholic Church stands apart from every other faith. She is relevant in a way that no other faith can or will be; a sign of contradiction in a troubled world, a conscience to a world which has mocked the very concept of conscience.
And those whom She must oppose will seek to destroy Her in any way imaginable. This is the reason that Her trolls levy constant filth at Her. It is the reason why the chattering classes so insistently demand She change. It is the reason opponents have chosen to rewrite history to denigrate Her. Unchanging in doctrine, She stands as the only viable challenge to those who would drive the world to suicide.
Monday, March 18, 2013
The Tyranny of the Moment
Like many American males, I love sports, and watch my favorite teams almost obsessively. (Especially the Denver Broncos.) I justify this mild obsession in many ridiculous ways, one of which is that sports often serves as a mirror of society as a whole.
One of the biggest trends in sports that society far too frequently mimics is the trend of living in the moment. For the narrative in sports is always the present. Rarely is the past dwelt upon, and the future is rarely considered by sports fans.
The obsession of the sports fan for immediate victory is almost legendary. This team is now in a 20-game winning streak. That team is 8-8 now, despite the fact it won the Super Bowl last year. Fans are a notoriously impatient bunch, calling for the heads of excellent coaches after one losing year. One fluke play can make the difference between a championship and a heartbreaking loss, between a great year and a nightmare year.
Of course, in sports, championships are not won overnight. Bad teams go through rebuilding years. (Some teams, like the Raiders, go through seemingly eternal rebuilding phases. No, I am not sorry for that gratuitous shot at that useless team.) Teams often have what are called windows - periods when they must win championships before their aging veteran stars retire. Good teams are often forced to build their championships in lean years, by getting rid of overpriced, mediocre players and by stocking up on young talent. Rabid fans will complain about immediate losses, but teams which placate their fans and shoot for success by overspending will attain mediocrity at best.
The tyranny of the now inherent in sports is similar in many respects to the attitude of society today. We want this expensive toy, and we want it now. I'll sin now, and take the consequences later. If we don't get a boatload of funding for this inefficient project, people will lose their jobs. And so on and so forth.
Thought is rarely given to the future and towards what must be done to survive in the long term. Short-term gratification is the order of the day. And we build up debt or bad habits or bad memories until we collapse under their weight. We mortgage the future for a few moments in the present.
It is rarely, if ever, the quick change that makes a long-term impact. Championships are built upon the slow, steady build-up to success; success in human endeavors is also founded upon determined emphasis on virtue. And the path to societal suicide is rarely a quick, spectacular downfall; it is the coagulation of a confluence of mistakes.
One of the biggest trends in sports that society far too frequently mimics is the trend of living in the moment. For the narrative in sports is always the present. Rarely is the past dwelt upon, and the future is rarely considered by sports fans.
The obsession of the sports fan for immediate victory is almost legendary. This team is now in a 20-game winning streak. That team is 8-8 now, despite the fact it won the Super Bowl last year. Fans are a notoriously impatient bunch, calling for the heads of excellent coaches after one losing year. One fluke play can make the difference between a championship and a heartbreaking loss, between a great year and a nightmare year.
Of course, in sports, championships are not won overnight. Bad teams go through rebuilding years. (Some teams, like the Raiders, go through seemingly eternal rebuilding phases. No, I am not sorry for that gratuitous shot at that useless team.) Teams often have what are called windows - periods when they must win championships before their aging veteran stars retire. Good teams are often forced to build their championships in lean years, by getting rid of overpriced, mediocre players and by stocking up on young talent. Rabid fans will complain about immediate losses, but teams which placate their fans and shoot for success by overspending will attain mediocrity at best.
The tyranny of the now inherent in sports is similar in many respects to the attitude of society today. We want this expensive toy, and we want it now. I'll sin now, and take the consequences later. If we don't get a boatload of funding for this inefficient project, people will lose their jobs. And so on and so forth.
Thought is rarely given to the future and towards what must be done to survive in the long term. Short-term gratification is the order of the day. And we build up debt or bad habits or bad memories until we collapse under their weight. We mortgage the future for a few moments in the present.
It is rarely, if ever, the quick change that makes a long-term impact. Championships are built upon the slow, steady build-up to success; success in human endeavors is also founded upon determined emphasis on virtue. And the path to societal suicide is rarely a quick, spectacular downfall; it is the coagulation of a confluence of mistakes.
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Happy St. Patrick's Day!
Happy St. Patrick's Day, readers! For most people, today is a day to drink heavily, party like crazy, pretend to possess Irish ancestry, and get dispensations from Lenten observances. People view St. Patrick as a man who ran around Ireland in robes, working a bunch of miracles, causing snakes to flee his presence, and using shamrocks to talk about God.
But St. Patrick was no novelty; he was a Rambo with a crozier.
He did not start out this way, however; his early life was not especially distinguished for its piety. And then he was captured by pirates, taken as a captive slave to Ireland... and his life really began.
He began to pray as never before, eventually managing to escape captivity with divine assistance. He was then called by God to Ireland, and was ordained as a priest and a bishop in preparation for the evangelization of Ireland. Despite the years he spent in captivity, he did not hesitate to take the message of the Gospel to those who captured and enslaved him.
On his arrival in Ireland, he was opposed by powerful forces; his life was threatened constantly by Irish chieftains and Druids, powerful pagan priests of Ireland. And he responded with incredible boldness; on the night of Holy Saturday he kindled a Paschal fire on Tara hill in defiance of Druidic rites. This fire, the Druids warned, would consume Ireland if it remained lit that night; they failed to extinguish it, and the fire of the Faith was indeed to consume all of Ireland. For the preaching and courage of St. Patrick converted the whole of Ireland; Ireland remains Catholic to this day, despite vicious persecution.
After Ireland was completely converted, he continued to minister to the land which had captured him. Legend has it that he fasted for forty days, successfully bargaining with God for the fate of Ireland.
The fate of a large island was forever changed by a man who lived a "normal" childhood, and fulfilled his call to devote his entire life to his faith and those who captured him. What, then, could be wrought through us, if we were to exhibit similar devotion in answering God's call?
The beautiful stained glass window in this post was made by Stained Glass Inc. Similar artwork can be found at http://www.stainedglassinc.com.
But St. Patrick was no novelty; he was a Rambo with a crozier.
St. Patrick preaching before the Irish High King, Leoghaire.
He began to pray as never before, eventually managing to escape captivity with divine assistance. He was then called by God to Ireland, and was ordained as a priest and a bishop in preparation for the evangelization of Ireland. Despite the years he spent in captivity, he did not hesitate to take the message of the Gospel to those who captured and enslaved him.
On his arrival in Ireland, he was opposed by powerful forces; his life was threatened constantly by Irish chieftains and Druids, powerful pagan priests of Ireland. And he responded with incredible boldness; on the night of Holy Saturday he kindled a Paschal fire on Tara hill in defiance of Druidic rites. This fire, the Druids warned, would consume Ireland if it remained lit that night; they failed to extinguish it, and the fire of the Faith was indeed to consume all of Ireland. For the preaching and courage of St. Patrick converted the whole of Ireland; Ireland remains Catholic to this day, despite vicious persecution.
After Ireland was completely converted, he continued to minister to the land which had captured him. Legend has it that he fasted for forty days, successfully bargaining with God for the fate of Ireland.
The fate of a large island was forever changed by a man who lived a "normal" childhood, and fulfilled his call to devote his entire life to his faith and those who captured him. What, then, could be wrought through us, if we were to exhibit similar devotion in answering God's call?
The beautiful stained glass window in this post was made by Stained Glass Inc. Similar artwork can be found at http://www.stainedglassinc.com.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
The Dangers of Drones
Anyone with a rudimentary awareness of American politics
knows about the proliferation of unmanned aerial vehicles, better known as
drones, in American warfare. Republican Senator Rand
Paul’s 12+ hour old-school filibuster provoked a strong
debate over the American usage of drones that is even now making political
waves.
It is important to remember that drones,
in and of themselves, are not evil devices. Indeed, the use of drones will
prove to be incredibly useful in future warfare. Unmanned drones are increasingly
accurate, inexpensive, and small enough to avoid radar. More
importantly, they will be unmanned – meaning the risk of friendly casualties
will be greatly reduced, if not eliminated, during future wars. Drones will also
prove to be incredibly useful for espionage, serving as effective unmanned
reconnaissance vehicles due to their small size.
The problem with drones is not that they are evil,
per se. Indeed, drones are a technological innovation that, properly used, could save thousands of
lives. The advantage of having an unmanned aerial force is incalculable; thousands of
lives could be saved.
However, it is clear that drones are devices which
can be easily abused. There is little to no risk of “friendly fire,” so there
is a greater opportunity for governments to engage in “trigger happy” behavior.
There is the problem of that drones can invade foreign airspace with impunity. There
is also the problem of anonymity: a drone can swoop out of
the sky and kill without warning, with no one the wiser as to the identity of the aggressor.
Already, multiple governments use drones in their arsenals. Drones may even get so
cheap that they may become viable weapons for rich individuals and corporations, as well as by governments.
Drones are not evil in and of themselves, but they
must be used very carefully, else grave harm will result. And fallen human nature being what it is, the leaders of governments will find ways to use them for evil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)