I knew there was something I liked about this guy! This is about the only thing however.
Pyro
5/03/2007
It's here!
My new Notebook just arrived!
I apoligize to all free workers everywhere. I see that the box declares that my new HP laptop is a product of China.
oh well,...
Pyro
I apoligize to all free workers everywhere. I see that the box declares that my new HP laptop is a product of China.
oh well,...
Pyro
Zero Tolerance
A conversation with a relative this morning got me thinking. Most schools have a zero tolerance for violence policy. What that means is that any violent act (fighting, wrestling, puching, kicking, assault) will get you expelled from school. No contingency exists which allows for defense of self or others. You strike someone, you're out!
Traditional Christian moral philosophy, best expressed by the Catholic Church in which subsists the fullness of God's revelation to man, says this about the legitimate use of force.
From the Catechism:
Legitimate defense
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67
2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68
I think zero tolerance policies are the cowards way out of using logic and reason when faced with the necessity of making a judgment of a situation. This cowards way out is probably the result of the litigation industry (attorneys) and their pursuit of money instead of justice. It is immoral and unjust to punish someone for excercising their right to defend themselves or another innocent party in the face of an assault.
I also wonder how much "zero tolerance policies" and the refusal to use corporal punishment in schools has contributed to the increase of violence in our society? If there were real and understandable reprecussions to misbehavior for students in K-8 (getting a spanking), would there be the amount of lethal violence in our schools? Why have things like Columbine and Virginia Tech started to happen?
Pyro
Traditional Christian moral philosophy, best expressed by the Catholic Church in which subsists the fullness of God's revelation to man, says this about the legitimate use of force.
From the Catechism:
Legitimate defense
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67
2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68
I think zero tolerance policies are the cowards way out of using logic and reason when faced with the necessity of making a judgment of a situation. This cowards way out is probably the result of the litigation industry (attorneys) and their pursuit of money instead of justice. It is immoral and unjust to punish someone for excercising their right to defend themselves or another innocent party in the face of an assault.
I also wonder how much "zero tolerance policies" and the refusal to use corporal punishment in schools has contributed to the increase of violence in our society? If there were real and understandable reprecussions to misbehavior for students in K-8 (getting a spanking), would there be the amount of lethal violence in our schools? Why have things like Columbine and Virginia Tech started to happen?
Pyro
5/01/2007
"It Didn't Happen Here"
This would be a good read. It talks about why Socialism never got the strong base here in the United States that it has in European Democracies. Of particular interest to me was the influence of both Catholic social doctrine, Protestant cultural tendencies, and the influence of Organized Labor.
(Excerpt from the Hoover Institution www.hoover.org)
Seymour Martin Lipset and Gary Marks.It Didn’t Happen Here: Why SocialismFailed in the United States.W. W. Norton & Company. 379 pages. $26.95
Socialism is fading throughout the Western world. In Germany, after two decades of immobility by the centrist Christian Democrats, taxes have now been reduced substantially by a Social Democratic government. In Australia and New Zealand, where conservative governments long pursued interventionist policies and left economies wracked by inflation, labor parties now apply neoliberal market principles. According to Seymour Martin Lipset and Gary Marks, the greatest ideological distance has been traveled by the Labour Party in Britain, whose leader, Prime Minister Tony Blair, stated in an interview that his administration would "leave British law the most restrictive on trade unionism in the Western world."
While the death knell sounds for socialist theories, it may be timely to consider again the old question of why the United States never experienced a socialist movement with the strength and durability of those in Europe or the revolutionary force of those elsewhere in the world. Lipset and Marks revisit this topic in their fine new book, It Didn’t Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States.
At first, socialists turned a hopeful eye to American shores. After all, by the late nineteenth century the United States had the most advanced capitalist economy in the world. Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and other socialist thinkers believed that a mature capitalist society would produce contradictions that would compel workers into a socialist mass movement. As we know, it soon became apparent that capitalism was not headed into collapse. The increasing mechanization of industry did not deprive businessmen of the surplus value "expropriated" from their laborers; rather, it created enormous windfalls, and at the same time made goods available to a broader proportion of the population than ever before.
Still, the American working class was not without grievances. As Lipset and Marks tell it, the Socialist Party of America did find limited popular support in the first decades after its founding in 1901. But the party achieved its very circumscribed success by maintaining its distance from European socialism and, instead, by laying claim to distinctively American values.
Much credit for the early success of the Socialist Party is due to its smart and charismatic leader, Eugene Victor Debs of Indiana, who first gained prominence organizing railway workers. In the 1912 presidential election, with Debs as their candidate, the Socialists received almost a million votes. They also did well in 1920, while Debs was in an Atlanta federal prison, serving time on a sedition conviction for speaking against the 1918 war bond drive. Popular outcry eventually led Republican Warren Harding to release Debs from prison. Throughout his career, Debs portrayed himself as a victim of government repression and capitalized on the American tradition of sympathy for free speech and hostility to the state.
Few socialists found their way into Congress, the most notable of these being Victor Berger, elected many times from Milwaukee, and Meyer London from Manhattan’s Lower East Side. Numerous cities, however, elected socialist mayors. Mayors Daniel Hoan in Milwaukee and Jasper McLevy in Bridgeport, Conn., were both longstanding Socialist Party members. The populations that repeatedly elected these men were not a stereotypical propertyless proletariat. The workers in these cities were homeowners and civic participants — members of unions and fraternal and life insurance societies.
In another contrast to European-style socialism, low taxes were a major plank in successful Socialist Party platforms. In Milwaukee, according to Lipset and Marks "[p]roperty taxes under successive socialist mayors from 1910 to 1940 were actually lower than in the period before and after their administrations." Socialist-led municipalities placed a strong emphasis on fiscal restraint and efficiency and on eliminating corruption. They often had the full support of the business community in addition to homeowning workers. Victor Berger, the leading socialist in Milwaukee, emphasized the consonance of socialist ideas with those of the American Founders, declaring in 1905: "Friedrich Engels once said: ‘Give every citizen a good rifle and fifty cartridges and you have the best guarantee for the liberty of the people.’ Thomas Jefferson held the same views exactly."
Lipset and marks provide an important analysis of the early American union movement, one which goes far in explaining the failure of European socialism to win adherents in the United States. In a section entitled "American Antistatism and Labor," the authors argue that the American labor movement long opposed programs that would have extended the role of the government. The reasoning behind this attitude, expressed eloquently by labor leader Samuel Gompers, was that the state would be far less likely to protect the American worker than to serve the interests of his corporate masters. Gompers was a London-born cigar maker who emigrated to New York in 1863. He was president of the American Federation of Labor (AFL) from 1886 until 1923 (except for 1895, after he was defeated by a Socialist Party candidate). Gompers advocated "the wage-earners doing for themselves what they can toward working out their own salvation," massing their own collective power against the power of the industrialists, without the intervention of the state. The authors note that "the AFL was opposed to state provision of old-age pensions, compulsory health insurance, minimum wage legislation, and unemployment compensation, and from 1914 on was against legislating minimum hours for men." Quoting historian David DeLeon, they argue that "‘Social democracy, communism, and other relatively authoritarian movements that rely upon coercive centers of state power’ have run against deep libertarian currents in American culture and as a result have never succeeded in developing deep roots."
The size and diversity of America’s immigrant population presented further obstacles, cultural and organizational, to the American socialist movement. Lipset and Marks report that by the mid-nineteenth century, only one-fifth of wage earners in the United States had native white parents, and almost three-fifths were of immigrant origin. The labor force in the United States soon became the most ethnically heterogeneous in the world, they state, and by 1930 "roughly one-third of the total population was of foreign stock." Seeking to explain "why the party failed to gain the allegiance of the poorest, most vulnerable sections of the population," Lipset and Marks point to the difficulties of uniting immigrants of different languages and cultures — populations which competed for jobs and whose ethnic animosities were often encouraged by employers and politicians. Studies have shown that immigrants were far more likely to look to their own people than to a political movement for help with their immediate needs and long-term security. Jewish and Catholic immigrants created flourishing voluntary and fraternal societies that provided social services and health, unemployment, and life insurance. Fraternal life insurance companies had 8.5 million members by 1910; more wage earners were members of fraternal societies than of labor unions. The proliferation of voluntary associations among Jewish, Italian, and Slavic immigrants in cities like Chicago and New York amazed reformers.
Moreover, the traditions immigrants brought from the old world were often hostile to socialist aims. Lipset and Marks point particularly to resistance to socialism among immigrants from Catholic countries. Political observers were already commenting on this phenomenon in the years before Word War I. Lipset and Marks cite British author G.D.H. Cole, who wrote, "the growing political strength of Catholicism was of great influence in keeping the Trade Unions aloof from any movement wearing a socialist label or ‘tainted’ with class war doctrine or materialist philosophy of action." Lipset and Marks argue that while Catholic leaders in the United States endorsed trade unionism, they repeatedly attacked socialism and pronounced the sanctity of private property. In doing so, they followed the lead of the Vatican, which condemned socialism in the papal encyclicals of 1891 and 1903. Archbishop Sebastian Messmer of Milwaukee did not transgress the bounds of his authority in declaring that "the private ownership of property is supported by the gospel apostolic teaching, and the rules of the Church, and is a divine ordination, not to be changed by the hand of man. . . . A man cannot be a Catholic and a Socialist."
As the proportion of Catholic workers grew, the American Catholic church also had direct influence over the political leanings of the labor movement. Church leaders urged the American Federation of Labor to adhere to Catholic social views and to eshew political remedies in favor of "pure and simple" trade unionism. They were persuasive. Lipset and Marks write that "Samuel Gompers, although a Jew, worked hard to convince Catholic church leaders that he was sympathetic to their outlook."
This analysis contrasts with the traditional linking of capitalism and bourgeois democracy with the Protestant faith, an association that arises from Max Weber’s original formulation in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Lipset and Marks argue the opposite: that there is a strong correlation between capitalism and Catholicism. They point out that "in Germany, socialism flourished primarily in the Protestant areas in the east, e.g., Prussia, while in western Germany, the Catholic Church, as in Latin Europe, repeatedly condemned atheistic materialistic socialism and weakened the appeal of the Social Democratic party." Recent studies have demonstrated that Catholic immigrants were longtime supporters of the liberal parties in England, Canada, and Australia, and the U. S. Democratic Party. As these parties strayed from principles of individual liberty, sound money, parental rights, and voluntarism, however, Catholics moved to the parties that newly espoused them, as the Republican party has done since the New Deal. Lipset and Marks do, however, lay at Protestantism’s feet another trait that repeatedly bedeviled the American Socialist Party — a tendency towards sectarianism, doctrinal wrangling, and schism.
Lipset and Marks thus demonstrate how homegrown traditions of mistrust of state power and respect for private property interacted with the attitudes of immigrant populations to deny European theorists’ dreams of a socialist America. They give credit to American affluence and social mobility. They lay out the reasons why the significant labor unrest of the years surrounding the turn of the century was not often expressed in political terms. And they point to structural features, foremost among them our two-party system, that made it difficult for the Socialist Party to gain a political foothold. It is by this close attention to historical circumstance, as well as a grasp of broad cultural features, that Lipset and Marks make an important contribution to a discussion that has been marred by overgeneralizations on one side of the political spectrum and bitterness and self-delusion on the other.
Pyro
(Excerpt from the Hoover Institution www.hoover.org)
Seymour Martin Lipset and Gary Marks.It Didn’t Happen Here: Why SocialismFailed in the United States.W. W. Norton & Company. 379 pages. $26.95
Socialism is fading throughout the Western world. In Germany, after two decades of immobility by the centrist Christian Democrats, taxes have now been reduced substantially by a Social Democratic government. In Australia and New Zealand, where conservative governments long pursued interventionist policies and left economies wracked by inflation, labor parties now apply neoliberal market principles. According to Seymour Martin Lipset and Gary Marks, the greatest ideological distance has been traveled by the Labour Party in Britain, whose leader, Prime Minister Tony Blair, stated in an interview that his administration would "leave British law the most restrictive on trade unionism in the Western world."
While the death knell sounds for socialist theories, it may be timely to consider again the old question of why the United States never experienced a socialist movement with the strength and durability of those in Europe or the revolutionary force of those elsewhere in the world. Lipset and Marks revisit this topic in their fine new book, It Didn’t Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States.
At first, socialists turned a hopeful eye to American shores. After all, by the late nineteenth century the United States had the most advanced capitalist economy in the world. Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and other socialist thinkers believed that a mature capitalist society would produce contradictions that would compel workers into a socialist mass movement. As we know, it soon became apparent that capitalism was not headed into collapse. The increasing mechanization of industry did not deprive businessmen of the surplus value "expropriated" from their laborers; rather, it created enormous windfalls, and at the same time made goods available to a broader proportion of the population than ever before.
Still, the American working class was not without grievances. As Lipset and Marks tell it, the Socialist Party of America did find limited popular support in the first decades after its founding in 1901. But the party achieved its very circumscribed success by maintaining its distance from European socialism and, instead, by laying claim to distinctively American values.
Much credit for the early success of the Socialist Party is due to its smart and charismatic leader, Eugene Victor Debs of Indiana, who first gained prominence organizing railway workers. In the 1912 presidential election, with Debs as their candidate, the Socialists received almost a million votes. They also did well in 1920, while Debs was in an Atlanta federal prison, serving time on a sedition conviction for speaking against the 1918 war bond drive. Popular outcry eventually led Republican Warren Harding to release Debs from prison. Throughout his career, Debs portrayed himself as a victim of government repression and capitalized on the American tradition of sympathy for free speech and hostility to the state.
Few socialists found their way into Congress, the most notable of these being Victor Berger, elected many times from Milwaukee, and Meyer London from Manhattan’s Lower East Side. Numerous cities, however, elected socialist mayors. Mayors Daniel Hoan in Milwaukee and Jasper McLevy in Bridgeport, Conn., were both longstanding Socialist Party members. The populations that repeatedly elected these men were not a stereotypical propertyless proletariat. The workers in these cities were homeowners and civic participants — members of unions and fraternal and life insurance societies.
In another contrast to European-style socialism, low taxes were a major plank in successful Socialist Party platforms. In Milwaukee, according to Lipset and Marks "[p]roperty taxes under successive socialist mayors from 1910 to 1940 were actually lower than in the period before and after their administrations." Socialist-led municipalities placed a strong emphasis on fiscal restraint and efficiency and on eliminating corruption. They often had the full support of the business community in addition to homeowning workers. Victor Berger, the leading socialist in Milwaukee, emphasized the consonance of socialist ideas with those of the American Founders, declaring in 1905: "Friedrich Engels once said: ‘Give every citizen a good rifle and fifty cartridges and you have the best guarantee for the liberty of the people.’ Thomas Jefferson held the same views exactly."
Lipset and marks provide an important analysis of the early American union movement, one which goes far in explaining the failure of European socialism to win adherents in the United States. In a section entitled "American Antistatism and Labor," the authors argue that the American labor movement long opposed programs that would have extended the role of the government. The reasoning behind this attitude, expressed eloquently by labor leader Samuel Gompers, was that the state would be far less likely to protect the American worker than to serve the interests of his corporate masters. Gompers was a London-born cigar maker who emigrated to New York in 1863. He was president of the American Federation of Labor (AFL) from 1886 until 1923 (except for 1895, after he was defeated by a Socialist Party candidate). Gompers advocated "the wage-earners doing for themselves what they can toward working out their own salvation," massing their own collective power against the power of the industrialists, without the intervention of the state. The authors note that "the AFL was opposed to state provision of old-age pensions, compulsory health insurance, minimum wage legislation, and unemployment compensation, and from 1914 on was against legislating minimum hours for men." Quoting historian David DeLeon, they argue that "‘Social democracy, communism, and other relatively authoritarian movements that rely upon coercive centers of state power’ have run against deep libertarian currents in American culture and as a result have never succeeded in developing deep roots."
The size and diversity of America’s immigrant population presented further obstacles, cultural and organizational, to the American socialist movement. Lipset and Marks report that by the mid-nineteenth century, only one-fifth of wage earners in the United States had native white parents, and almost three-fifths were of immigrant origin. The labor force in the United States soon became the most ethnically heterogeneous in the world, they state, and by 1930 "roughly one-third of the total population was of foreign stock." Seeking to explain "why the party failed to gain the allegiance of the poorest, most vulnerable sections of the population," Lipset and Marks point to the difficulties of uniting immigrants of different languages and cultures — populations which competed for jobs and whose ethnic animosities were often encouraged by employers and politicians. Studies have shown that immigrants were far more likely to look to their own people than to a political movement for help with their immediate needs and long-term security. Jewish and Catholic immigrants created flourishing voluntary and fraternal societies that provided social services and health, unemployment, and life insurance. Fraternal life insurance companies had 8.5 million members by 1910; more wage earners were members of fraternal societies than of labor unions. The proliferation of voluntary associations among Jewish, Italian, and Slavic immigrants in cities like Chicago and New York amazed reformers.
Moreover, the traditions immigrants brought from the old world were often hostile to socialist aims. Lipset and Marks point particularly to resistance to socialism among immigrants from Catholic countries. Political observers were already commenting on this phenomenon in the years before Word War I. Lipset and Marks cite British author G.D.H. Cole, who wrote, "the growing political strength of Catholicism was of great influence in keeping the Trade Unions aloof from any movement wearing a socialist label or ‘tainted’ with class war doctrine or materialist philosophy of action." Lipset and Marks argue that while Catholic leaders in the United States endorsed trade unionism, they repeatedly attacked socialism and pronounced the sanctity of private property. In doing so, they followed the lead of the Vatican, which condemned socialism in the papal encyclicals of 1891 and 1903. Archbishop Sebastian Messmer of Milwaukee did not transgress the bounds of his authority in declaring that "the private ownership of property is supported by the gospel apostolic teaching, and the rules of the Church, and is a divine ordination, not to be changed by the hand of man. . . . A man cannot be a Catholic and a Socialist."
As the proportion of Catholic workers grew, the American Catholic church also had direct influence over the political leanings of the labor movement. Church leaders urged the American Federation of Labor to adhere to Catholic social views and to eshew political remedies in favor of "pure and simple" trade unionism. They were persuasive. Lipset and Marks write that "Samuel Gompers, although a Jew, worked hard to convince Catholic church leaders that he was sympathetic to their outlook."
This analysis contrasts with the traditional linking of capitalism and bourgeois democracy with the Protestant faith, an association that arises from Max Weber’s original formulation in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Lipset and Marks argue the opposite: that there is a strong correlation between capitalism and Catholicism. They point out that "in Germany, socialism flourished primarily in the Protestant areas in the east, e.g., Prussia, while in western Germany, the Catholic Church, as in Latin Europe, repeatedly condemned atheistic materialistic socialism and weakened the appeal of the Social Democratic party." Recent studies have demonstrated that Catholic immigrants were longtime supporters of the liberal parties in England, Canada, and Australia, and the U. S. Democratic Party. As these parties strayed from principles of individual liberty, sound money, parental rights, and voluntarism, however, Catholics moved to the parties that newly espoused them, as the Republican party has done since the New Deal. Lipset and Marks do, however, lay at Protestantism’s feet another trait that repeatedly bedeviled the American Socialist Party — a tendency towards sectarianism, doctrinal wrangling, and schism.
Lipset and Marks thus demonstrate how homegrown traditions of mistrust of state power and respect for private property interacted with the attitudes of immigrant populations to deny European theorists’ dreams of a socialist America. They give credit to American affluence and social mobility. They lay out the reasons why the significant labor unrest of the years surrounding the turn of the century was not often expressed in political terms. And they point to structural features, foremost among them our two-party system, that made it difficult for the Socialist Party to gain a political foothold. It is by this close attention to historical circumstance, as well as a grasp of broad cultural features, that Lipset and Marks make an important contribution to a discussion that has been marred by overgeneralizations on one side of the political spectrum and bitterness and self-delusion on the other.
Pyro
May Day?
Today is the feast of St. Joseph the Worker.
Pope Pius XII hoped that this feast (established 1955) would accentuate the dignity of labor and would bring a spiritual dimension to labor unions. May 1st had been designated by communists as the day to celebrate the international solidarity of workers. Communism, and Capitalism to a certain degree, both lack truly benevolent behavior towards workers. Not that there aren't scattered examples of workers being treated well. The Church has put much effort in to combatting this attitude towards laborers. in 1891 Pope Leo XIII wrote his ground breaking Encyclical Rerum Novarum (On Capital and Labor). This Encyclical was instrumental in providing the moral impetus in changing the way laborers and industrialists related and how governments in the West finally took action to protect the lives and wellbeing of the workers.With Quadragesimo Anno in 1931 Pope Pius XI built on Rerum Novarum in pointing a way for us to establish a more just society in light of the changing political and industrial landscape of the times. With Laborem Exercens John Paul II further developed the thoughts of the previous Encylicals and applied them to the present day in order to address technological advances and failures of society in practicing the behaviors encouraged in the previous documents. In Centesimus Annus (On the Hundredth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum) John Paul II honored the 100th anniversary of Rerum Novarum by pointing out successes over the last 100 years and advances in the development of a more just society in relation to human labor. He also synthesised the thoughts of all the previous documents in pointing out needs of the present day and the future.
It's a lot of reading to make it through all those documents. But it would be very rewarding. It's often said that Pope John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher were instrumental in the downfall of Communism in Eastern Europe. Most of you could probably say what Reagan and Thatcher did to bring down the Iron Curtain. But you'd be hard pressed to describe what John Paul the Great did. Read these documents, then imagine a man who embodied the virtues put to paper and emboldened others to do the same. Half a billion people were freed from Communism without armed conflict. That's a miracle.
Thanks and honor to St. Joseph, Patron of Workers, who through the love of God the Father, the grace of God the Son, and the power of the God the Spirit confers God's blessings upon us in the Communion of Saints.
Pyro
Pope Pius XII hoped that this feast (established 1955) would accentuate the dignity of labor and would bring a spiritual dimension to labor unions. May 1st had been designated by communists as the day to celebrate the international solidarity of workers. Communism, and Capitalism to a certain degree, both lack truly benevolent behavior towards workers. Not that there aren't scattered examples of workers being treated well. The Church has put much effort in to combatting this attitude towards laborers. in 1891 Pope Leo XIII wrote his ground breaking Encyclical Rerum Novarum (On Capital and Labor). This Encyclical was instrumental in providing the moral impetus in changing the way laborers and industrialists related and how governments in the West finally took action to protect the lives and wellbeing of the workers.With Quadragesimo Anno in 1931 Pope Pius XI built on Rerum Novarum in pointing a way for us to establish a more just society in light of the changing political and industrial landscape of the times. With Laborem Exercens John Paul II further developed the thoughts of the previous Encylicals and applied them to the present day in order to address technological advances and failures of society in practicing the behaviors encouraged in the previous documents. In Centesimus Annus (On the Hundredth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum) John Paul II honored the 100th anniversary of Rerum Novarum by pointing out successes over the last 100 years and advances in the development of a more just society in relation to human labor. He also synthesised the thoughts of all the previous documents in pointing out needs of the present day and the future.
It's a lot of reading to make it through all those documents. But it would be very rewarding. It's often said that Pope John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher were instrumental in the downfall of Communism in Eastern Europe. Most of you could probably say what Reagan and Thatcher did to bring down the Iron Curtain. But you'd be hard pressed to describe what John Paul the Great did. Read these documents, then imagine a man who embodied the virtues put to paper and emboldened others to do the same. Half a billion people were freed from Communism without armed conflict. That's a miracle.
Thanks and honor to St. Joseph, Patron of Workers, who through the love of God the Father, the grace of God the Son, and the power of the God the Spirit confers God's blessings upon us in the Communion of Saints.
Pyro
4/26/2007
Rosie O'donnell and the Supremes
The United States Supreme Court recently ruled on a case that upheld the law passed by the United States Congress and signed into law by the President of the United States outlawing partial birth abortions (THIS LINK IS TO A PICTURE OF A PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION, VERY VERY GRAPHIC AND MONSTROUS). For those of you not familiar with how the United States government is designed to operate, this is a fine example of all branches of the government doing exactly, and only what their job description calls for.
Some people are upset about the ruling of the Court. The court was split with the decision being only a 5-4 majority. All five of the justices in the majority happen to be Catholic. Here is an article that discusses the decision through a legal lense. Unfortunately, the second page of the article is missing.
The point I would like to make is this; Catholic politicians who support the pro-abortion movement are all sophists. It's easy for us to determine the truth not by what's defended as being authentically Catholic, but by what's never attacked based on it being authentically Catholic.
Here are examples to illuminate my point;
The Supreme Court ruled that a law passed by Congress and signed by the President wasn't unconstitutuional. Enemies of the decision rightly recognize that the authentic Catholic moral teaching is that abortion is wrong. The five Supreme Court justices who were in the majority had an opinion that was consistant with authentic Catholic moral teaching. The Justices and their decision are being attacked based on the "Establishment Clause" of the Second Ammendment, AKA "The seperation of Church and State".
Everybody recognized the actions of the subjects (S.C. Justices) to be consistant with authentic Catholic Church teaching.
Congress doesn't pass a law (June 8, 1999 HR 1906) that would have prohibited the FDA from using federal funds for the testing, development, or approval . . . of any drug for the chemical inducement of abortion" (such as the RU-486 abortion pill). Nancy Pelosi (among many other Catholic (D's) vote against this. You heard no uproar decrying the vote of Madame Pelosi and other Catholics who voted with her as some type of violation of the "separation of Church and State".
Because everyone recognizes that their votes were totally inconsistant with authentic Catholic moral teaching.
What's my point? Well, I have two...
1. The only time people get upset about Catholic moral teaching is when it stands in opposition to the sinful lifestyle they want to lead, e.g. legalizing the murder of babies in the mothers womb, not paying workers a just wage or giving them reasonably safe working conditions, using artificial contraception to limit family size with no valid moral imperative, engaging in a homosexual lifestyle...
2. "Big Tent Catholics" or those Catholics who submit that their actions are justifiable because there is more than one valid Catholic position on certain moral issues are nothing but grown children trying to validate and excuse their misbehavior. Then they present themselves for Communion as if they are "worthy to receive..." and are incredulous when it's suggested they should be denied communion because of their actions for which they are unrepentant. All the while professing to be faithful Catholics. The fact that nobody attacks them for being Catholic or for allowing their Catholic beliefs to overly influence their public actions when they do things such as vote against banning partial birth abortions speaks volumes. The silence is deafening.
Pyro
Some people are upset about the ruling of the Court. The court was split with the decision being only a 5-4 majority. All five of the justices in the majority happen to be Catholic. Here is an article that discusses the decision through a legal lense. Unfortunately, the second page of the article is missing.
The point I would like to make is this; Catholic politicians who support the pro-abortion movement are all sophists. It's easy for us to determine the truth not by what's defended as being authentically Catholic, but by what's never attacked based on it being authentically Catholic.
Here are examples to illuminate my point;
The Supreme Court ruled that a law passed by Congress and signed by the President wasn't unconstitutuional. Enemies of the decision rightly recognize that the authentic Catholic moral teaching is that abortion is wrong. The five Supreme Court justices who were in the majority had an opinion that was consistant with authentic Catholic moral teaching. The Justices and their decision are being attacked based on the "Establishment Clause" of the Second Ammendment, AKA "The seperation of Church and State".
Everybody recognized the actions of the subjects (S.C. Justices) to be consistant with authentic Catholic Church teaching.
Congress doesn't pass a law (June 8, 1999 HR 1906) that would have prohibited the FDA from using federal funds for the testing, development, or approval . . . of any drug for the chemical inducement of abortion" (such as the RU-486 abortion pill). Nancy Pelosi (among many other Catholic (D's) vote against this. You heard no uproar decrying the vote of Madame Pelosi and other Catholics who voted with her as some type of violation of the "separation of Church and State".
Because everyone recognizes that their votes were totally inconsistant with authentic Catholic moral teaching.
What's my point? Well, I have two...
1. The only time people get upset about Catholic moral teaching is when it stands in opposition to the sinful lifestyle they want to lead, e.g. legalizing the murder of babies in the mothers womb, not paying workers a just wage or giving them reasonably safe working conditions, using artificial contraception to limit family size with no valid moral imperative, engaging in a homosexual lifestyle...
2. "Big Tent Catholics" or those Catholics who submit that their actions are justifiable because there is more than one valid Catholic position on certain moral issues are nothing but grown children trying to validate and excuse their misbehavior. Then they present themselves for Communion as if they are "worthy to receive..." and are incredulous when it's suggested they should be denied communion because of their actions for which they are unrepentant. All the while professing to be faithful Catholics. The fact that nobody attacks them for being Catholic or for allowing their Catholic beliefs to overly influence their public actions when they do things such as vote against banning partial birth abortions speaks volumes. The silence is deafening.
Pyro
4/25/2007
Sheryl Crow, Can You Spare a Square?
This is gonna be short and sweet. It has been reported over the last week that Sheryl is encouraging everyone to cut back on their toilet paper usage. I suspect this is to save on the environmental impact of manufacturing and disposing of toilet paper/bathroom tissue. Sheryl said this, "I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where two to three could be required."
Now, I commend her on the motive behind her proposal. Without getting in to what my late Grandmother termed "barn talk" I say this to Sheryl. I'm a man, you are not. I have hair on my... chest, you do not. Don't tell me what I should do until you've... walked a mile in my shoes.
It's stupid statements like Sheryl's that cause clear thinking people to discount everything they hear coming from celebrities.
Pyro
Now, I commend her on the motive behind her proposal. Without getting in to what my late Grandmother termed "barn talk" I say this to Sheryl. I'm a man, you are not. I have hair on my... chest, you do not. Don't tell me what I should do until you've... walked a mile in my shoes.
It's stupid statements like Sheryl's that cause clear thinking people to discount everything they hear coming from celebrities.
Pyro
Chuck Colson on the Tolerance Double Standard
I just read this column and found it disturbing. I'm not sure if I believe some of the "facts" however. Not that I think Chuck is being dishonest, I would suspect that his sources aren't accurate. I am specifically thinking here of the report that parents weren't allowed to pull their children from class when the topic was on a subject that is held by the parents, due to their religous beliefs, to be immoral. But hey, perhaps I'm naive.
Pyro
Pyro
Champions of Faith
I'm about 2 weeks "late" posting this.
If you love baseball, get this DVD. If you love sports, get this DVD. Or if you just love how God can work in everday peoples lives, (or in the case of millionare professional athletes; how God works in peoples lives everyday), buy this DVD.
You'll probably hear some cynical people postulate that the players featured in this DVD (and they are some BIG name players) are only chasing a buck. Some will be watching and waiting for them to do something bad (sin) and cry out, "see, they weren't sincere!" I don't feel that way. I think they are folks just like you and I who have the resources available to produce something big that people will watch because of their celebrity status. I think there intent is pure. If they do slip up and sin, as we all do, it only proves that they're fallen humans. They just have the added pressure of being in the public eye. Imagine if you had news cameras on you the entire time you worked.
Anyway... Watch the DVD's, it will be a blessing.
Pyro
If you love baseball, get this DVD. If you love sports, get this DVD. Or if you just love how God can work in everday peoples lives, (or in the case of millionare professional athletes; how God works in peoples lives everyday), buy this DVD.
You'll probably hear some cynical people postulate that the players featured in this DVD (and they are some BIG name players) are only chasing a buck. Some will be watching and waiting for them to do something bad (sin) and cry out, "see, they weren't sincere!" I don't feel that way. I think they are folks just like you and I who have the resources available to produce something big that people will watch because of their celebrity status. I think there intent is pure. If they do slip up and sin, as we all do, it only proves that they're fallen humans. They just have the added pressure of being in the public eye. Imagine if you had news cameras on you the entire time you worked.
Anyway... Watch the DVD's, it will be a blessing.
Pyro
4/24/2007
Global Warming
So what gives with this Global Warming stuff. I keep waiting to turn my furnace off for the year and then this stuff keeps happening.
I'll tell you what I think is an inconvenient truth. That this has been one of the coldest and snowiest winters in many many years.
Not that I doubt the scientists and and politicians, I just don't trust them.
Pyro
I'll tell you what I think is an inconvenient truth. That this has been one of the coldest and snowiest winters in many many years.
Not that I doubt the scientists and and politicians, I just don't trust them.
Pyro
4/23/2007
Pagan Rejoice
Followers of Wicca have won their case and will now be able to have their Wiccan Pentacle (pentagram) engraved on their tombstones in the national cemeteries. It seems kind of odd to me however because I thought Wiccan's (aren't they the new age druids/witches/nature worshipers) would burn their dead in a funeral pyre like in the old days of Viking and Celtic history.
Oh well... maybe they'll fight for the funeral pyres next.
Pyro
Oh well... maybe they'll fight for the funeral pyres next.
Pyro
4/19/2007
Tom Cruise, Lover of Firefighters?
Tom will be in New York tonight "helping" FDNY firefighters who worked at ground zero to "detox".
Now, as a Christian I have obvious disagreements with the philosophy and beliefs of scientology. But also, as a Christian and an American I don't believe that a person should be prevented from offering to help people in need of help. That said, the firefighters union (International Association of Fire Fighters), the FDNY administration, and the city government should make sure that the individual firefighters are not being preyed upon and taken advantage of in their time of need.
I don't want to rush to judgement as to the sincerity of Tom Cruise and the Scientologists who are there putting on the event. But if they are being dishonest then I hope those previously mentioned organizations do their jobs and discredit Tom, Scientology, and take the appropriate legal action. Who knows, Tom's next movie may be jailhouse theatre.
Pyro
Now, as a Christian I have obvious disagreements with the philosophy and beliefs of scientology. But also, as a Christian and an American I don't believe that a person should be prevented from offering to help people in need of help. That said, the firefighters union (International Association of Fire Fighters), the FDNY administration, and the city government should make sure that the individual firefighters are not being preyed upon and taken advantage of in their time of need.
I don't want to rush to judgement as to the sincerity of Tom Cruise and the Scientologists who are there putting on the event. But if they are being dishonest then I hope those previously mentioned organizations do their jobs and discredit Tom, Scientology, and take the appropriate legal action. Who knows, Tom's next movie may be jailhouse theatre.
Pyro
The Wheels of Justice
I'm a big fan of St. Thomas More (Sir Thomas More for those who don't believe in the Communion of Saints), so maybe that's why modern day attorneys and our justice system usually make me want to vomit.
Everybody who commits a crime ends up with a lawyer who attempts to have their client excused from justice due to circumstances beyond the clients control. Usually the defended is painted as some sort of poor helpless victim who no longer has a free will or is otherwise unable to be held responsible for his or her actions. Such is the case with the pastors wife being tried for murdering her husband.
Some of the things that she claims happened to her may very well be true. Does that mean that she can't be held accountable for her actions? What if she had gone and shoplifted? If you are treated poorly does that mean that you have license to do whatever you want?
Justice systems in Western society have become an industry. We need a philosophical return to the belief that Justice is the administration of deserved punishment or reward.
Pyro
Everybody who commits a crime ends up with a lawyer who attempts to have their client excused from justice due to circumstances beyond the clients control. Usually the defended is painted as some sort of poor helpless victim who no longer has a free will or is otherwise unable to be held responsible for his or her actions. Such is the case with the pastors wife being tried for murdering her husband.
Some of the things that she claims happened to her may very well be true. Does that mean that she can't be held accountable for her actions? What if she had gone and shoplifted? If you are treated poorly does that mean that you have license to do whatever you want?
Justice systems in Western society have become an industry. We need a philosophical return to the belief that Justice is the administration of deserved punishment or reward.
Pyro
4/16/2007
Remember the tomb of Jesus?
Remember a month or so ago when James Cameron of "Titanic" fame had this high publicity "documentary" on the Discovery channel where the burial tomb of Jesus and his family had been discovered. Jesus' "wife" Mary Magdalene was there with him of course...
Well, it seems that a bunch of the rats are jumping ship and the whole thing is being debunked by the very scientists who went on t.v. raving about the discovery.
Just goes to show that advertising money will tempt otherwise good networks to put out shotty work just in time for Christian Holy seasons like Lent, the Triduum, Advent, and Christmas. Now, where are all the anti-muslim programs during their holy days? I guess t.v. executives are just a bunch of cowardly bullies. Slap a Christian and you get the other cheek. Slap a Muslim and your house gets burned down, if your lucky.
Well, it seems that a bunch of the rats are jumping ship and the whole thing is being debunked by the very scientists who went on t.v. raving about the discovery.
Just goes to show that advertising money will tempt otherwise good networks to put out shotty work just in time for Christian Holy seasons like Lent, the Triduum, Advent, and Christmas. Now, where are all the anti-muslim programs during their holy days? I guess t.v. executives are just a bunch of cowardly bullies. Slap a Christian and you get the other cheek. Slap a Muslim and your house gets burned down, if your lucky.
School Shooting
A terrble tragedy at Virgina Tech results in dozens dead and dozens seriously injured.
What will come of it? I'm not sure but I suspect what we'll hear is all the usual suspects getting up on soap boxes and banging on drums. The "guns kill people" crowd will use it as yet another example of why all guns should be outlawed. The NRA people will remind everyone that someone had to pull the trigger. The shooter will turn out to be either; a spurned and/or abused homosexual, a pissed of member of a love triangle, a person who couldn't handle some bad grades, a "radical Muslim extremist", a rejected applicant to the school.
It sounds like a scene from one of Clancy's books where the terrorsists start attack poorly defended and high population targets like shopping malls.
Whatever the story ends up being there are 22 (as of right now [1000 hrs]) people senselessly murdered and thousands of lives forever scarred. Sin is a terrible thing.
I pray for the repose of their souls and for the families that are left here to suffer the loss.
What will come of it? I'm not sure but I suspect what we'll hear is all the usual suspects getting up on soap boxes and banging on drums. The "guns kill people" crowd will use it as yet another example of why all guns should be outlawed. The NRA people will remind everyone that someone had to pull the trigger. The shooter will turn out to be either; a spurned and/or abused homosexual, a pissed of member of a love triangle, a person who couldn't handle some bad grades, a "radical Muslim extremist", a rejected applicant to the school.
It sounds like a scene from one of Clancy's books where the terrorsists start attack poorly defended and high population targets like shopping malls.
Whatever the story ends up being there are 22 (as of right now [1000 hrs]) people senselessly murdered and thousands of lives forever scarred. Sin is a terrible thing.
I pray for the repose of their souls and for the families that are left here to suffer the loss.
3/27/2007
Open -vs- Closed Communion
I recently had a story relayed to me that I haven't been able to shake from the front, or at least from near the front, of my mind. A man who is a fallen away Catholic recently experienced the death of his father. The man, his wife, and son attend a traditional style Presbyterian church. His father had remained Catholic and the family had a funeral Mass per the father's wishes. The man, his wife, and their two children attended the Mass. When it came time for Communion they all presented themselves for reception of the Eucharist, notwithstanding the explanation from the priest as to who is welcome, (and who isn't welcome) to receive Communion. The priest also explianed that those who were not eligible to receive Communion could present themselves for a blessing by standing in front of the priest with their arms crossed in front of their chest.
The man describes what his two children, (an early 20's daughter and teenage son), experienced when presenting themselves. The daughter, (I don't know what her religious profession is, but I know it isn't Catholic) presented herself for reception of the Eucharist. The priest proclaims, "the Body of Christ", to which she replies with silence. The two have an awkward several seconds which ends with the priest asking, "are you Catholic?". The daughter replies, "no". The priest then touches her shoulder and moves her on so the next person in line can have their turn.
The son then presents himself, again awkwardness. The son actually is given communion but fumbles with the Host and at the chalice when receiving Christ's precious blood. The Dad and Mom were upset with how their daughter was treated and thought the awkwardness of their teenage son and the fumbling was mostly humerous. They both also received communion.
What this whole story drove home for me is how ignorant people are about what different Christian traditions profess and sadly what their own tradition professes, be they; born Protestant's, born Catholic's, fallen away Catholic's now Protestant, the non-Christians, the non-religious. People in the United States behave as if they are entitled to receive whatever they want. The ultimate authority is themselves. It's as if they say, "if what you say contradicts my viewpoint, then you are wrong and an idiot because I know better". They pick and choose what news agency to watch based on their political and social ideology (I'm guilty). And if told that they are not welcome to receive something that they believe they should be able to recieve, they behave as if they are being assaulted.
I wouldn't want to receive communion in a Church that was not Catholic, (ya ya, there's always the discussion of what "catholic" is but in this instance I mean Catholic) or that did not have a valid priesthood. Because without the valid priesthood you can believe all day long that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, (and you'd be correct) but, the Eucharist only exists where there is a true priest (one ordained by someone who is a bishop in apostolic succesion). And if you believe in the true presence, (that's where the substance of the bread and wine cease to be bread and wine and are instead TRANSsubstantiated into the real body and blood of Christ) then to recieve communion where there isn't a true presence is tantamount to denying Christ or committing adultry.
For someone who only believes in the symbolic presence, there wouldn't be much to keep them from receiving the Eucharist in a church with Apostolic succession (Catholic and Orthodox), except for the desire to honor the customs of those communities. At best they would think that their Catholic and Orthodox cousins are simply too literal in their reading of Scripture. At worst they would think that their Catholic and Orthodox cousins are silly superstitious morons who go through their faith life on automatic pilot never giving anything theoligical a second thought. The fact that you are told that you are not welcome to receive communion because you aren't in communion is just mean and insensitive I guess.
Here's what is printed in the prayer books (misals) used by the congregation during Mass regarding the reception of Communion.
For our fellow Christians:
...Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life and worship, members of those Churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to holy Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law (Canon 844, 4).
Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of Communion by Christians of these Churches (844, 3).
For those not receiving holy Communion: All who are not receiving holy Communion are encourage to express in their hearts a prayerful desire for unity with the Lord Jesus and with one another.
For non-Christians: We also welcome to this celebration those who do not share our faith in Jesus Christ. While we cannot admit them to holy Communion, we ask them to offer their prayers for the peace and the unity of the human family.
The man describes what his two children, (an early 20's daughter and teenage son), experienced when presenting themselves. The daughter, (I don't know what her religious profession is, but I know it isn't Catholic) presented herself for reception of the Eucharist. The priest proclaims, "the Body of Christ", to which she replies with silence. The two have an awkward several seconds which ends with the priest asking, "are you Catholic?". The daughter replies, "no". The priest then touches her shoulder and moves her on so the next person in line can have their turn.
The son then presents himself, again awkwardness. The son actually is given communion but fumbles with the Host and at the chalice when receiving Christ's precious blood. The Dad and Mom were upset with how their daughter was treated and thought the awkwardness of their teenage son and the fumbling was mostly humerous. They both also received communion.
What this whole story drove home for me is how ignorant people are about what different Christian traditions profess and sadly what their own tradition professes, be they; born Protestant's, born Catholic's, fallen away Catholic's now Protestant, the non-Christians, the non-religious. People in the United States behave as if they are entitled to receive whatever they want. The ultimate authority is themselves. It's as if they say, "if what you say contradicts my viewpoint, then you are wrong and an idiot because I know better". They pick and choose what news agency to watch based on their political and social ideology (I'm guilty). And if told that they are not welcome to receive something that they believe they should be able to recieve, they behave as if they are being assaulted.
I wouldn't want to receive communion in a Church that was not Catholic, (ya ya, there's always the discussion of what "catholic" is but in this instance I mean Catholic) or that did not have a valid priesthood. Because without the valid priesthood you can believe all day long that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, (and you'd be correct) but, the Eucharist only exists where there is a true priest (one ordained by someone who is a bishop in apostolic succesion). And if you believe in the true presence, (that's where the substance of the bread and wine cease to be bread and wine and are instead TRANSsubstantiated into the real body and blood of Christ) then to recieve communion where there isn't a true presence is tantamount to denying Christ or committing adultry.
For someone who only believes in the symbolic presence, there wouldn't be much to keep them from receiving the Eucharist in a church with Apostolic succession (Catholic and Orthodox), except for the desire to honor the customs of those communities. At best they would think that their Catholic and Orthodox cousins are simply too literal in their reading of Scripture. At worst they would think that their Catholic and Orthodox cousins are silly superstitious morons who go through their faith life on automatic pilot never giving anything theoligical a second thought. The fact that you are told that you are not welcome to receive communion because you aren't in communion is just mean and insensitive I guess.
Here's what is printed in the prayer books (misals) used by the congregation during Mass regarding the reception of Communion.
For our fellow Christians:
...Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life and worship, members of those Churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to holy Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law (Canon 844, 4).
Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of Communion by Christians of these Churches (844, 3).
For those not receiving holy Communion: All who are not receiving holy Communion are encourage to express in their hearts a prayerful desire for unity with the Lord Jesus and with one another.
For non-Christians: We also welcome to this celebration those who do not share our faith in Jesus Christ. While we cannot admit them to holy Communion, we ask them to offer their prayers for the peace and the unity of the human family.
3/14/2007
Rock Creek Residential Design
Hey, If you are in the market for a good value on a custom home design, check out this web site. It's from a friend of mine who started up a home business. He has been designing homes for years and finally decided that he should get paid to do it. There are at least a dozen people I know who live in a home, or had their home remodeled by him.
His business is called Rock Creek Residential Design. The link is...
www.rockcreekdesignonline.com
or click here Rock Creek Residential Design
Pyro
His business is called Rock Creek Residential Design. The link is...
www.rockcreekdesignonline.com
or click here Rock Creek Residential Design
Pyro
3/11/2007
A tale of two protests
So I've been taking part in a protest vigil outside of a local planned parenthood. This protest vigil coincides with the 40 days of lent. After the article ran in last Sunday's Kitsap Sun there were several letters to the editor promoting each viewpoint on the abortion debate. The paper then posts the letters in their blog site and people are free to comment on other peoples letters.
As a person who is pro-life, I have taken part in numerous anti-abortion protests. Every one of them has been peaceful, lawful, and quiet on the part of the protestors. Some times we say communal prayers out loud. Most of the time we just silently hold signs which read; "Adoption, the loving option", "Stop Abortion". "Choose Life", "Jesus Loves Children", "Pray for an end to abortion", you get the point. We 100% of the time stay on public property and do not impede any other persons ability to freely travel through our area. The worst things I have ever seen at one of these protests is when a passerby screams obscenities at us or even throw things at us. There have on rare occasions been police officers parked within our view, but they have always remained in their vehicles. We usually have a police car drive by during the course of the protest, probably because of some complaint called in to 911. We are protesting a law which has made the killing of children inside their mother's wombs legal. Over 3,500 of these killings occur every day in the United States!! We peacefully protest. Sometimes in silent prayer, other times praying out loud together as occurs in church.
Here is another protest story. There are a few people who believe that all war is wrong. And there are many people who believe that the United States' occupation of Iraq after invading them and overthrowing their brutal dictator is wrong. There are constant reports in the press of anti-war protests and rallies. I notice that a significant number of these protests involve protestors being arrested. They get arrested for blocking traffic, trespassing, assault... name something disorderly and they seem to get arrested for doing it. Here's a recent example from an ongoing protest in Tacoma. Around 3,500 American military members have been killed in the last 5 years during this war/occupation. That's around the same number that are killed every day because of legalized abortion. Why is it that when protestors are from the political left there are high rates of violence committed by the protestors, and when the protestors are from the political right there are very very rare instances of violence perpetrated by the protestors?
Pyro
As a person who is pro-life, I have taken part in numerous anti-abortion protests. Every one of them has been peaceful, lawful, and quiet on the part of the protestors. Some times we say communal prayers out loud. Most of the time we just silently hold signs which read; "Adoption, the loving option", "Stop Abortion". "Choose Life", "Jesus Loves Children", "Pray for an end to abortion", you get the point. We 100% of the time stay on public property and do not impede any other persons ability to freely travel through our area. The worst things I have ever seen at one of these protests is when a passerby screams obscenities at us or even throw things at us. There have on rare occasions been police officers parked within our view, but they have always remained in their vehicles. We usually have a police car drive by during the course of the protest, probably because of some complaint called in to 911. We are protesting a law which has made the killing of children inside their mother's wombs legal. Over 3,500 of these killings occur every day in the United States!! We peacefully protest. Sometimes in silent prayer, other times praying out loud together as occurs in church.
Here is another protest story. There are a few people who believe that all war is wrong. And there are many people who believe that the United States' occupation of Iraq after invading them and overthrowing their brutal dictator is wrong. There are constant reports in the press of anti-war protests and rallies. I notice that a significant number of these protests involve protestors being arrested. They get arrested for blocking traffic, trespassing, assault... name something disorderly and they seem to get arrested for doing it. Here's a recent example from an ongoing protest in Tacoma. Around 3,500 American military members have been killed in the last 5 years during this war/occupation. That's around the same number that are killed every day because of legalized abortion. Why is it that when protestors are from the political left there are high rates of violence committed by the protestors, and when the protestors are from the political right there are very very rare instances of violence perpetrated by the protestors?
Pyro
3/10/2007
Should I let the kids see that movie...
How many times do parents ask themselves that question? Hopefully it happens several times a month. We live in an electronic culture and full length films and T.V. shows are often just a mouse click away, or even just an iPod away. Hopefully as parents, we scrutinize each show for it's moral and social value and weigh the possible impact it will have on our children before we let them watch something. This is not always easy as there are many obstacles to a parent diligently accomplishing this. I will go through some of the common challenges a parent will typically face and give some suggested ways to overcome them.
1. LAZINESS: This obstacle makes the supposition that on some level you understand that there are certain philosophies, subjects, uses of language, and human activities that children should not be exposed to. Laziness always comes with a payoff. The payoff for laziness is the serving of ones selfishness. The feeding of that desire to seek your own personal pleasure above even the welfare of your own children. In the movie decision realm, laziness is most often manifested in following manner and with this motivation be it conscious or unconscious; If I let the kids watch that movie... then I will be free to do what I want without being interrupted.
How to overcome laziness? Make the conscious, deliberate decision to take action. Laziness (sloth) always begins with a temptation. Fight the temptation by acting out the opposite virtue. Prudence in this instance is the opposite virtue, Prudence being: an intellectual habit enabling us to see in any given juncture of human affairs what is virtuous and what is not, and how to come at the one and avoid the other. Secular society recognizes this to a certain degree with it being manifested as follows. When confronted with the need to make a decision people are told to "make a list" of all the pros and cons of the decison. In todays society though one thing is left out, the fact that there is an objective right and wrong. So what's right is left up to the subjectiveness of the individual which can lead to quite a conundrum.
Bottom Line: practice prudence taking into account the objective nature of right and wrong.
2. IGNORANCE: This obstacle can be difficult to overcome. Ignorance is unfortunately a word that has been corrupted in our times. It is viewed as a synonym of stupid. It is not the same as stupid however, it simply means that you lack information or knowledge. Stupid would be if you had information and failed to act appropriately on it either because you were lazy or because you just couldn't apply the knowledge due to limited capacity to process thought. I don't believe there are many truly stupid people in this world. I do however believe that there are many ignorant ones, some are intentionally ignorant, some unintentionally, and others are manipulated into ignorance.
The only way to defeat ignorance is to get informed. The word informed is very important.
Inform: 1320, "to train or instruct in some specific subject," from L. informare "to shape, form, train, instruct, educate," from in- "into" + forma "form." Sense of "report facts or news" first recorded 1386. Informative "instructive" is from 1655. Informer "one who gives information against another" (especially in ref. to law-breaking) is from 1503.
Thus to defeat ignorance we must shape and train our minds through education. This is best done by studying from a source that recognizes the existance of an objective right and wrong in moral philosophy.
3. REBELLION: This is when the inmates run the prison, the sheep herd the shepherd, the tail wags the dog, the kid's dictate activities in the home. Our children, (and us parents) are fed a steady diet of new age psychobabble geared toward "building up" a childs self esteem. This is accomplished by encouraging democratic style decision making in the home where subjects are to be discussed ad-naseum. For decades we've been encouraged to only say positive things to our kids and redirect things away from the horrible absolutism that the word NO represents. Children need, and are happier with, well informed energetic parents who are decisive and fair. I read a recent report where the problems associated with being obsessed with oneself and the entitlement mentality that goes along with it has gone up dramitically over the past two decades. It was postulated that this was a result of the "self esteem building" philosophy that has taken over our education system is responsible for this.
Children are going to complain when they get told no. That's just the way it is. So what... life contains many opportunities to be disappointed. Why deprive our children of the education in how to handle disappointment appropriately? If they make a big production out of getting told no, (throwing a fit) then deal with appropriately by grounding them, giving them extra chores... whatever. The parents need to be in charge. If there's a power vacuum, it will get filled by someone.
I recommend this website for reviewing films. It will help you make the decision as to whether or not a film is appropriate for your children to watch.
Pyro
1. LAZINESS: This obstacle makes the supposition that on some level you understand that there are certain philosophies, subjects, uses of language, and human activities that children should not be exposed to. Laziness always comes with a payoff. The payoff for laziness is the serving of ones selfishness. The feeding of that desire to seek your own personal pleasure above even the welfare of your own children. In the movie decision realm, laziness is most often manifested in following manner and with this motivation be it conscious or unconscious; If I let the kids watch that movie... then I will be free to do what I want without being interrupted.
How to overcome laziness? Make the conscious, deliberate decision to take action. Laziness (sloth) always begins with a temptation. Fight the temptation by acting out the opposite virtue. Prudence in this instance is the opposite virtue, Prudence being: an intellectual habit enabling us to see in any given juncture of human affairs what is virtuous and what is not, and how to come at the one and avoid the other. Secular society recognizes this to a certain degree with it being manifested as follows. When confronted with the need to make a decision people are told to "make a list" of all the pros and cons of the decison. In todays society though one thing is left out, the fact that there is an objective right and wrong. So what's right is left up to the subjectiveness of the individual which can lead to quite a conundrum.
Bottom Line: practice prudence taking into account the objective nature of right and wrong.
2. IGNORANCE: This obstacle can be difficult to overcome. Ignorance is unfortunately a word that has been corrupted in our times. It is viewed as a synonym of stupid. It is not the same as stupid however, it simply means that you lack information or knowledge. Stupid would be if you had information and failed to act appropriately on it either because you were lazy or because you just couldn't apply the knowledge due to limited capacity to process thought. I don't believe there are many truly stupid people in this world. I do however believe that there are many ignorant ones, some are intentionally ignorant, some unintentionally, and others are manipulated into ignorance.
The only way to defeat ignorance is to get informed. The word informed is very important.
Inform: 1320, "to train or instruct in some specific subject," from L. informare "to shape, form, train, instruct, educate," from in- "into" + forma "form." Sense of "report facts or news" first recorded 1386. Informative "instructive" is from 1655. Informer "one who gives information against another" (especially in ref. to law-breaking) is from 1503.
Thus to defeat ignorance we must shape and train our minds through education. This is best done by studying from a source that recognizes the existance of an objective right and wrong in moral philosophy.
3. REBELLION: This is when the inmates run the prison, the sheep herd the shepherd, the tail wags the dog, the kid's dictate activities in the home. Our children, (and us parents) are fed a steady diet of new age psychobabble geared toward "building up" a childs self esteem. This is accomplished by encouraging democratic style decision making in the home where subjects are to be discussed ad-naseum. For decades we've been encouraged to only say positive things to our kids and redirect things away from the horrible absolutism that the word NO represents. Children need, and are happier with, well informed energetic parents who are decisive and fair. I read a recent report where the problems associated with being obsessed with oneself and the entitlement mentality that goes along with it has gone up dramitically over the past two decades. It was postulated that this was a result of the "self esteem building" philosophy that has taken over our education system is responsible for this.
Children are going to complain when they get told no. That's just the way it is. So what... life contains many opportunities to be disappointed. Why deprive our children of the education in how to handle disappointment appropriately? If they make a big production out of getting told no, (throwing a fit) then deal with appropriately by grounding them, giving them extra chores... whatever. The parents need to be in charge. If there's a power vacuum, it will get filled by someone.
I recommend this website for reviewing films. It will help you make the decision as to whether or not a film is appropriate for your children to watch.
Pyro
3/06/2007
The College of William and Mary at Virginia
Read a recent news article regarding a compromise on the display of a cross in the chapel at the university. The short story is that William and Mary (sorry for the Wikipedia link) took a cross down from where it has been displayed since 1940 in the campus chapel. There has probably been a much longer history with the cross or other similar religious display as the college was founded in 1693 with it's main thrust being a divinity school for the Anglican Church.
This whole situation seems to me to be a manufactured problem. Why would someone going into a chapel on a campus which has over a 300 year tradition of being affiliated with a christian church feel discriminated against due to finding a cross in the chapel? That would be like going to a Native American museum and complaining about all the "indian stuff" inside.
Somebody has an agenda, and the president of the college is either a co-conspirator or he lacks the backbone to stand up against troublemakers.
Pyro
This whole situation seems to me to be a manufactured problem. Why would someone going into a chapel on a campus which has over a 300 year tradition of being affiliated with a christian church feel discriminated against due to finding a cross in the chapel? That would be like going to a Native American museum and complaining about all the "indian stuff" inside.
Somebody has an agenda, and the president of the college is either a co-conspirator or he lacks the backbone to stand up against troublemakers.
Pyro
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
