http://bishopjulianporteous.com/?p=241
Good for discussion as well.....
Thursday, 12 September 2013
Interesting article....
The poll found that 45 percent of practicing Catholics — those who attend Mass regularly and abide most of the church’s teachings — said yes, the world was living out its end times.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/12/4-in10-american-adults-were-living-end-times/#ixzz2ehUJ2BlS
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/12/4-in10-american-adults-were-living-end-times/#ixzz2ehUJ2BlS
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
MachoMan speaks..
http://thatthebonesyouhavecrushedmaythrill.blogspot.ie/ A big thanks to LozzerEngland for this text. And, I must add that we need to beware....read Lord of the World.
New York Times
New York Times
'Recent events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.
Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.
The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.
No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.
The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.
Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.
Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.
From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.
No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.
It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”
But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.
No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.
The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.
We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.
A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.
I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.
If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.
My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.'
Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russi
Is it not ironic? And two sides to a coin.....
As to those who are hurting and crying out for understanding, those Anonymous I pray for at Mass.
But, I do want to address a confusion about the role of the laity and the idea of Triumphalism, which a reader brought up.
First, the laity have to be savvy enough to spot heresy and disagreement with Church teaching. That is our baptismal duty. To merely state that priests, bishops or even cardinals can make decisions for us is a terrible misunderstanding of our relationship with truth.
We must appropriate Catholic teaching. We must be able to spot errors when we read, watch, hear speakers and teachers. That is part of the virtue of prudence. We must be able to spot modernism in sermons.
We can judge private revelations merely by using the teaching of the Catholic Church. Those Catholics who are in contradiction with Catholic Teaching because of private revelations have fallen into grave sin. We do not have to follow any private revelations. Period.
We do have to accept the doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic Church. Sadly, many Catholics are choosing against the Teaching Magisterium in favor of false seers. Remember, heretics go to hell. We need to be fearful and be careful in what we believe.
Satan does not care how you get to hell...he can lead you away from being obedient to the Church in many ways. Spiritual pride is one. And, if a person cannot spot error that person needs to pray, study, be humble.
As to Triumphalism, some readers are confused on this term recently referred to by the Pope. Now, there are two kinds of Triumphalism. The first is ok. This first definition is the recognition that the Catholic Church has the fullness of Truth, that the Kingdom of God is found in the Catholic Church.
Here are two quotations from Dominus Iesus.
Therefore, the theory of the limited, incomplete, or imperfect character of the revelation of Jesus Christ, which would be complementary to that found in other religions, is contrary to the Church's faith. Such a position would claim to be based on the notion that the truth about God cannot be grasped and manifested in its globality and completeness by any historical religion, neither by Christianity nor by Jesus Christ.
|
Portia's Speech from The Merchant of Venice
The quality of mercy is not strained.It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven,
Upon the place beneath.
It is twice blessed.
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
It is mightiest in the mightiest,
It becomes the throned monarch better than his crown.
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
An attribute to awe and majesty.
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings.
But mercy is above this sceptred sway,
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself.
And earthly power dost the become likest God's,
Where mercy seasons justice.
Therefore Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That in the course of justice we all must see salvation,
We all do pray for mercy
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render the deeds of mercy.
I have spoke thus much to mittgate the justice of thy plea,
Which if thou dost follow,
This strict court of Venice
Must needs give sentance gainst the merchant there.
Wow, The Modern Mom - A Complete Cop-Out of Authority
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/11/sexy-selfies-upset-parents-texan-mother?CMP=twt_gu
Since when has adolescence been all about sex? I am astounded by this mom's article, but now I understand all the kids out there without moral frameworks. With moms like these, who needs predator training? That a grown woman would be so naive and slanted towards sexual permissiveness not to see that a child who is doing things as described in the article is already perverted is breath-taking.
Catholic parents, home school. I really do not see that you have a choice with parents of kids out there who see nothing wrong with sexually provocative selfies on cell phones.
We need a counter-culture NOW.
Adolescence is about many, many things other than just sex. It is a time of discovering gift, vocations, growing in responsibility, becoming confident through responsibility.
A snippet.
And adolescence is a lot about sex, too; one of the ways that sexual attraction is played out these days is on the internet. Teenagers of both sexes have always experimented with their sex appeal, and one of the big differences between our day and theirs is that this experimentation has other outlets in 2013. I'm not saying it's good, and I'm not saying it's bad – what I am saying is that it's something we did too when we were young, just in a different way.
Selfie advice
http://www.fastcoexist.com/1682352/an-app-for-cats-to-take-selfies
Wednesday, 11 September 2013
A Prayer from My Childhood for September 11th
Ven. Fulton J. Sheen reminds me in his book, which I have been following, of a prayer which I said as a child. It was actually in my First Communion Prayer Book. Here it is:
Lovely Lady, dressed in blue
teach me how to pray!
God was just your little Boy,
tell me what to say!
Did you lift Him up, sometimes,
gently on your knee?
Did you sing to Him the way
Mother does to me?
Did you hold His hand at night?
Did you ever try
telling stories of the world?
O! And did He cry?
Do you really think He cares
if I tell Him things
Little things that happen? And
do the angel's wings
make a noise? And can He hear
me if I speak low?
Does He understand me now?
Tell me for you know!
Lovely Lady dressed in blue
teach me how to pray!
God was just you little Boy
And you know the way.
Mary Dixon Thayer from "The Child on His Knees."
A reminder....not admitted to ecclesiastical communion
Announcement On Vassula Ryden By The Ecumenical Patriarchate
http://www.ec-patr.org/docdisplay.php?lang=en&id=1306&tla=gr
http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/03/announcement-on-vassula-ryden-by.html
http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/04/my-translation-of-decree-against.html
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/03/fyi-patriarchate-of-constantinople.html
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/03/fyi-patriarchate-of-constantinople.html
The Orthodox Church, following strictly the shining example and teaching of the Holy Apostles, the teaching of the Fathers of the Church who have their succession, and the divinely-inspired decisions of the Ecumenical Synods, safeguards as a pearl of great price the faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which the Christian plenitude experiences through their participation in the Sacraments and entire spiritual life of the divinely-founded ecclesiastical body.
Hence, whatever movement and improvised tension, personal or collective, in contempt or in breach of the dogmas of the Orthodox Christian faith and life in Christ within the Church as the only path for the salvation of our souls, all the more the self-proclaimed "supposedly charismatic" personality, is rejected always as an unacceptable innovation.
In this spirit, and for the beneficial protection of our pious Orthodox plenitude from dangerous spiritual confusion, who do not know well matters underlying the risk of delusion, we denounce from the Mother Church Vasiliki Paraskevis Pentaki - Ryden, widely known as "Vassula", and her organization founded under the title "True Life In God" which rashly and frivolously proposes teachings based on the supposed "direct dialogue between her and the Founder of the Church Jesus Christ our Lord", and those conquered by her and the supporters of "True Life In God", which deviate arbitrarily from the God-given teaching of the Church, but also scandalize the Orthodox phronema of pious believers.
Hence, we call upon the proponents of these unacceptable innovations and the supporters who maintain them, who henceforth are not admitted to ecclesiastical communion, not only to not be involved in the pastoral work of the local Holy Metropolis, but also to not preach their novel teachings, to prevent the appropriate sanctions under the Holy Canons.
We express, lastly, the profound sorrow of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of the acts of some - fortunately few - clergy of the Orthodox Church to be found at talks of the said "Vassula" and give to her a "certificate of Orthodoxy."
At the Patriarchate, the 16th of March 2011
Of the Chief Secretariat of the Holy and Sacred Synod
Also see
http://ephesians511blog.com/2013/03/02/vassula-ryden-a-cdf-notification-bishops-warnings-and-theologians-criticisms/
Taking on the Possible Big Deception-opening the can of worms
Only obedience could be my motto.
At various times, His Mother has visited us as well: Fatima, Lourdes, Akita...but she does not come that often. She does not need to do so.
I shall probably lose readership with this blog, but I cannot remain silent any longer. Spirit Daily, which has picked up my posts in the past, will most likely now have me on their no-no list.
Those who know me well, know I have never believed in the apparitions of Medjugorje. There are very few Catholic writers or priests who have been willing to tackle the problems surrounding the visions and visionaries. I was aware of it from the very beginnings of the alleged visions and I had one of those spiritual gut reactions that something was not right when I first heard about it way back in the early 1980s.
I believe that these false visions undermine the authority of the bishops and the Church and contradict some of the things said by Mary before and by great saints. I think satan wants schism here, those pro and those against will split over this more and more.This whole thing is creepy......
Early on, because I knew E. Michael Jones and worked for Fidelity Magazine for one summer in grad school, I learned more about the serious problems surrounding the supposed visions.
Humans are easily deceived when they want something badly enough. Deception is based on self-love and disobedience.
There are too many things involved in the "apparitions", including things which seemed manipulated from the very beginnings.
Things which may seem from God may be deceptions from the Evil One, and fruits, such as conversions and even confessions, do not mandate that a certain apparition is true.
I was increasingly distraught by the number of Catholics who went and came back from multiple visits still supporting, contraception, same-sex marriage, universal salvation, and other serious heresies, which indicated to me a lack of a real spiritual conversion or mature appropriation of the Faith.
Now, the reason after almost five years of blogging I am mentioning this, is that I am doubly concerned about the lack of orthodoxy of those who are still following these almost daily messages and the lack of real holiness. Too many of those men and women who follow Medjugorje are stuck in the baby-stage of Catholic growth, looking for consolations instead of asking for the purification, the suffering needed for holiness.
One must be careful not to attribute to God what comes either from the imagination of humans, or worse, from demonic involvement.
I am particularly worried about priests, friars, nuns, sisters, as well as lay people, who follow Medjugorje as if it had been approved, which it may never be, and which I doubt will.
There is one order which is fixated on these so-called visions-not a good thing.
People follow unapproved visions, instead of reading the great classical writings on spirituality, such as Father Jordan Aumann, or listening to talks by such solid priests as Fr. Chad Ripperger.
I cannot believe it would take the Queen of Heaven and Earth from June 24, 1981 until, as this is presented, September 11, 2013 to say what she wants to say to the world. And, to be honest, much is a repetition of Fatima and Lourdes messages. Hamish Fraser thought it was an undermining of Fatima and so do I think that.
As Catholics, we are under NO obligations to believe in private revelations. And, a rule of thumb for the laity should be, do not look into something until it is approved by Rome. Caution when approaching mystical or spiritual phenomenon is wisdom.
This is from the Davies' article, noted below.
A partial translation of the interview appeared in the February 1994 issue of Fidelity. Mgr. Peric testified that his predecessor had been open to the veracity of the apparitions in the beginning. He pointed out that Mgr. Zanic would evidently have been predisposed to believe in the alleged apparitions. He continued:
What bishop wouldn't be delighted that the Virgin Mary should be appearing in his diocese? Especially Mgr. Zanic, a very Marian bishop, who as a priest and later as a bishop made eleven pilgrimages to various Marian shrines all over Europe: Lourdes, Fatima, Syracuse, etc. And then for the Gospa (Our Lady) to have mercy on him and begin to "appear" in his own backyard as if to bring an end to all his wanderings all over Portugal.
But after a few months, when he heard the small fibs and large lies, insincerities, inexactitudes, and all sorts of fabricated stories from those who claimed that the Gospa was appearing to them, he became totally convinced that it was not a matter of supernatural apparitions of the Gospa. Then he started to bring out the truth and to expose the falsehoods. The greatest satisfaction of his ten years of hard work was when the bishops of Yugoslavia at their spring meeting at Zadar on April 10, 1991, dutifully declared: "On the basis of studies it cannot be affirmed that supernatural apparitions and revelations are occurring." This is an exceptionally clear ecclesiastical ruling, and is a rebuttal of the claims of all those who claim to have seen the Gospa everywhere and at any time since 1981.
The verdict of the Bishops' Conference is for me an authoritative instruction, responsive and binding unless another kind of verdict is brought. But until now there has been no other (ecclesiastical) judgment. If, after serious, solid, and professional investigation, our Bishops' Conference had the courage to declare that Medjugorje's apparitions are not supernatural, in spite of massive stories and convictions to the contrary, then that is a sign that the Church, even in the 20th century "upholds the truth and keeps it safe" (I Tim. 3:15). I affirm this unequivocally (my emphasis).
Other sites can help you discern. Be open. And, there is an interesting thing which someone said to me a few years ago. Why are all the rad-trads anti-Medjugorje? Maybe it has to do with the clarity which comes from regular attendance to the Mass of the Ages...I really do not know. Rad-trads tend to be more orthodox than the neo-Con Catholics. Maybe that has something to do with it as well.
One of my favorite traddies, may God bless his soul, was Michael Davies, the champion of the Latin Mass in England for years and years. Here is his famous essay against Medjugorje.
http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/medjugorje.htm
Here is a list of other documentation Michael listed in his paper, as his references. If you are truly a daughter and son of the Church, you must read these. We need to be discerning.
1. MEDJUGORJE: The Other Side of the Coin, Geoffrey Lawman, p. 7
2. 1987 Communiqué of the Yugoslav Bishops Concerning the Facts of Medjugorje, p. 15
3. Declaration of the Bishop of Mostar Concerning Medjugorje
Medjugorje, 15 July 1987, p. 17
4. An Extract From the Letter of the Bishop of Mostar
to Mariya Davies Thanking Her for Her Translation, p. 21
5. Visions in Alabama, Excerptedfrom "Letter from London",
The Remnant, 31 March 1989, p. 22
6. Marija Pavlovic Contradicts Herself, p. 24
7. The Truth About Medjugorje-----A Statement by Mgr. Zanic
Published in 1990, p. 27
8. Irish Bishops' Conference Statement of 13 June 1990, p. 49
9. "Bishops 'leaked' Ruling on Yugoslav Shrine, p. 49
10. "Rome Studies New Medjugorje Report", p. 51
11. The Medjugorje Industry , p. 51
12. A New Bishop of Mostar , p. 58
13. Further Information , p. 60
Another serious source is this condemnation of the visions by Bishop Gemma.
http://catholiclight.stblogs.org/index.php/2011/04/gemma-on-medjugorje/
What the Church has forbidden. From the statements given to date by ecclesiastical authorities it is clear that no one holding an office in the Church (bishop, pastor, rector, chaplain or other) may by virtue of that office lend official sanction to activities which tend to assert the supernaturality of Medjugorje, that is, to contradict the decisions made by competent local authority. Those statements speak only of pilgrimages organized under official auspices; however, common sense tells us that a conference or other activity sponsored by a diocese, parish or other Catholic institution would also be prohibited. Likewise, there could not be public veneration (cultus) of the Blessed Virgin under the title of Our Lady of Medjugorje, since this would suggest the certainty of her appearing there. The title Queen of Peace, however, is already part of the patrimony of the Church.
And, I have serious reservations about these statements below from the seers and there are more like this...Mary would never contradict the teachings of the Church. In fact, one priest in England said that if a person did not believe in Medjugorje, he or she was an “idiot”. Strong words on something which may never be approved. And, such a statement leaves the door closed for intelligent discussion on the matter. I was especially disturbed about a television broadcast I watched on this. I got that good old gut reaction of “Something is not right here.” But, how is it that so many priests are deceived by this phenomenon?
Would Mary, the Mother of God say these things?
“I do not dispose of all graces…Jesus prefers that you address your petitions directly to him, rather than through an intermediary.” (Chron. Corp. p.181, 277-278)
Oct. 1, 1981: “All religions are equal before God,” says the Virgin. (Chronological Corpus of Medjugorje, p. 317)
The Crisis of Nothingness
If one wants to read one of the best philosophers who are Catholic on marriage, one could not do better than Ven. Fulton J. Sheen. Out of all the modern commentators on sex and marriage, I find his writings the ones which connect the spiritual world with the world of matter, the world of the flesh better than most. And, his comments on marriage are realistic signposts for today's married couples as well.
From the same book into which I have been dipping, here are a few choice gems for meditation on marriage.
"When married life becomes dull, one has not hit the bottom of life; one has hit the bottom of one's ego...One has not hit the bottom of his soul, only the bottom of his instinct; not the bottom of his mind, but the bottom of his emotional life. These trials are contacts with reality which God sends into every life."
"Whenever there is discontent, God is stirring the waters of the soul. He is reminding us that the perfect love for which we crave is not here; we're on the road to it.
"Love, which began with pleasure and self-satisfaction, changes into love for God's sake. The other person becomes less the necessary condition of passion and more the partner of the soul."
"Just as there is the Dark Night of the Soul, there is the dark night of the body."
"Just keep in mind that in every marriage, a man and woman promise each other something only God can give."
He also says that children are the paradox of the answer to aloneness together in marriage. Children bridge the gap in the tension between the seeking of perfect unity in the body and the spirit. Children, "are the link that binds the lovers together, body and soul."
Those who study the theology of the body could benefit from a few chapters written by Ven. Fulton J. Sheen. More than most, he understands the crisis of nothingness, as he puts it, which destroys marriage, unless, as in the Dark Night of the Soul, one turns to God in faith, hope, and love.
To be continued....
Tuesday, 10 September 2013
Answer of a Millennial to.....
One of my readers sent me this link, and I sent it to a Millennial or two for discussion. Here is one comment.
http://www.whattofix.com/blog/
It started out well. I started raising my eyebrows around paragraph
six and by the end they were stuck to my parietal.
It STILL takes hassle to socialize. Arguably, it is a lot more
difficult than it used to. We live in a society which enables us to
choose whatever friends we want, but then disallows us from relating
to them in a positive way. The use of technology in communication rose
to facilitate close relationships against the adversities of modern
obstacles. Remember the Hittite seals in the TAC library? The oldest
extant form of human written communication was designed to associate a
person and his family with an object or concept after that person was
physically divorced from it. Technology develops around a need for
relationships, not the other way around.
He then uses practically the same arguments and quotes about opium
that a certain prominent atheist uses to criminalize organized
religion. The idea that you can compare something to chemicals on the
basis that it alleviates psychological pain is inherently flawed.
Nothing is wrong with alleviating psychological pain, or with, for
that matter, alleviating physical pain (in the right context). What
makes cocaine Bad is that the psychological and physical side-effects
are inherently compromising of its health benefits. The substance
itself entails a psychological dependency which is ultimately
self-destructive. Psychological dependencies which increase ones
dependence on people, rather than things, are actually quite
constructive. In other words, while the mental process of addiction
can be triggered by a variety of things, the process itself is not
destructive - it's part of being human.
The author then makes an interesting series of leaps between
psychological dependency on the alleviation of pain and "recreational"
technology. He ties recreational technology to its marketability and
playing on imagined needs. He then defines the internet as
recreational technology. This is where I get really confused. When he
defines China as a culture shut out from the technical world, I begin
to realize that his definition of "technology" is exceedingly narrow,
and somehow linked to this subdivision of "marketed recreational
technology". (It still doesn't explain why he chooses to ignore that
the Chinese were marketing board games and firing rifles at geese in
the mid 13th century, while Westerners were still playing with balls
of wool and pointed sticks).
Firstly, technology is not fundamentally recreational, which should be obvious.
Secondly (and admittedly obscurely), the internet is not fundamentally
recreational. It is a method of processing communication via data on a
global scale. It doesn't even meet the traditional definition of
"technology", but I digress. His comment that "WoW beats Wikipedia
hands down" was written in 2008 when WoW was at the height of its
popularity, having finally broken into Asia, and Wiki was still a
young and unstable community largely contained in its English-speaking
heartland, so it is understandable. I remember helping to translate
Japanese articles into English at the time, and look back and laugh at
the pointlessness of some of our arguments! Now WoW is on the decline
and Wikipedia is the sixth most accessed web service in the world,
after a handful of search engines and social media engines, and well
ahead of Twitter, Amazon, and Sina. It is set to hit 500 million
unique visitors in a month for the first time this Autumn. The total
number of people who play online games (of any variety) is estimated
at a relatively paltry 217 million.
Thirdly, and what I seem to remind people of in a daily basis, the
internet is composed of people. If you are looking at a website, 90%
of the time you are interacting with a person (like it or not) and the
vast majority of that time you are interacting with a single person or
a small group of people. At the heart of the popularity of the
internet is its connectivity. The popularity of facebook and twitter
attests to that. But perhaps this is precisely what he finds
repugnant?
I think the clue to his thought is finally evident in the penultimate
paragraph: "We don't have the time-intensive life we once did."
Maybe if you live in Montana; *average* worker productivity in the US
is 300% of what it was in 1900, and the time spent *not* working, at a
workplace, or commuting is at an all-time low. The speed at which
recreational use of new technology is adopted has nothing to do with
our desperation for it; it has to do with the speed at which it is
absorbed. The more complex and the more adaptable technology is, the
longer it takes to adapt ourselves towards it. The attempt to make
computers more sensitive to what the user thinks is an attempt to make
computers more Human, not an attempt to make humans more Digital. The
human brain is physiologically not a binary engine and it never will
be; we are not electronic. However, we do use the same formal logic as
computers. There are dangers, certainly, in encouraging humans to
think hyperlogically (epistemological relativism being one of them),
but this obviously isn't what he's getting at. He seems to think that
we live in a *less* busy world, a world in which most of us are bored
and obsessed with recreation, and the internet is our easiest way of
passing the time while avoiding real human interaction. I would argue
that we live in a vastly more busy world, a world in which most of us
are overworked and obsessed with greed, and the internet it our
simplest method of establishing real human interaction.
Anyway, I guess I still don't "get it", but I've tried...
(Bravo, kid!)
On Rabbits, Catholics and Communism-Part Three
 |
| A Pillow Mound Rabbit Warren from the Luttrell Psalter. |
Well, a rabbit in a briar patch is completely natural. A person in a family is natural as well. For a state to want to supplant the parents and the family as the basic unit of society is not only unnatural, but anti-God. An human has a nature and both communism and socialism destroy that nature. Our nature involved being in the image and likeness of God, not in the image and likeness of an economic or social system.
Perhaps Catholics have never read the Decree Against Communism, written in 1949 by Pope Pius XII and reconfirmed in 1962 by Bl. John XXIII. If a Catholic joins a communist party, that Catholic is excommunicated.
Catholics today need to read several encyclicals on this subject, but here are the links to a few. If you do not know what it is to be an individual, a person, with dignity and independence, you will fall into error.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19031937_divini-redemptoris_en.html
Pius XII against communism--a snippet
What would be the condition of a human society based on such materialistic tenets? It would be a collectivity with no other hierarchy than that of the economic system. It would have only one mission: the production of material things by means of collective labor, so that the goods of this world might be enjoyed in a paradise where each would "give according to his powers" and would "receive according to his needs." Communism recognizes in the collectivity the right, or rather, unlimited discretion, to draft individuals for the labor of the collectivity with no regard for their personal welfare; so that even violence could be legitimately exercised to dragoon the recalcitrant against their wills. In the Communistic commonwealth morality and law would be nothing but a derivation of the existing economic order, purely earthly in origin and unstable in character. In a word. the Communists claim to inaugurate a new era and a new civilization which is the result of blind evolutionary forces culminating in a humanity without God.
13. When all men have finally acquired the collectivist mentality in this Utopia of a really classless society, the political State, which is now conceived by Communists merely as the instrument by which the proletariat is oppressed by the capitalists, will have lost all reason for its existence and will "wither away." However, until that happy consummation is realized, the State and the powers of the State furnish Communism with the most efficacious and most extensive means for the achievement of its goal.
14. Such, Venerable Brethren, is the new gospel which bolshevistic and atheistic Communism offers the world as the glad tidings of deliverance and salvation! It is a system full of errors and sophisms. It is in opposition both to reason and to Divine Revelation. It subverts the social order, because it means the destruction of its foundations; because it ignores the true origin and purpose of the State; because it denies the rights, dignity and liberty of human personality.
and
30. Man cannot be exempted from his divinely-imposed obligations toward civil society, and the representatives of authority have the right to coerce him when he refuses without reason to do his duty. Society, on the other hand, cannot defraud man of his God-granted rights, the most important of which We have indicated above. Nor can society systematically void these rights by making their use impossible. It is therefore according to the dictates of reason that ultimately all material things should be ordained to man as a person, that through his mediation they may find their way to the Creator. In this wise we can apply to man, the human person, the words of the Apostle of the Gentiles, who writes to the Corinthians on the Christian economy of salvation: "All things are yours, and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's."[12] While Communism impoverishes human personality by inverting the terms of the relation of man to society, to what lofty heights is man not elevated by reason and Revelation!
31. The directive principles concerning the social-economic order have been expounded in the social Encyclical of Leo XIII on the question of labor.[13] Our own Encyclical on the Reconstruction of the Social Order[14] adapted these principles to present needs. Then, insisting anew on the age-old doctrine of the Church concerning the individual and social character of private property, We explained clearly the right and dignity of labor, the relations of mutual aid and collaboration which should exist between those who possess capital and those who work, the salary due in strict justice to the worker for himself and for his family.
and, Bl. John Paul II
and a snippet from there---His (Leo XIII) words deserve to be re-read attentively: "To remedy these wrongs (the unjust distribution of wealth and the poverty of the workers), the Socialists encourage the poor man's envy of the rich and strive to do away with private property, contending that individual possessions should become the common property of all...; but their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that, were they carried into effect, the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are moreover emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community".39 The evils caused by the setting up of this type of socialism as a State system — what would later be called "Real Socialism" — could not be better expressed.
13. Continuing our reflections, and referring also to what has been said in the Encyclicals Laborem exercens and Sollicitudo rei socialis, we have to add that the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, the very subject whose decisions build the social order. From this mistaken conception of the person there arise both a distortion of law, which defines the sphere of the exercise of freedom, and an opposition to private property. A person who is deprived of something he can call "his own", and of the possibility of earning a living through his own initiative, comes to depend on the social machine and on those who control it. This makes it much more difficult for him to recognize his dignity as a person, and hinders progress towards the building up of an authentic human community.
In contrast, from the Christian vision of the human person there necessarily follows a correct picture of society. According to Rerum novarum and the whole social doctrine of the Church, the social nature of man is not completely fulfilled in the State, but is realized in various intermediary groups, beginning with the family and including economic, social, political and cultural groups which stem from human nature itself and have their own autonomy, always with a view to the common good. This is what I have called the "subjectivity" of society which, together with the subjectivity of the individual, was cancelled out by "Real Socialism".40
If we then inquire as to the source of this mistaken concept of the nature of the person and the "subjectivity" of society, we must reply that its first cause is atheism. It is by responding to the call of God contained in the being of things that man becomes aware of his transcendent dignity. Every individual must give this response, which constitutes the apex of his humanity, and no social mechanism or collective subject can substitute for it. The denial of God deprives the person of his foundation, and consequently leads to a reorganization of the social order without reference to the person's dignity and responsibility.
The atheism of which we are speaking is also closely connected with the rationalism of the Enlightenment, which views human and social reality in a mechanistic way. Thus there is a denial of the supreme insight concerning man's true greatness, his transcendence in respect to earthly realities, the contradiction in his heart between the desire for the fullness of what is good and his own inability to attain it and, above all, the need for salvation which results from this situation.
14. From the same atheistic source, socialism also derives its choice of the means of action condemned in Rerum novarum, namely, class struggle. The Pope does not, of course, intend to condemn every possible form of social conflict. The Church is well aware that in the course of history conflicts of interest between different social groups inevitably arise, and that in the face of such conflicts Christians must often take a position, honestly and decisively. The Encyclical Laborem exercens moreover clearly recognized the positive role of conflict when it takes the form of a "struggle for social justice";41 Quadragesimo anno had already stated that "if the class struggle abstains from enmities and mutual hatred, it gradually changes into an honest discussion of differences founded on a desire for justice".42
However, what is condemned in class struggle is the idea that conflict is not restrained by ethical or juridical considerations, or by respect for the dignity of others (and consequently of oneself); a reasonable compromise is thus excluded, and what is pursued is not the general good of society, but a partisan interest which replaces the common good and sets out to destroy whatever stands in its way. In a word, it is a question of transferring to the sphere of internal conflict between social groups the doctrine of "total war", which the militarism and imperialism of that time brought to bear on international relations. As a result of this doctrine, the search for a proper balance between the interests of the various nations was replaced by attempts to impose the absolute domination of one's own side through the destruction of the other side's capacity to resist, using every possible means, not excluding the use of lies, terror tactics against citizens, and weapons of utter destruction (which precisely in those years were beginning to be designed). Therefore class struggle in the Marxist sense and militarism have the same root, namely, atheism and contempt for the human person, which place the principle of force above that of reason and law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)