I thought this was sarcasm

Then I realized it was Commonweal

In what worldview do "hope" and "half of all Catholic marriages are invalid" go together?

Why I stopped blogging, whether this cessation is permanent (no), etc.

Why am I writing this? Unlike the last time I was writing, it's unlikely that a significant number of people will take notice and read this. But, in a sense, that's precisely why I'm allowing myself to write a bit again. You see, when I stopped writing, it was in large part because I had stopped taking myself seriously. I had written a post about the merits of the priesthood, only to later realize that I had forgotten about the Sacraments. A number of other things made me realize that I was far from an expert on the Faith. I started to think I had nothing valuable to contribute to the "blogosphere." There was little need for a budding philosopher with more questions than answers, without even the clarity to articulate even the questions.

But now, I'm beginning to think I should get back in to the blogging. I haven't decided the format. It'll probably be less bombastic than my posts at Gaudium, definitely more anonymous, likely more personal. Not quite so personal as Steve Gershom-- probably more on the Melinda Selmys level of personal. I might still use citations though, because I'm weird like that.

One big reason for starting this up is that there is a serious dearth of people with whom you can talk about issues with the modern world with any level of objectivity.

A bunch of topics may be addressed. Some that I hope to are: The Hermeneutic of Continuity, The Mass of Paul VI/Novus Ordo, The Usus Antiquor/Tridentine Mass, my issues with humanitarianism, masculinity/femininity or gender/sexuality, anti-abortion/pro-life stuff, random spiritual stuff,and my troubled relationship with modernity.

And by address I mean less "explore exhaustively" and more "voice some thoughts on," although I'd rather this didn't become some obnoxious journal.

Maybe Glory Rediscovered isn't the best space to do this, but Glory will be the starting point-- I always wanted to explain why I chose the blog's name.

-David L.

News Rediscovered: Protesting for the Sabbath

(NewsRediscovered, New Yorkshire) Employers responded recently responded to a group of Christians in New Yorkshire who claim that forcing Christians to work on the Sabbath is a clear sign of anti-Christian bigotry. The local businessmen and civic officials gathered in the town square before a group of angry protesters.

"Anti-Christian bigory?" asked a spokesperson, incredulously. "That's just silly. We couldn't care less about their religion. In fact, most of the employers recieving these complaints are Christians themselves, and they've never had a problem with working Sundays. That's why the Pope lets Catholics go to Mass on Saturdays, right?"

"Lies! You hate Jesus!" shouted a protester.

"Now, listen here," replied the spokesman, "If we gave Christians Sundays off, then like 90% of the country wouldn't be working Sundays. Aside from some Jewish delis and whatnot, all commerce and government would need to shut down. You couldn't go to the pool, because all the lifeguards besides Billy Atheist would have the day off. You couldn't go to a restaurant, because most of the waiters and cooks would have off. You couldn't go shopping, because most salespeople would have off. 90% of the population would have the day off, and only 10% would be left to run things to keep them occupied. What would you all do? I mean, society would basically shut down! It would be Church in the morning, then I suppose you'd have to go to your homes, maybe have extended family and friends over, and share a meal or something. Maybe the kids would play wholesome games in the backyard and at the park. Maybe you'd wind up just spending long amounts of time praying. Just, like, devoting the day to God, 'cuz there would be nothing else to do. Is this really what you want? Society shutting down, and you just spending time with your family, friends, and God? No restaurants, shopping, amusement parks?

Faced by this ironclad logic, the protesters returned to their jobs, and find pleasant diversions for themselves on the random days they get off.

The French Revolution, even in theory, was really awful

Today is Bastille Day, a celebration of the start of the French Revolution. Most people I’ve talked to who have issues with the Revolution point to its violence. It’s difficult to overstate the violence of the Revolution. You could look at the sheer number of people beheaded with the guillotine, a device chosen for being painless and disturbingly efficient.[1] Less illuminating, but more emotionally charged, are anecdotes like the episode in which a mob broke into the royal palace at Versailles, took the royal family hostage, and forced them to ride to Paris in a parade with the still-bleeding heads of their household staff, mounted on pikes. The bloodiness of the French Revolution is clearly horrific, and it’s enough to make a person skeptical about the Revolution’s cultural impact. A characterization of the Revolution that seems fairly common to me is that it was good in theory, but then it got out of control. I’m skeptical about this conception of the revolution. Looking at the foundational documents of the revolution show all sorts of problems in the ideals of the revolutionaries, to the point where it seems reasonable to think that the ideals were part of the reason the revolution went out of control.

            The most obvious example of this is the type of rights language the Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen (a sort of preliminary Bill of Rights). Some of these sound like nice ideas that most people in modern in society can get behind, like the idea that “The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man.” Free speech! We all like free speech. But much of the rest of the document is vague. For instance, it asserts that all sovereignty is derived from the nation. Nationalism was a fast-growing, popular idea in Europe at the time, so presumably this refers to some nationalist catchphrase, but the actual point to this (besides to say that sovereignty didn’t come from the King) is left out.

The document also asserts that “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights.” This is taken right out of Rousseau’s philosophy, similar to the way the American Founding Fathers borrowed Locke’s ideas. But what “Men are born free” means has always eluded me. The meaning wasn’t obvious to people of the time either. The British political philosopher Jeremy Bentham criticized the pronouncement harshly: “All men are born free? All men remain free? No, not a single man: not a single man that ever was, or is, or will be. All men, on the contrary, are born in subjection, and the most absolute subjection—the subjection of a helpless child to the parents on whom he depends every moment for his existence. In this subjection every man is born—in this subjection he continues for years—for a great number of years—and the existence of the individual and of the species depends upon his so doing.” A more positive way of putting it is that we are born into this world with dependency, relationships, and duties. A newborn infant clearly can’t do anything he wants, because he can’t even feed himself. Similarly, his parents do not “remain” free because they are bound by basic obligations to care for their child—a basic obligation we would hope would be more of a springboard for the greater relationship springing from mutual love. However, even without this love, it would be considered reprehensible if the parents left the child in the woods to die. These sort of basic obligations, or duties, are a part of natural law; because of the nature of the parent-child relationship, the parent must provide for the child, at least insofar as she or he is able. Natural law can also be the basis for rights; in the case of the parent and child, we could say that the child has a right to be cared for.

Two tablets? Really? Real subtle, guys.

I won’t say natural law theory can’t be interpreted in ways that vary. However, it is useful to compare the French Revolutionaries’ idea of rights with natural law. Natural law is a possible basis we can appeal to to justify claims of rights. The revolutionaries offered no grounds for their rights. Rights were simply asserted as obvious, even though they would have been considered absurd mere centuries before. The government didn’t provide for those rights, so the revolutionaries overthrew the government and set up a new one. Where do these rights come from? Bentham asks, “What, then, was their object in declaring the existence of imprescriptible rights, and without specifying a single one by any such mark as it could be known by? This and no other—to excite and keep up a spirit of resistance to all laws—a spirit of insurrection against all governments—against the governments of all other nations instantly,—against the government of their own nation—against the government they themselves were pretending to establish—even that, as soon as their own reign should be at an end.” In other words, if these rights are merely asserted without any clear basis, how do we know what rights ought to be claimed? What rights correspond to the vast network of human relationships we call society? Without a basis for rights besides popular opinion, we wind up with an explosion of rights. Rights could be asserted even though they have no apparent basis in our natures.

This explosion of rights is a much more far-reaching effect of the revolution than the temporary, though horrific, violence. Rights eventually conflict with not only our natures, but the rights of others. The right to freedom of religion was found to conflict with the public welfare; since the freedom of religion had no particular basis (or at least none was given at the time), it folded. Catholic churches were burned, priests beheaded, monasteries attacked. The revolutionary government founded a new religion based on worship of a hyper-rational Supreme Being. Rights, asserted on the basis of nothing but intellectual fads, were trampled as thousands were fed to the guillotine.

          This is part of the reason contemporary claims of rights can be disturbing. The right to freedom of religion is apparently trumped by the right to contraception, although what basis the latter can have in the nature of things escapes me. The right to life is trumped by an increasingly privatized homicide. Popular arguments for same-sex marriage seem based in little more than an assertion of a modern conception of human equality, which is seems to be utterly undefined and unexamined. Everyone, it seems, wants rights, but few seem to be able to explain what a “right” is, where they come from, and why we should have any at all. For this, we have the French Revolution, in part, to thank.

Note: I meant to actually post this for Bastille Day... but it was delayed. Oh well. It's my right to delay Bastille Day posts until July 28th, or even Christmas, if I want. 

All images- Wikipedia

c David L.

---

[1] About choosing the guillotine: when your new government puts this much thought into the way they’re going to execute people, and just happens to choose a device that’s supposed to be easy-to-use and lends itself to rapid-succession executions, warning bells should go off.

Dr. Edward Peters on the BSA membership policy change

Dr. Edward Peters, an expert in Canon Law, has written a post on thoughts Catholics affected by the Boy Scouts of America's  decision to allow membership to boys regardless of sexual preference or orientation. He notes that a ban on the basis of same-sex attraction alone for an organization like the BSA is "difficult to argue," and that the BSA's new policy seems to be as close to Catholic teaching as could be expected for a secular organization.

I support the new policy, and I think it is more in-line with Catholic teaching, not to mention just being more plainly sensible and compassionate, than the old policy, which was rather oddly worded, if not wrong-headed. The old policy prohibited youth who were "openly or avowedly homosexual." Honestly, I think growing up with same-sex attraction is tough enough without worrying about getting kicked out of Scouts if a kid makes a mistake.

A number of parents and others are upset about the change. I'm sure there are worries about the BSA becoming like the Canadian scouts, an organization that actually openly endorses a gay lifestyle. However, as Peters notes, the BSA is trying to keep their organization out of sexual matters altogether. The statement that went along with the resolution read, "Scouting is a youth program, and any sexual conduct, whether homosexual or heterosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting." If this policy is actually implemented at the local level, we've got an organization that encourages youth to be chaste. I really fail to see how it can be contended that this is something Catholics can't get behind. The resolution also noted that Scouting should not be used to "promote or advance any social or political position or agenda," aside from, I presume, Scouting's basic ideals of duty to God and country; if this resolution is carried out, there will be little grounds to worry about Scouting becoming a platform for what some call "the gay agenda." (I'm not saying there's no agenda; sure, there are plenty of agendas, everybody's got an agenda, but I'm really not a fan of this kind of sensationalist language)

I'm still behind the BSA's program, even more than I was previously, and I'm continually proud to be an Eagle scout. While I can make no calls about the future of the Scouting movement, I feel confident in supporting this resolution and the BSA's program as it is right now. I hope Dr. Peters' opinion will sway the opinions of traditionalists with reservations.

A Priest for 40 Hours

I just came across this really beautiful story about a seminarian battling cancer who was ordained early, as it seemed that he wouldn't be able to make it to ordination with his classmates. Forty hours after he was ordained, the priest died, having just finished celebrating the Mass. He is a priest forever (Heb 7:17).
  http://www.catholicvote.org/a-priest-for-forty-hours/

California Jesuit made Bishop of Oakland

Well, this is interesting: Pope Francis just appointed a California province Jesuit to be the Bishop of Oakland. Michael Barber, SJ, currently serves as spiritual director at St. John Seminary in Boston. More info at Whispers in the Loggia.

I don't want to over analyze this with "OMG Pope Francis is going to start a rash of Jesuit sees." However, it is interesting that a simple priest, especially a Jesuit, has been launched to a bishop's seat. I wonder if it has anything to do with his current work as spiritual director for seminarians, which would give him an interesting perspective on the state of the Church's youth and incoming vocations.