If Only…A Few “Thoughts” on the Oklahoma Tornado Tragedies

Heartfelt prayers and other forms of assistance go out to the many people devastated by the tornadoes in Oklahoma over the past few days. Nevertheless, I’m sure that the intensity of these tornadoes will soon be attributed to man-made global warming, and in this benighted spirit, I offer a few thoughts for consideration:

If only we had a national registration of all tornadoes, the ones that struck Oklahoma might not have occurred. With registration, rogue tornadoes will hardly ever appear.

Why does Oklahoma need to have tornadoes that size anyway? Can’t smaller ones do enough damage? Why can’t people just settle on thunderstorms?

They don’t have tornadoes in many other parts of the world. Only the United States has them in abundance. Why are we into so much violence in this country?

If humans didn’t harm the environment as much as we do, then tornadoes would be much less damaging. Obviously, the people of Oklahoma and surrounding states must do much more harm to the environment than anywhere else in the world. The devastation that these people experience from tornadoes is clearly their own fault.
_______________

While you might dismiss the comments above as simple sarcasm, just wait until you see some of these comments or close variations featured in the mainstream media, and on cable networks like MSNBC and CNN.

DB

Republicans and Others Fooled by Hillary’s Red Herrings Regarding Benghazi

Hillary Clinton’s “….What difference…does it make?” question/statement during her testimony at a Senate hearing in January continues to get some play and criticism, but an extremely important aspect of her statement has been overlooked in the process.

Clinton also stated the following:

“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans?”

Notice the two bogus options that Clinton sets forth for consideration: either a protest or guys out for a walk….

Both of these are red herrings to get the focus off the real option to consider, and what really matters:a terrorist attack that Clinton and others in the Obama Administration first falsely denied took place, and now continue to downplay because of their despicable dereliction of duty that helped make the terrorist attack enjoy some success in the taking of 4 American lives.

That’s What Difference it Makes.

DB

A Few Thoughts on the Passing Scene

1. Lying is morally wrong, and lying for a good cause does not magically or spiritually transform the lying into being morally virtuous.

2. Amnesty in one form or another can also let in the smoke of Satan by eventually increasing the number of people who vote for politicians who are pro-abortion.

3. The secular world continues to demonstrate its perpetual love affair with Sodom and Gomorrah in its promotion of “same-sex marriage” and other sexual perversions.

4. Even if he deserved it because of the mishandling of the Benghazi terrorist attack, the House of Representatives do not have the moral courage to ever impeach President Obama.

DB

Saving and Promoting True Marriage

(Below is a slightly revised copy of a post I first published in May, 2012, and again in December, 2012. In light of recent events and developments, it remains timely.)

It seems inevitable that so-called gay (Always keep in mind that the term GAY is also an acronym – G.A.Y. – promoted by homosexuals to stand for Good As You in the sense that homosexual morality is just as good as heterosexual morality.), or same-sex marriage will become legally recognized by more and more regions throughout the world as secular forces continue to promote and make gains in this area. While the entire concept of same-sex marriage is absurd and offensive on its face, and a desire to prevent greater recognition of the perversion from occurring is most admirable and rightly motivated, some good can still come out of a revised secular definition of marriage if it carries the day as seems likely.

For starters, the Catholic Church and other Christian Churches can emphasize and publicize that the lone word marriage will no longer be adequate from a church perspective, and so it will necessarily be referred to as Sacramental Marriage, with the idea that Sacramental is to be emphasized and always included when speaking about marriage from X date forward. This will help to maintain the appropriate distinction between marriage proper as a sacred union of a man and a woman and any secular or perverse definition/understanding of marriage the secular world can come up with. For other marriages recognized by the Church as legitimate but not sacramental, these can be referred to as Recognized Natural Marriages (or some other appropriate term).

Let the homosexuals and their fellow travelers cry and whine about being treated “unfairly” once again by the renewed emphasis on Sacramental or Recognized Natural Marriage being essentially different than their twisted understanding of marriage. If they and their fellow travelers are hell-bent on changing terms to suit their perverse behavior, and too much of the world accepts such satanic lunacy, then people of faith and good will can certainly emphasize appropriate terms to reflect their faith, and maintain important distinctions that honor the Lord, His Divine Law, and the Natural Law.

Next, the Catholic Church could use the new emphasis to re-educate the faithful on what marriage is truly all about, focusing on the procreative, unitive, and parenting aspects of marriage at all times. By doing this, it will expose the weakness and stupidity of the secular world’s recognition of “same-sex marriage.” As an added bonus, many people who continue to see marriage as nothing more than a simple partnership will be compelled to understand the distinction between any kind of secular marriage and Sacramental Marriage, and why Sacramental Marriages and Recognized Natural Marriages are holy institutions while the secular perversion is anything but.

Now, for anyone who thinks that churches adopting such a change in descriptive emphasis is a form of caving in to the secular and homosexual world, nothing could be further from the truth. Instead of arguing about the proper meaning of an appropriated term, people of faith go on the offensive for a change by emphasizing what true marriage is all about, and that can only be a Sacramental or Recognized Natural Marriage.

Is such a renewed emphasis on True Marriage likely to take place in the churches? Probably not, at least not in the foreseeable future, but even without church leadership implementing such an approach, people of faith can adopt and emphasize the more precise and powerful terminology in all conversations, writings, and so on to fight against the secular darkness that seeks to appropriate many terms in order to distort reality.

As the wise Monsignor William Smith once taught, “all social engineering is preceded by verbal engineering.” Alas, the term “marriage” appears to already be a casualty in our ongoing war against the principalities and powers of this world, but we can resurrect it and make it stronger than ever by adding the words Sacramental or Recognized Natural to it, and by so doing, we will engage in the kind of social engineering that is badly needed at this time.

DB

Moralnomics: What the US Bishops Fail to Realize

Moralnomics: What the US Bishops Fail to Realize.

Separated Shoulders, Part III: A Detailed Critique of “On all of our shoulders”

Part III (Conclusion)

What follows is the conclusion of my detailed critique of the primary claims made in “On all of our shoulders” (http://www.onourshoulders.org/). Once more, I will quote many statements from the document in the order in which they are written, and then follow with a critical assessment. The quotes from the document will be preceded by Oaoos:, and my comments will be preceded by DB:
_____________________________________

Oaoos: “5 Principles of Catholic Social Doctrine Most in Danger of Being Forgotten or Distorted…

…3. The doctrine of subsidiarity both limits government and demands that it act when local communities cannot solve problems on their own. Subsidiarity has both negative and positive dimensions. Negatively, it limits overreach by government (as well as other large organizations, including corporations). Positively, the concept (which means ‘help’ or ‘assistance’) requires that government act when problems cannot be solved on the local level.”

DB: It is fascinating to read that limiting government overreach is classified by Oaoos as the negative dimension of Subsidiarity while government action is seen as the positive dimension. What does this faulty characterization alone tell us about the attitude of the Oaoos signatories regarding government intervention? Certainly not as a “necessary evil” as the great St. Augustine referred to government in general.

Oaoos: Ryan has invoked subsidiarity to justify devolving management of Medicaid to states thereby ending centralization “in the hands of federal bureaucrats.” At the same time, his budget cuts Medicaid by $750 billion over ten years, a policy that will cut healthcare for an estimated 14 to 27 million Medicaid recipients.

DB: Even if the proclamation that the Ryan budget cuts $750 billion over 10 years is accurate, it does not necessarily follow that this will cut health care for an estimated 14 to 27 million (quite a large range) Medicaid recipients if there are alternatives to them receiving Medicaid. Also, it is hoped that there will be fewer Medicaid recipients, but as usual, Oaoos sees things from the intellectually limited view that government benefits are the only possible way to help certain people.

Oaoos: “The broader outlines of the budget plan will radically reduce the size of government and consequently cut funding for private and religious safety net providers such as Catholic Charities who depend upon federal grants and contracts for much of their funding. This fails the positive obligation under subsidiarity to render needed assistance.”

DB: Perhaps such providers do not need to rely upon federal grants and contracts for much of their funding, and they will find other ways to obtain necessary funding. Besides, being so wedded to a government that is oftentimes hostile to religious practices and beliefs is unwise in and of itself. Accordingly, if the “needed assistance” is provided privately (true charity is always private in nature), then subsidiarity actually succeeds in a manner that better represents the ideal of subsidiarity.

Oaoos: “4. The ‘preferential option for the poor’ demands both individual and collective action, including the acts of the state. In the words of John Paul II, the preferential option for the poor affects ‘our daily life as well as our decisions in the political and economic fields;’ placing demands upon individuals as well as ‘leaders of nations.’”

DB: A fine approach indeed, but not NECESSARILY via ever-larger government or State actions, and the more the option for the poor is handled voluntarily by charity freely provided by people, the better for all.

Oaoos: “Ryan’s 2012 budget achieves 62% of its designated savings from cuts to programs for low-income families and individuals while cutting the top marginal tax rate and the corporate tax rate. It is impossible to justify this as a serious exercise of the preferential option for the poor.”

DB: Here we go yet again. It is erroneously assumed by Oaoos that if you cut any kind of government spending for low-income families, and you also allow wealthier people to keep more of their own money through lower taxes (which is also a way to cut government spending), this somehow constitutes undeniable evidence that the preferential option for the poor is not being exercised. This limited analysis by Oaoos would be true if government spending was the only way to serve low-income familes, but since it is not the case, Oaoos is making an ignorant conclusion based on faulty presumptions.

Oaoos: “5. Economic forces must be reckoned among any serious account of the threats to society and human dignity.”

DB: Political forces and dependency on government programs should also be recognized as serious threats to society and human dignity.

Oaoos: “In Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict XVI has offered an analysis more probing than that offered by either political party.

Benedict speaks of the loss of state power in the face of globalization and calls for the development of new forms of government engagement.

In our own day, the State finds itself having to address the limitations to its sovereignty imposed by the new context of international trade and finance, which…has altered the political power of States….[T]heir powers…need to be prudently reviewed and remodelled so as to enable them, perhaps through new forms of engagement, to address the challenges of today’s world.”

DB: Good. New forms of engagement should include less government intervention to more faithfully fulfill the requirements of subsidiarity, and the call to people to give voluntarily to help the poor; not have their money confiscated via the government.

Oaoos: “Benedict continues the century-long papal teaching that the market alone cannot address the needs of the common good:

Economic activity cannot solve all social problems through the simple application of commercial logic. This needs to be directed towards the pursuit of the common good, for which the political community in particular must also take responsibility. Therefore, it must be borne in mind that grave imbalances are produced when economic action, conceived merely as an engine for wealth creation, is detached from political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution.”

DB: It is readily agreed that economic activity cannot solve all social problems, and this includes economic activity directed by the State. Moreover, if economic action is “conceived merely as an engine for wealth creation,” then injustice can indeed occur, but neither Paul Ryan nor most free market advocates see economic activity only “as an engine for wealth creation.” Limited political action to protect people from fraud and also provide a legitimate and prudent safety net that cannot otherwise be provided is the best form of political action that can work alongside economic action for the common good.

Oaoos: “The momentous challenges facing our nation cry out for the full wisdom of the Church’s social doctrine. Legitimate disagreements with the Obama administration must not lead the Church to edit the fullness of its teachings for political expediency.

Ours is a moment that demands the fullness of the Church’s teachings as few others have. To be truly prophetic, the Church—bishops, clergy and lay faithful—must proclaim the fullness of its message to all parties, movements, and powers.”

DB: Indeed, and in order to proclaim the fullness of Church teachings, all members of the Church must take a much broader and more intellectually honest view of Church teaching than what is set forth in the exceedingly biased Oaoos.

DB

Separated Shoulders, Part II: A Detailed Critique of “On all of our shoulders”

Part II:

The following is part II of my detailed critique of the primary claims made in “On all of our shoulders”
(http://www.onourshoulders.org/).

Once again, I will quote many statements from the document in the order in which they are written, and then follow with a critical assessment. The quotes from the document will be preceded by Oaoos:, and my comments will be preceded by DB:
_________________________________________________________________________________

Oaoos: “5 Principles of Catholic Social Doctrine Most in Danger of Being Forgotten or Distorted

1. The Catholic view of the human person is social not individual.”

DB: On the contrary, the Catholic view of the human person is both individual and social, with a primary emphasis on each person made in the image of God. This claim by Oaoos is a serious distortion of Catholic Social Doctrine, and the signatories should be ashamed of themselves for claiming their distortion is a principle of Catholic Social Doctrine. It does, however, reveal their biases toward Paul Ryan and other supporters of more free market and less government to best serve the common good.

More importantly, throughout the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, many clear statements of the Church’s balanced view are set forth, but for purposes of this critique, consider the following wisdom of section 106:

106. All of social life is an expression of its unmistakable protagonist: the human person. The Church has many times and in many ways been the authoritative advocate of this understanding, recognizing and affirming the centrality of the human person in every sector and expression of society: “Human society is therefore the object of the social teaching of the Church since she is neither outside nor over and above socially united men, but exists exclusively in them and, therefore, for them”. This important awareness is expressed in the affirmation that “far from being the object or passive element of social life” the human person “is rather, and must always remain, its subject, foundation and goal”. The origin of social life is therefore found in the human person, and society cannot refuse to recognize its active and responsible subject; every expression of society must be directed towards the human person.

Oaoos: “Congressman Ryan has stated that he learned from Rand to view all policy questions as a ‘fight of individualism versus collectivism.”

DB: Since Paul Ryan made the comments cited above in 2005, he has clarified his position on many occasions to indicate his rejection of the kind of individualism the Church rightly condemns. Moreover, all of his actions in Congress, including his proposals to save Medicare, Social Security, and so on make it abundantly clear to all who wish to objectively judge Paul Ryan’s positions and proposals that he does not espouse the kind of individualism the Church opposes. If he did, he would call for the elimination of almost all government programs instead of proposing ways to reform them.

Oaoos: “2. Government has an essential role to play in protecting and promoting the common good.

The error of individualism leads to a mistaken understanding of the role of government. For too long politicians have echoed Ronald Reagan’s misleading mantra ‘Government is the Problem.’”

DB: This is not a misleading mantra, especially when taken in context that the Oaoos refuses to provide. Reagan’s statement, very similar to Paul Ryan’s and the Church’s teaching, is based on the idea that the government is the problem when it unnecessarily interferes with private and voluntary initiative that can actually serve the common good better than the government can.

The essential role to play by the government does not mean ever more government spending and programs. It could even include tax breaks to organizations to help the common good. Do such things ever occur to the signatories of the Oaoos?

Oaoos: “Catholic apologists for small government repeatedly invoke a single paragraph from John Paul II’s Centesimus Annus which cautions against the excesses of a ‘social assistance state’ ignoring the decades-long papal consensus supporting social insurance and welfare systems.”

DB: So dismissive and so wrong, and perhaps intended to diminish Centesimus Annus because it does not agree in large part with the views of Oaoos. Catholic advocates of small (and wiser) government accept All of the wisdom contained in Centesimus Annus (1991), and it is Oaoos that selects but one small section of Centesimus Annus while falsely chastising small government advocates by claiming they are limited to referencing one single paragraph from the document,…as if they do not accept any others. Below is a fairly extensive sampling of some of the excellent statements found in Centesimus Annus that Oaoos ignores. Upon reading them, you’ll see why Oaoos avoids them:

If Pope Leo XIII calls upon the State to remedy the condition of the poor in accordance with justice, he does so because of his timely awareness that the State has the duty of watching over the common good and of ensuring that every sector of social life, not excluding the economic one, contributes to achieving that good, while respecting the rightful autonomy of each sector. This should not however lead us to think that Pope Leo expected the State to solve every social problem. On the contrary, he frequently insists on necessary limits to the State’s intervention and on its instrumental character, inasmuch as the individual, the family and society are prior to the State, and inasmuch as the State exists in order to protect their rights and not stifle them. (Centesimus Annus, #11)

DB: Note in particular the last sentence above. It dovetails in quite easily with Paul Ryan’s social views. Also note the true emphasis on the Catholic view of the human person.

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. (Centesimus Annus, #13)

DB: Hone in on the reference to attaining some ownership that Paul Ryan also promotes in order to help people become less dependent on a social machine.

It would appear that, on the level of individual nations and of international relations, the free market is the most efficient instrument for utilizing resources and effectively responding to needs. But this is true only for those needs which are “solvent”, insofar as they are endowed with purchasing power, and for those resources which are “marketable”, insofar as they are capable of obtaining a satisfactory price. But there are many human needs which find no place on the market….It is also necessary to help these needy people to acquire expertise, to enter the circle of exchange, and to develop their skills in order to make the best use of their capacities and resources. (Centesimus Annus, #34)

DB: Helping those in need acquire expertise is the smaller government approach that desires true development for all people.

Returning now to the initial question: can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?

The answer is obviously complex. If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”. But if by “capitalism” is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative. (Centesimus Annus, #42)

DB: Wow! An endorsement of the market economy tempered by just laws, along with religious and moral considerations. This is precisely what Paul Ryan and other Catholic small government advocates believe, and it is at the core of their proposals.

These general observations also apply to the role of the State in the economic sector. Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principle task of the State is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labours and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly….Another task of the State is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the State but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society. The State could not directly ensure the right to work for all its citizens unless it controlled every aspect of economic life and restricted the free initiative of individuals….

In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”.

Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending….Centesimus Annus, #48)

DB: A devastating critique of the excesses of the Social Assistance State. This is precisely what Paul Ryan also criticizes.

During the last hundred years the Church has repeatedly expressed her thinking, while closely following the continuing development of the social question….Her sole purpose has been care and responsibility for man, who has been entrusted to her by Christ himself:….We are not dealing here with man in the “abstract”, but with the real, “concrete”, “historical” man. We are dealing with each individual, since each one is included in the mystery of Redemption, and through this mystery Christ has united himself with each one for ever….(Centesimus Annus, #53)

DB: Note the special emphasis on “each individual.” Is Blessed Pope John Paul II guilty of individualism by emphasizing the Church’s proper focus on each individual?
___________________

Conclusion of the Critique to Follow Soon.

DB