Stephen Roney's Blog, page 77

The Canaanite Woman

 

At that time, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon.
And behold, a Canaanite woman of that district came and called out,
"Have pity on me, Lord, Son of David!
My daughter is tormented by a demon."
But Jesus did not say a word in answer to her.
Jesus' disciples came and asked him,
"Send her away, for she keeps calling out after us."
He said in reply,
"I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
But the woman came and did Jesus homage, saying, "Lord, help me."
He said in reply,
"It is not right to take the food of the children
and throw it to the dogs."
She said, "Please, Lord, for even the dogs eat the scraps
that fall from the table of their masters."
Then Jesus said to her in reply,
"O woman, great is your faith!
Let it be done for you as you wish."
And the woman's daughter was healed from that hour. - Mt 15:21-28

This, the Gospel reading at last Sunday’s mass, makes Jesus look racist. No service for Canaanites? Isn’t that like no service for negroes?

First, this must be understood as a matter of religion, not ethnicity. The people of Tyre and Sidon were polytheists. 

Second, Jesus’s denial of service may have been a simply practical matter. Unless you put your faith in God, you cannot be cured of a demonic possession. If one demon is cast out, another will soon take their place.

“When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, but finds none. Then it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when it comes, it finds the house empty, swept, and put in order. Then it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there, and the last state of that person is worse than the first.” – Matthew 12:43-45.

The house must not be left empty. For it is as Bob Dylan said, “You’re gonna have to serve somebody. It may be the Devil, or it may be the Lord, but you’re gonna have to serve somebody.” 

Or as Chesterton said: “Those who do not believe in God will believe in anything.”

The pagan gods are demons. To be possessed by any of them is demonic. Only possession by the loving God is proof against demonic possession.

Next point: demonic possession is what we now, incorrectly, call “mental illness.” It follows that no mental illness can be cured except through turning to God in faith. 

So how is it that the faith of the mother, in this passage, heals the daughter?

Final point: “mental illness” is never an individual problem. The demon exists in the family relationship. When one member of the family is possessed by the demon, generally the parent, the other member is oppressed by it--and is more likely to manifest the symptoms. Cast the demon from the possessed parent, and you heal the oppressed child as well.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Sin and Repentance

 

This last Sunday’s second reading reminds us of a basic tenet of Christianity that is commonly misunderstood by non-Christians—as well as many Christians.

Truncated, St. Paul writes, “God delivered all to disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all.” – Romans 11:32

Non-Christians consider it intolerable that the church declares something they do sinful: homosexual sex is the obvious example, but we might also mention masturbation, using artificial birth control, chastity outside of marriage, and so forth. This is unreasonable; this is oppressive. The church is just being prejudiced, or prudish. 

Then they will point to some priest(s) or bishop(s), or practicing Catholic(s) they know, whom they know or believe do these things themselves. So they will accuse the Church and Christians of hypocrisy.

They will also point to the known or supposed misdeeds of Catholic saints. Saint Thomas More, as Lord Chancellor, had Protestants burned at the stake! So Catholics approve of burning Protestants at the stake!

They are making the gravely wrong assumption that a good Christian never sins. According to the Christian teaching, as Saint Paul says above, everyone sins. “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3: 23).

The morality demanded by Christ is perfection. It makes no allowance for human frailty: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48)

If you call someone a fool, this is as bad as murdering him. If you look at a woman lustfully, this is as bad as raping her. And so forth.

Jesus is not being unreasonable. You are being unreasonable to declare yourself righteous and without sin. You are not God. 

You do not go to Hell for having sinned; you go to Hell for denying that you have sinned. The mark of the true Christian is repentance, not self-righteousness. If you admit and sincerely regret your flaws, God will forgive. If you do not, he cannot.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

The Cause of War Unwound

 

A reasonable compromise, and war is averted.

The novel Unwind, omnipresent in the schools, is faithful to the woke “narrative” at every point. Men are always acting impulsively, the beasts, and some woman has to take them in hand and set them straight. But women are not just more rational than men. If any character shows compassion for the less fortunate, it will be a woman. If a black character is featured—sorry, “sienna,” because the word “black” is apparently pejorative--he must have an IQ of 155 and a strict moral code never to steal. 

Predictably, it cleaves to the familiar line on the issue of war. War is always and under all circumstances wrong on both sides.

“You see, a conflict always begins with an issue—a difference of opinion, an argument. But by the time it turns into a war, the issue doesn’t matter anymore, because now it’s about one thing and one thing only: how much each side hates the other.”

Wars, the book implies, are caused by some misunderstanding. The war starts because both sides lose their temper, apparently at the same time. And the good guys are the ones trying to broker a compromise.

This theory of war requires us to believe that governments, groups of people generally chosen from their peers for their good sense and level headedness, are prone to suddenly lose their temper for no good reason and send thousands or millions of their fellow citizens to their death. Possible, but not a likely explanation.

In the real world, among individuals or among nations, so long as both sides feel they have a legitimate argument for their position, they will keep arguing. Only when one side loses the argument do they stop negotiating. Then the loser must back down, or resort to force. That is when and why a war starts. As Clausewitz says, "war is a continuation of policy by other means." It is entered into not in a fit of temper, but to achieve some political purpose, in cold blood.

And one side is almost certainly right, and the other side is almost certainly wrong.

Accordingly, those who want to negotiate a compromise are not the good guys. They are doing the Devil’s bidding. It is as though the police, called to a crime, tried to negotiate a compromise between the thief who took the wallet and his victim. Or refused to intervene, as both parties must be at fault for the misunderstanding.

The sure result will be more injustice, and more wars.

And that is what our kids are being taught to think.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Poilievre the Rhetorician

 

Do others realize that Pierre Poilievre is a brilliant rhetorician? He’s better than Reagan, “the Great Communicator.” 

This is an essential talent for rea leadership and getting things done. Without it, all you are is a careerist who will follow the polls. With it, you can take popular opinion along with you.

People credit Justin Trudeau with being a great campaigner, because he has won three elections in a row. His training in acting no doubt helps; a background in acting helped Reagan, Zelensky, Pope John Paul II, Queen Elizabeth II. However, he is not a very good actor, more of a wannabe, and it tends to show. He is an actor in about the same sense Hitler was a painter.

I say Trudeau did not win those three elections so much as Tom Mulcair, Andrew Scheer, and Erin O’Toole lost them. As Peter MacKay put it, Scheer missed a shot on an empty net. And they all lost for the same reason: they abandoned principle and “moved to the centre.” They were poll-watchers.

This never works in opposition, because it is a simple matter for a government too to watch the polls. But they, unlike the opposition, can take immediate action on them, getting on the right side of every issue as it arises. All the opposition can argue, then, is that they would be more efficient or honest in doing the same thing.

Those who like the government will naturally vote for the government again, not some unknown promising to do the same thing.

Those who do not like the government will not vote for someone else promising to do the same thing.

To defeat a sitting government, you need to do what Poilievre is doing: stick to your principles, and sell them to the public. You can’t win the debate if you don’t debate. You can’t begin by conceding all the premises of the other side.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Abortion, War, and Being Unwound

 

The fundamental problem with the young adult novel Unwind, now being studied in a classroom near you, is found in this passage:

“In a perfect world mothers would all want their babies, and strangers would open up their homes to the unloved. In a perfect world everything would be either black or white, right or wrong, and everyone would know the difference. But this isn’t a perfect world. The problem is people who think it is.”

On the face of it, this makes no sense. Who thinks it is a perfect world? Not the left, who are always on about social injustice. Not the religious right, who say the world is fallen. 

What seems to be meant is that the problem is people who think things are either black or white, right or wrong. People who believe in morality; who would condemn a mother for not loving her baby, or people for not helping a stranger in need, as if they could know these things are wrong.

In other words, this is a rejection of the idea of morality itself. Right and wrong are only matters of personal preference, whim.

This is the dogma of the modern classroom. I got it drilled into me myself long ago in grad school, even back in the Seventies. One must never be “judgmental.” That was automatically wrong. One must never assert anything as true. That was arrogant. 

It took me decades to unlearn this; perhaps I am still tainted by it.

The book, lacking self-awareness, contradicts itself only a few pages later. Lev, a deeply religious kid who believes being killed for his organs is a good thing, because this is what he has been taught, has been kidnapped by Connor and Risa, wanting to save his life. 

So he escapes and reports to the nearest authority, the school administration.

“From here in the nurse’s office, Lev has no way of knowing if they’ve captured Connor and Risa. He hopes that, if they have, they don’t bring them here. The thought of having to face them makes him feel ashamed. Doing the right thing shouldn’t make you ashamed.”

In other words, despite his indoctrination by his family, his pastor, his religion, the government, and the educational system, Lev knows innately that Connor and Risa are in the right, and he is in the wrong.

Everyone does know the difference between right and wrong. Conscience will out. Such things are not socially determined.

When I dispute the initial claim, that nobody really knows what is right or wrong, I get a great deal of resistance from students. Particularly because the context seems to be abortion. They have  been well indoctrinated already; they simply will not say that abortion is ever in any way wrong. They will not even agree that it is a necessary evil. No, you can’t say anything is evil.

Then I ask “is war wrong?” And they immediately agree, seemingly without having to stop to consider. They have always been taught this too: that war is wrong in all circumstances. Despite the logical inconsistency. They had apparently never noticed it before. Some students realize the contradiction at this point, some seem not to.

Then I point out the passage featuring Lev’s thoughts on turning in Connor and Risa. 

Here they always, so far, fall silent. 

Poor kids.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Abortion, War, and Bering Uhwound

 

The fundamental problem with the young adult novel Unwind, now being studied in a classroom near you, is found in this passage:

“In a perfect world mothers would all want their babies, and strangers would open up their homes to the unloved. In a perfect world everything would be either black or white, right or wrong, and everyone would know the difference. But this isn’t a perfect world. The problem is people who think it is.”

On the face of it, this makes no sense. Who thinks it is a perfect world? Not the left, who are always on about social injustice. Not the religious right, who say the world is fallen. 

What seems to be meant is that the problem is people who think things are either black or white, right or wrong. People who believe in morality; who would condemn a mother for not loving her baby, or people for not helping a stranger in need, as if they could know these things are wrong.

In other words, this is a rejection of the idea of morality itself. Right and wrong are only matters of personal preference, whim.

This is the dogma of the modern classroom. I got it drilled into me myself long ago in grad school, even back in the Seventies. One must never be “judgmental.” That was automatically wrong. One must never assert anything as true. That was arrogant. 

It took me decades to unlearn this; perhaps I am still tainted by it.

The book, lacking self-awareness, contradicts itself only a few pages later. Lev, a deeply religious kid who believes being killed for his organs is a good thing, because this is what he has been taught, has been kidnapped by Connor and Risa, wanting to save his life. 

So he escapes and reports to the nearest authority, the school administration.

“From here in the nurse’s office, Lev has no way of knowing if they’ve captured Connor and Risa. He hopes that, if they have, they don’t bring them here. The thought of having to face them makes him feel ashamed. Doing the right thing shouldn’t make you ashamed.”

In other words, despite his indoctrination by his family, his pastor, his religion, the government, and the educational system, Lev knows innately that Connor and Risa are in the right, and he is in the wrong.

Everyone does know the difference between right and wrong. Conscience will out. Such things are not socially determined.

When I dispute the initial claim, that nobody really knows what is right or wrong, I get a great deal of resistance from students. Particularly because the context seems to be abortion. They have  been well indoctrinated already; they simply will not say that abortion is ever in any way wrong. They will not even agree that it is a necessary evil. No, you can’t say anything is evil.

Then I ask “is war wrong?” And they immediately agree, seemingly without having to stop to consider. They have always been taught this too: that war is wrong in all circumstances. Despite the logical inconsistency. They had apparently never noticed it before. Some students realize the contradiction at this point, some seem not to.

Then I point out the passage featuring Lev’s thoughts on turning in Connor and Risa. 

Here they always, so far, fall silent. 

Poor kids.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Unwind

 

I am currently reading the novel Unwound (Neal Shusterman), because it is assigned in high schools.

As literature, it is on the level of Dan Brown, or a good comic book: great plotting, but no linguistic charm, vivid description, symbolism, deep characterization, or thematic sublety. It looks to be mostly a conversation starter to discuss politics; specifically, the abortion isse.

The opening premise is that, at some future date, the US dissolves into civil war on the issue of abortion. Eventually a compromise is negotiated: abortion is illegal, but you are free to kill or “unwind” your children at age thirteen.

There is an immediate logical problem with this premise: those opposed to abortion are not going to feel better about killing teenagers. Evidently the author does not understand the issue, or is deliberately falsifying it. Either way, this is not education, but misinformation.

Then the novel has the sole religious family being most aggressively in favour of unwinding their children, on the premise that it is in the Bible. 

Eh?

The author means tithing—so they are obliged to “tithe” their tenth child by killing him. And, after all, wasn’t Moses left in the bullrushes to die? So killing every tenth child is a religious duty.

The problem, as anyone who has read a newspaper or news aggregator knows, is that the religious are generally the ones in favour of “family values,” and against abortion. And, as anyone who has read the Bible knows, Moses was not left in the rushes as a tithe or sacrifice to Yahweh, but at the command of a pagan ruler trying to wipe out the Jews. They might also be aware that such child sacrifice was the crime that provoked Yahweh to cast the Canaanites out of their land, and give it to the Jews.

“Then they made their sons and their daughters pass through the fire, and practiced divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking Him.” 2 Kings 17:17

This book, used in our schools, is teaching young people the opposite of the truth. Partly, is seem to me, to discredit religion. Religion, they are told, is out to kill them.

According to the peace that ended the imaginary second American Civil War, mothers were also permitted “storking.” That is, unwanted babies could be left at someone else’s doorstep without penalty. This being a supposed concession to the women who wanted abortion.

They can do this, however, only if they do not get caught in the act. 

In other words, it is illegal. It is hardly a concession to say that those who do not get caught will not be prosecuted for a crime. 

 Moreover, the current laws are actually more generous. Currently, it is not a crime. Any mother can put her baby up for adoption. In many states, all she has to do is drop the child off at the nearest hospital. 

Again, the book is falsifying the abortion debate, and feeding the impressionable misinformation.

There is a grave problem here. As I think Mark Twain has said, it is far easier to trick someone than to convince them they have been tricked. By filling their heads with falsehoods, the schools are actually preventing kids from learning.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

On Having Enemies

 

He had many enemies himself.

Xerxes the left-wing columnist asks, in his latest effort, “Why, oh why, does America always seem to need an enemy?”

This reminds me of an Analect of Confucius. Asked about the appointment of officials, Confucius said,

“If a man has no friends, it is necessary to make inquiries.
If a man has no enemies, it is necessary to make inquiries.”

If America did not always have some enemies, this would be prima facie evidence that it was a bad actor.

All conspicously moral people have enemies. Indeed, anyone who does anything conspicuous will have enemies, merely due to envy. Churchill, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Lincoln—highly controversial and often hated, in their day. Some might recall that Jesus was crucified.

Pursuing his theme, Xerxes laments that the US attacks “Even though most of those enemies had neither the desire nor the ability to invade -- let alone conquer -- the United States of America.”

That is a non sequitur. Self-defense is not the only just grounds for war. You could make this same accusation against the police—constantly harassing people who have done them no harm. Or of anyone who, say, energetically opposed slavery in the US South, given that they were not themselves enslaved. Or objected to Hitler killing Jews, if not themselves Jewish.

They came for the Jews, and I did nothing.
For I was not a Jew.

Not to claim that the USA is always moral or in the right in its foreign engagements. But engagements must be considered one by one. It seems to me a stretch to suggest the US was in the wrong fighting Japan or Germany in WWII.

A discussion of Trump in his comments section is oddly related.

Quoted respondents denounce Trump as a liar, a reprobate, a conspirator, a grifter, a buffoon. Yet none give an example of anything Trump has ever done, or even said, to justify these epithets.

It cannot be that these writers are simply trapped in news silos, unaware of the need to justify their claims to others. They have to know that large numbers of people voted for Trump; they often mention this, lamenting the fact. 

So why do they feel no need to justify their own claims?

The most likely explanation is that they see people who disagree with them as not worth talking to, not worth persuading, their opinions not worth considering. “Deplorables.” Subhuman, with no right to opinions; or they see themselves as superhuman, with the right to pass judgement. 

This attitude is disturbing to anyone who has read Crime and Punishment; it is also the core argument to justify slavery, or the Nazi Holocaust.

They came for the Jews, and I did nothing.
For I was not a Jew.

The alternative explanation is that they know that their position is untenable—they simply assert, and go ad hominem, because they do not dare discuss it. We must assume, in this case, that the real reason they hate Trump is disreputable. We must guess what it is.

But let’s go to the bottom line. Apply Confucius’s principle to Trump. Trump has both fierce detractors and fierce supporters. 

This is actually the sign of a good man.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

The Plan to Invade Canada

 

This guy came up with a VERY detailed plan to conquer Canada and people are loving it in the replies 🤣 | Not the Bee

But seriously, folks; it would all be over in a couple of days. All that is really needed is to rush up the pancake-flat highway and take Winnipeg. That cuts off everything west from support or reinforcement from the more populated East. 

Then, pincers west from Winnipeg and north from Montana into Alberta, all good flat tank country, to take the Prairies and the oil fields.

After that, who cares?

If you want it, Vancouver is close to the border, and the approaches from Bellingham are again flat. Pacific ports are useful, and awkward not to have, and it is the only significant one Canada owns.

The entrance to the Gulf of St. Lawrence is absurdly narrow at the Cabot Strait and Strait of Belle Isle, and easy to blockade. Nothing would get in or out of Ontario and Quebec. Canada starves, and must capitulate. No need to dirty your trousers crossing the river or Great Lakes to seize the industrial heartland.  But just to play it safe, the USAF can bomb the St. Lawrence Seaway's locks and dams to prevent transit of goods. It could even be done by artillery. 

You could still have the Atlantic Provinces holding out, but that would be like Monty Python's Black Knight. They are relatively unpopulated, poor, and rely on subsidies from the rest of Canada. Without Canada's arms and legs, they are likely to turn to the US with cap in outstretched hand.

Canadians could not, of course, be allowed to vote. They are too liberal, and would skew the balance of power. They might instead be classed as a form of wildlife.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Got to Post It Here

 

Politics is downstream from culture.

And the dam is about to blow.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.