Dave Armstrong's Blog, page 42

Sophia Institute Press (My Primary Publisher) Acquires Catholic Exchange; Exciting Plans for the Future! / My Recent "Book News" / 25% Off Sophia Books Through January

I just learned of this today, in browsing the newly designed Sophia Institute Press website (see also an article from Catholic News Agency). Sophia itself became the publishing arm of Holy Spirit College and Thomas More College in April 2011 and is presently revitalizing itself, looking forward to a bright future. All of this is very good news to me personally, since my four books (one / two / three / four) published by them (soon to be five) will be advertised and promoted far more widely.

Catholic Exchange is a major Catholic portal (read more "about" it). According to their advertising info-page, the site receives 100,000 unique visitors per month and 850,000 page views per month. That's a lot of folks! The Sophia announcement article (22 November 2011) stated:

For the past ten years Catholic Exchange has led the way in the use of new media for evangelization.  Screenwriter Barbara Nicolosi has commented: "Catholic Exchange is just what the Church of the 21st Century needs.  It isn't just a tool of the New Evangelization called for by John Paul II; it IS the New Evangelization."  Every weekday CatholicExchange.com features stories from the contemporary press and timely articles, columns, blog posts, and podcasts on how the message of Jesus Christ addresses the crucial problems of everyday life and fulfills the deepest desires of the human heart.

The move was announced at CE, in the article, "New Era Begins at Catholic Exchange" (17 November 2011). Harold Fickett, who will continue to oversee CE, wrote in a second article, "Catholic Exchange 3.0—CE Reinvented" (2 December 2011):

Over the next few weeks I'll be unfolding our plans, explaining the changes in detail, and taking account of your feedback.

Here are a few of the developments we will be discussing.
CatholicExchange.com will be redesigned. We're opening it up, flattening it out, and updating subcategories of GROW, WORK, SERVE, LOVE, with a topical navigation system.We're broadening our content, substantially increasing news coverage, and redesigning our blogger section.We'll provide more in-depth means of formation through online certificate programs in biblical studies, catechesis, apologetics, canon law, biblical languages, and Latin. We're also building a resource section with study tools, video lectures, and audio presentations.We will concentrate on fundamental issues on which we can have measurable impact — the value of human life, the impact of divorce, the tragic legacy in women's lives of abortion, the problem of addiction to pornography, and the reinvention of Catholic education.We will pursue a social networking strategy that connects our community members with vital Catholic ministries concerned with these fundamental issues, sending out committed Catholics who are ready to put their faith into action.

Of particular interest to me is the section highlighted in blue, above, since these programs will utilize Sophia books.  In an apologetics course, my five books would certainly be included.

I have been informed that my latest book for Sophia, The Quotable Newman , will likely be released in the fall, with lots of marketing to take place before then. It may possibly be available from Sophia somehow in an unabridged form (my present manuscript is 655 pages: Times New Roman 12 font: single space), as well as a more compact paperback version. If not, I will create my own "Volume II," to be published at Lulu. I'll announce more details as they are decided upon.

My new book published by Catholic Answers: 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura , will probably be published in the next few months. Thus, 2012 promises to be a very exciting year for my writing endeavors (2011 was the year of developing my Facebook and Twitter pages, and writing these new books). I will be putting out two more books on my own in the coming months as well: Classic Catholic Biblical Apologetics: 1525-1925 , and a volume about the communion of saints.

I suspect that the former may be accepted for "official" publication in due course. It certainly fits in with Sophia's emphasis on classic Catholic writing, just as the Newman book does (and Catholic Answers' exclusive devotion to apologetics). But be that as it may, I continue to write what I want to write at any given time: to "follow my muse," so to speak. This is what I want to do at present. If someone publishes it, great. If not, then it still has value. I don't concern myself with that. I just write what I feel "called" to write and let the chips fall where they may. This is the secret of how I have been able to write so much over the past twenty-one years as a Catholic, and sixteen years online (26 books and 2500+ blog posts).

Be sure to stop by the Sophia Institute Press website: currently, all books are 25% off, through January.


***

I Predicted Santorum's Victory and Exact Percentage in Iowa / Proposed Gingrich-Santorum "Reaganite Pact" / Links to Many Facebook Political Discussions

Romney won by eight votes: 30,015 (24.557%) to 30,007 (24.551%) for Santorum. [1-19-12 Note: now it looks like Santorum actually won by 34 votes]

I made my predictions for the Iowa Caucus in a Facebook post, written on 2 January, the day before the Caucus (Monday), 1 PM ET. Here they are, followed by the actual results, in blue (from this page) and how close I got to each (in red):

Santorum 25% | 24.55082% | 0.44918

Romney 23% | 24.55737% | - 1.55737

Gingrich 15% | 13.3 % | 1.7

Paul 14% | 21.4% | - 7.4

Perry 13% | 10.3% | 2.7

Bachmann 8% | 5% | 3

Huntsman 2% | 0.6% | 1.4

I did amazingly well (if I do say so)! Excluding Paul, where I was way off, since I was assuming a marked downward trend and miscalculated that (just as I incorporated a striking upward trend for Santorum; thus many "late-breakers" must have gone for Paul), I was within 3 percentage points for all the other six candidates, and within 1.7% for four of the seven, including three of the top four. The average deviation (whether plus or minus) of all seven was 2.6%.

I got the order right, except for the top two: separated by a mere eight votes, or .006%, and Gingrich/Paul (#3 and #4 spots); thus showing again that my only serious miscalculation was Ron Paul's percentage. If I had given him 18% rather than 14% (taking away two points from Gingrich and one each from Perry and Bachmann, to even it out), then I would have been within 3.4% for all seven candidates, and within 2 points for all except for Paul.

I'd like to see anyone match that! If anyone can find a prediction that came so close, I'd be very interested to see it. In particular, the following prognosticating words of mine in my Facebook post, came true:

Santorum's strategy of working all 99 Iowa counties may indeed have succeeded in the end, as a tortoise and hare strategy, and prime example of "old-fashioned" methods of winning the Caucus.

* * *
Going forward, I think that the most interesting factor now will be the relationship of Santorum and Gingrich: the two mainstream conservative "anti-Romneys" left standing (Paul being too libertarian, but above all: out of the mainstream of the party on foreign policy -- to the left even of Obama --, and a predicted eventual non-factor).

They will -- for the time being -- continue to split the relatively more conservative Republican vote, assuming that Gingrich maintains any of his numbers, such as significant leads in South Carolina and Georgia. Newt's poll numbers may indeed rapidly collapse, with big money and "true-blue" conservatives / Reaganites gravitating to Santorum as the "comeback kid" and Final Non-Romney. If so, then Santorum and Romney will duke it out and, respectively, play Reagan and Bush  in 1980: the classic establishment vs. populist / people's choice scenario.

But the other prime consideration is that Santorum now has the bullseye on his back, and will receive 200 times more scrutiny. Romney's negative ads will now target him: as the biggest threat to Romney's "inevitable" magisterial pundit-proclaimed majestic coronation as the new Establishment / Country Club GOP King. The liberal media and Obama minions will immediately start painting him as a far-right lunatic who would force raped women to have abortions, and ostracize homosexuals and institute a Puritanistic Catholic Theocracy (as if that category even makes any sense). This may stall his momentum or even stop Santorum's "Big Mo" dead in its tracks. He may go the way of all the other rising / falling non-Romneys (Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and probably now Gingrich, respectively). All of that could happen. He'll take a hit, for sure.

What I think will be the wisest, most sensible, classy course of action, from my own Reaganite Gingrich-Santorum / critical of Romney perspective, would be a secret "pact" between Gingrich and Santorum. They clearly like each other and have a lot in common. Asked in television debates to choose another of the candidates that are akin to them, I know that Santorum chose Gingrich at least once, and possibly vice versa. Gingrich last night praised Santorum for his positive campaign and great comeback.

If they can both act as good Catholic men, and maintain this charity, they ought to recognize that the conservative cause lies with both of them now, and that a continuing split may very well cause Romney to be the candidate: a thing both are united in opposing. Therefore, in mutual self-interest, they should agree between themselves for one or the other to bow out, if and when they go below a certain predetermined average percentage in the polls (probably the Real Clear Politics website average, which is regarded as a standard), and that when one of them does, they will immediately endorse and even (possibly) work for the other, in order to assure Reaganite victory and someone besides Romney as the nominee.

This makes perfect political sense to me, on the assumption that the Cause is placed above individual ambitions and egos. It may be humanly impossible, but it is true that despite Gingrich's considerable ego, he has been quite magnanimous and fraternal towards the other candidates. Assuming he is the one to bow out (which seems a safer bet at this juncture), it is conceivable that he could do this: towards a friend, fellow Catholic, and, for the large part, political ally. It would be the classy move for him, and show that his charitable demeanor during previous debates was genuine and not a mere ploy.

Otherwise, I can see the writing on the wall already: Gingrich is already being cast (even by the Fox commentators) as "angry Gingrich": out to get revenge for Romney's smear ads against him. he doesn't want to go down in history as the angry, bitter old man: pouting and whining that he lost (this is how he is being perceived; again, I think it is unjust and unfair). If his numbers fall rapidly, that will be the outcome, and what people will remember about him. He can avoid that fate by showing class and getting out with dignity and endorsing Santorum if the situation dictates this to be the wisest course for the conservative cause. Then he'll be seen as a self-effacing team player, who can still be somewhat of a kingmaker, and thereby maintain relevance and stature. He can do his thing (what he excels at) away from the spotlight and negative nonsense.

Santorum should do the same if it goes the other way, but I think it is at least 70-30 odds that it now swings Santorum's way because of momentum, Newt's famous "baggage" (warranted or not), and America's love for comebacks and working-class middle-American backgrounds of second-generation immigrants. Santorum is the "fresh face." That gives him the edge, on all these counts.

For the record, I continue to like both men a great deal. I still prefer Gingrich overall, but realistically, in terms of politics, I think he is too "damaged" (and it is most unfair, in my opinion) to be the better choice of the two now. Santorum has the better chance in the real world, and I must swallow my relentless idealism. But Santorum is a fabulous candidate, too: a good Catholic and authentic, passionate, "progressive / compassionate conservative". If he succeeds in being elected, he ought to include Gingrich in his administration, in some capacity: as a "feel-good" reward for his support (if my scenario comes to pass).


Additional Facebook (lively!) political discussion threads regarding the Republican primaries:

Four Latest Polls in SC: Newt Gingrich Leading by Average of 4.25 Points

Poll of likely GOP voters shows Gingrich just 3 points behind [In South Carolina]

"Special Editorial: From Bain to Main"


"A worthy challenger to Romney: Could Santorum shake things up in New Hampshire?"


"Romney Leads, Santorum Second in National Poll"
Regarding Mitt Romney
Gingrich's New Position of Opposing Abortion Exceptions for Rape and Incest
Evangelical and Mormon Endorsements for Rick Santorum (link to post by Lisa Graas)
Dr. Walter Williams interviews Dr. Thomas Sowell 
Troubles in Iraq After American Withdrawal
Ron Paul's "Mischief Voters"
Iran's Potential Nuclear Capability
"Why the Establishment Fears Newt Gingrich"
Romney's Refusal to Debate Gingrich One-on-One
"The Company Ron Paul Keeps"
Rush Limbaugh's Parody of Ron Paul

Thomas Sowell's Defense of Newt Gingrich Against Personal Attacks.
Romney Frontrunner in Iowa?
  "Gingrich Surges to Wide Lead" 
Tony Blankley Endorses Gingrich
President Obama's Approval Ratings and the Economy

***

I Predicted Santorum's Victory and Exact Percentage in Iowa / Proposed Gingrich-Santorum "Reaganite Pact" / Links for Many Facebook Political Discussions

Romney won by eight votes: 30,015 (24.557%) to 30,007 (24.551%) for Santorum. [1-19-12 Note: now it looks like Santorum actually won by 34 votes]

I made my predictions for the Iowa Caucus in a Facebook post, written on 2 January, the day before the Caucus (Monday), 1 PM ET. Here they are, followed by the actual results, in blue (from this page) and how close I got to each (in red):

Santorum 25% | 24.55082% | 0.44918

Romney 23% | 24.55737% | - 1.55737

Gingrich 15% | 13.3 % | 1.7

Paul 14% | 21.4% | - 7.4

Perry 13% | 10.3% | 2.7

Bachmann 8% | 5% | 3

Huntsman 2% | 0.6% | 1.4

I did amazingly well (if I do say so)! Excluding Paul, where I was way off, since I was assuming a marked downward trend and miscalculated that (just as I incorporated a striking upward trend for Santorum; thus many "late-breakers" must have gone for Paul), I was within 3 percentage points for all the other six candidates, and within 1.7% for four of the seven, including three of the top four. The average deviation (whether plus or minus) of all seven was 2.6%.

I got the order right, except for the top two: separated by a mere eight votes, or .006%, and Gingrich/Paul (#3 and #4 spots); thus showing again that my only serious miscalculation was Ron Paul's percentage. If I had given him 18% rather than 14% (taking away two points from Gingrich and one each from Perry and Bachmann, to even it out), then I would have been within 3.4% for all seven candidates, and within 2 points for all except for Paul.

I'd like to see anyone match that! If anyone can find a prediction that came so close, I'd be very interested to see it. In particular, the following prognosticating words of mine in my Facebook post, came true:

Santorum's strategy of working all 99 Iowa counties may indeed have succeeded in the end, as a tortoise and hare strategy, and prime example of "old-fashioned" methods of winning the Caucus.

* * *
Going forward, I think that the most interesting factor now will be the relationship of Santorum and Gingrich: the two mainstream conservative "anti-Romneys" left standing (Paul being too libertarian, but above all: out of the mainstream of the party on foreign policy -- to the left even of Obama --, and a predicted eventual non-factor).

They will -- for the time being -- continue to split the relatively more conservative Republican vote, assuming that Gingrich maintains any of his numbers, such as significant leads in South Carolina and Georgia. Newt's poll numbers may indeed rapidly collapse, with big money and "true-blue" conservatives / Reaganites gravitating to Santorum as the "comeback kid" and Final Non-Romney. If so, then Santorum and Romney will duke it out and, respectively, play Reagan and Bush  in 1980: the classic establishment vs. populist / people's choice scenario.

But the other prime consideration is that Santorum now has the bullseye on his back, and will receive 200 times more scrutiny. Romney's negative ads will now target him: as the biggest threat to Romney's "inevitable" magisterial pundit-proclaimed majestic coronation as the new Establishment / Country Club GOP King. The liberal media and Obama minions will immediately start painting him as a far-right lunatic who would force raped women to have abortions, and ostracize homosexuals and institute a Puritanistic Catholic Theocracy (as if that category even makes any sense). This may stall his momentum or even stop Santorum's "Big Mo" dead in its tracks. He may go the way of all the other rising / falling non-Romneys (Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and probably now Gingrich, respectively). All of that could happen. He'll take a hit, for sure.

What I think will be the wisest, most sensible, classy course of action, from my own Reaganite Gingrich-Santorum / critical of Romney perspective, would be a secret "pact" between Gingrich and Santorum. They clearly like each other and have a lot in common. Asked in television debates to choose another of the candidates that are akin to them, I know that Santorum chose Gingrich at least once, and possibly vice versa. Gingrich last night praised Santorum for his positive campaign and great comeback.

If they can both act as good Catholic men, and maintain this charity, they ought to recognize that the conservative cause lies with both of them now, and that a continuing split may very well cause Romney to be the candidate: a thing both are united in opposing. Therefore, in mutual self-interest, they should agree between themselves for one or the other to bow out, if and when they go below a certain predetermined average percentage in the polls (probably the Real Clear Politics website average, which is regarded as a standard), and that when one of them does, they will immediately endorse and even (possibly) work for the other, in order to assure Reaganite victory and someone besides Romney as the nominee.

This makes perfect political sense to me, on the assumption that the Cause is placed above individual ambitions and egos. It may be humanly impossible, but it is true that despite Gingrich's considerable ego, he has been quite magnanimous and fraternal towards the other candidates. Assuming he is the one to bow out (which seems a safer bet at this juncture), it is conceivable that he could do this: towards a friend, fellow Catholic, and, for the large part, political ally. It would be the classy move for him, and show that his charitable demeanor during previous debates was genuine and not a mere ploy.

Otherwise, I can see the writing on the wall already: Gingrich is already being cast (even by the Fox commentators) as "angry Gingrich": out to get revenge for Romney's smear ads against him. he doesn't want to go down in history as the angry, bitter old man: pouting and whining that he lost (this is how he is being perceived; again, I think it is unjust and unfair). If his numbers fall rapidly, that will be the outcome, and what people will remember about him. He can avoid that fate by showing class and getting out with dignity and endorsing Santorum if the situation dictates this to be the wisest course for the conservative cause. Then he'll be seen as a self-effacing team player, who can still be somewhat of a kingmaker, and thereby maintain relevance and stature. He can do his thing (what he excels at) away from the spotlight and negative nonsense.

Santorum should do the same if it goes the other way, but I think it is at least 70-30 odds that it now swings Santorum's way because of momentum, Newt's famous "baggage" (warranted or not), and America's love for comebacks and working-class middle-American backgrounds of second-generation immigrants. Santorum is the "fresh face." That gives him the edge, on all these counts.

For the record, I continue to like both men a great deal. I still prefer Gingrich overall, but realistically, in terms of politics, I think he is too "damaged" (and it is most unfair, in my opinion) to be the better choice of the two now. Santorum has the better chance in the real world, and I must swallow my relentless idealism. But Santorum is a fabulous candidate, too: a good Catholic and authentic, passionate, "progressive / compassionate conservative". If he succeeds in being elected, he ought to include Gingrich in his administration, in some capacity: as a "feel-good" reward for his support (if my scenario comes to pass).


Additional Facebook (lively!) political discussion threads regarding the Republican primaries:


Poll of likely GOP voters shows Gingrich just 3 points behind [In South Carolina]

"Special Editorial: From Bain to Main"


"A worthy challenger to Romney: Could Santorum shake things up in New Hampshire?"


"Romney Leads, Santorum Second in National Poll"
Regarding Mitt Romney
Gingrich's New Position of Opposing Abortion Exceptions for Rape and Incest
Evangelical and Mormon Endorsements for Rick Santorum (link to post by Lisa Graas)
Dr. Walter Williams interviews Dr. Thomas Sowell 
Troubles in Iraq After American Withdrawal
Ron Paul's "Mischief Voters"
Iran's Potential Nuclear Capability
"Why the Establishment Fears Newt Gingrich"
Romney's Refusal to Debate Gingrich One-on-One
"The Company Ron Paul Keeps"
Rush Limbaugh's Parody of Ron Paul

Thomas Sowell's Defense of Newt Gingrich Against Personal Attacks.
Romney Frontrunner in Iowa? "Gingrich Surges to Wide Lead" 
Tony Blankley Endorses Gingrich
President Obama's Approval Ratings and the Economy

***

I Predicted Santorum's Exact Percentage in Iowa; Missed Forecasting a Santorum Victory by Nine Votes / Proposed Gingrich-Santorum "Reaganite Pact"

Romney won by eight votes: 30,015 (24.557%) to 30,007 (24.551%) for Santorum.

I made my predictions for the Iowa Caucus in a Facebook post, written on 2 January, the day before the Caucus (Monday), 1 PM ET. Here they are, followed by the actual results, in blue (from this page) and how close I got to each (in red):

Santorum 25% | 24.55082% | 0.44918

Romney 23% | 24.55737% | - 1.55737

Gingrich 15% | 13.3 % | 1.7

Paul 14% | 21.4% | - 7.4

Perry 13% | 10.3% | 2.7

Bachmann 8% | 5% | 3

Huntsman 2% | 0.6% | 1.4

I did amazingly well (if I do say so)! Excluding Paul, where I was way off, since I was assuming a marked downward trend and miscalculated that (just as I incorporated a striking upward trend for Santorum; thus many "late-breakers" must have gone for Paul), I was within 3 percentage points for all the other six candidates, and within 1.7% for four of the seven, including three of the top four. The average deviation (whether plus or minus) of all seven was 2.6%.

I got the order right, except for the top two: separated by a mere eight votes, or .006%, and Gingrich/Paul (#3 and #4 spots); thus showing again that my only serious miscalculation was Ron Paul's percentage. If I had given him 18% rather than 14% (taking away two points from Gingrich and one each from Perry and Bachmann, to even it out), then I would have been within 3.4% for all seven candidates, and within 2 points for all except for Paul.

I'd like to see anyone match that! If anyone can find a prediction that came so close, I'd be very interested to see it. In particular, the following prognosticating words of mine in my Facebook post, came true:

Santorum's strategy of working all 99 Iowa counties may indeed have succeeded in the end, as a tortoise and hare strategy, and prime example of "old-fashioned" methods of winning the Caucus.

* * *
Going forward, I think that the most interesting factor now will be the relationship of Santorum and Gingrich: the two mainstream conservative "anti-Romneys" left standing (Paul being too libertarian, but above all: out of the mainstream of the party on foreign policy -- to the left even of Obama --, and a predicted eventual non-factor).

They will -- for the time being -- continue to split the relatively more conservative Republican vote, assuming that Gingrich maintains any of his numbers, such as significant leads in South Carolina and Georgia. Newt's poll numbers may indeed rapidly collapse, with big money and "true-blue" conservatives / Reaganites gravitating to Santorum as the "comeback kid" and Final Non-Romney. If so, then Santorum and Romney will duke it out and, respectively, play Reagan and Bush  in 1980: the classic establishment vs. populist / people's choice scenario.

But the other prime consideration is that Santorum now has the bullseye on his back, and will receive 200 times more scrutiny. Romney's negative ads will now target him: as the biggest threat to Romney's "inevitable" magisterial pundit-proclaimed majestic coronation as the new Establishment / Country Club GOP King. The liberal media and Obama minions will immediately start painting him as a far-right lunatic who would force raped women to have abortions, and ostracize homosexuals and institute a Puritanistic Catholic Theocracy (as if that category even makes any sense). This may stall his momentum or even stop Santorum's "Big Mo" dead in its tracks. He may go the way of all the other rising / falling non-Romneys (Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and probably now Gingrich, respectively). All of that could happen. He'll take a hit, for sure.

What I think will be the wisest, most sensible, classy course of action, from my own Reaganite Gingrich-Santorum / critical of Romney perspective, would be a secret "pact" between Gingrich and Santorum. They clearly like each other and have a lot in common. Asked in television debates to choose another of the candidates that are akin to them, I know that Santorum chose Gingrich at least once, and possibly vice versa. Gingrich last night praised Santorum for his positive campaign and great comeback.

If they can both act as good Catholic men, and maintain this charity, they ought to recognize that the conservative cause lies with both of them now, and that a continuing split may very well cause Romney to be the candidate: a thing both are united in opposing. Therefore, in mutual self-interest, they should agree between themselves for one or the other to bow out, if and when they go below a certain predetermined average percentage in the polls (probably the Real Clear Politics website average, which is regarded as a standard), and that when one of them does, they will immediately endorse and even (possibly) work for the other, in order to assure Reaganite victory and someone besides Romney as the nominee.

This makes perfect political sense to me, on the assumption that the Cause is placed above individual ambitions and egos. It may be humanly impossible, but it is true that despite Gingrich's considerable ego, he has been quite magnanimous and fraternal towards the other candidates. Assuming he is the one to bow out (which seems a safer bet at this juncture), it is conceivable that he could do this: towards a friend, fellow Catholic, and, for the large part, political ally. It would be the classy move for him, and show that his charitable demeanor during previous debates was genuine and not a mere ploy.

Otherwise, I can see the writing on the wall already: Gingrich is already being cast (even by the Fox commentators) as "angry Gingrich": out to get revenge for Romney's smear ads against him. he doesn't want to go down in history as the angry, bitter old man: pouting and whining that he lost (this is how he is being perceived; again, I think it is unjust and unfair). If his numbers fall rapidly, that will be the outcome, and what people will remember about him. He can avoid that fate by showing class and getting out with dignity and endorsing Santorum if the situation dictates this to be the wisest course for the conservative cause. Then he'll be seen as a self-effacing team player, who can still be somewhat of a kingmaker, and thereby maintain relevance and stature. He can do his thing (what he excels at) away from the spotlight and negative nonsense.

Santorum should do the same if it goes the other way, but I think it is at least 70-30 odds that it now swings Santorum's way because of momentum, Newt's famous "baggage" (warranted or not), and America's love for comebacks and working-class middle-American backgrounds of second-generation immigrants. Santorum is the "fresh face." That gives him the edge, on all these counts.

For the record, I continue to like both men a great deal. I still prefer Gingrich overall, but realistically, in terms of politics, I think he is too "damaged" (and it is most unfair, in my opinion) to be the better choice of the two now. Santorum has the better chance in the real world, and I must swallow my relentless idealism. But Santorum is a fabulous candidate, too: a good Catholic and authentic, passionate, "progressive / compassionate conservative". If he succeeds in being elected, he ought to include Gingrich in his administration, in some capacity: as a "feel-good" reward for his support (if my scenario comes to pass).


Other recent Facebook (lively!) political discussion threads:

Regarding Mitt Romney
Gingrich's New Position of Opposing Abortion Exceptions for Rape and Incest
Evangelical and Mormon Endorsements for Rick Santorum (link to post by Lisa Graas)
Dr. Walter Williams interviews Dr. Thomas Sowell 
Troubles in Iraq After American Withdrawal
Ron Paul's "Mischief Voters"
Iran's Potential Nuclear Capability
"Why the Establishment Fears Newt Gingrich"
Romney's Refusal to Debate Gingrich One-on-One
"The Company Ron Paul Keeps"
Rush Limbaugh's Parody of Ron Paul

Thomas Sowell's Defense of Newt Gingrich Against Personal Attacks.
Romney Frontrunner in Iowa? [12-15-11]  "Gingrich Surges to Wide Lead" [12-15-11]
Tony Blankley Endorses Gingrich
President Obama's Approval Ratings and the Economy

***

Catholic Social Teaching and Myself: Brief Explanation and Clarification

 [initially a reaction to criticisms made by those of various political persuasions, on my Facebook page]

The Catholic Church is not officially pacifist (i.e., opposed to all wars or use of lethal force whatsoever, for any reason). It acknowledges the God-given prerogative of states to bear the sword (CCC #2308) and details the criteria of just war (2309-2310). Of course we try to avoid war, as we are strongly urged by the Church to do (2308, 2327). But it's not always possible in an evil world. Thus, Catholics can't argue that support for any war effort whatever is intrinsically contrary to Catholic social teaching. Good Catholics and honest, informed men can differ in good faith on particulars regarding armed conflict.

Some want to argue that (among current Republican candidates in this early primary process), only Ron Paul is consistent with Catholic teaching. I respond that Catholics are allowed to argue for war in particular instances, according to just war criteria -- war is not intrinsically evil in every case -- but they are not allowed to advocate the position of allowable abortion in the cases of rape and incest: which Ron Paul does (as I documented in a Facebook discussion thread).

Thus, Ron Paul goes directly against Catholic social teaching and advocates murder insofar as he does that. Catholic Rick Santorum (among these candidates); also Michele Bachmann (evangelical Protestant) do not allow those exceptions, in terms of advocacy (and Gingrich and Perry also appear to have recently adopted this more consistent and "Catholic" position). Senator Santorum has voted for some measures, however, that include that, in order to prevent as many abortions as possible (less total numbers of abortions, if it is not politically or legally possible to prevent all), which is permissible under Catholic social teaching and political philosophy.

If Paul supporters want to argue that "their guy" alone fits with Catholic teaching, they are factually incorrect. He advocates intrinsic evil in that instance, whereas, e.g., taking out Iran's nuclear plant (something Santorum favors) is not intrinsically evil at all. It is the opposition to quite possible mass murder and annihilation of cities: a measure that is quite agreeable with Catholic teaching. It's not targeting populations, but rather, nuclear power plants (which is not the same as exploding a nuclear bomb over a city).

Some political critics of mine claim that I write with little or no knowledge of Catholic social teaching. This is sheer nonsense. I have, e.g., written extensively on the evil of our nuclear bombing of Japan. This raised such a fuss that I actually lost a friend over it, and he uttered more bitter, slanderous words against me (all in public) than even the most virulent anti-Catholic Protestants ever have. I've also critiqued other immoral actions in World War II, such as carpet bombing of cities.

I have written publicly that the United States is the wickedest nation in world history due to abortion: hardly a typical conservative perspective. And I first stated that shortly after 9-11, and said that this could possibly be the beginning of judgment for the US. I caught tremendous hell for that. In other words, I am not guilty of the Americanist heresy of (among other things) glorifying America over against the Church. I'm not "more American than Catholic," or "more politically conservative than Catholic."

I have written about a Catholic "third way" that is ultimately neither conservative nor liberal.

I've critiqued corporate capitalism in no uncertain terms and have stated that I like distributism and subsidiarity. I have severely critiqued libertarianism, that is often rampant in conservative circles, as a quite insufficiently Catholic political philosophy. I have argued for progressive almsgiving (i.e., rich people give a lot more, by percentage) rather than a straight 10% rate ("tithing").

I've written a lot about the great evil of racism, and condemned it in no uncertain terms.

I've outlined the nuanced Catholic perspective on illegal immigration.

I oppose the death penalty, except in the very worst case scenarios, such as terrorism or mass murderers (the pope made clear -- in 2004 -- that Catholics and states have the right to do so, without being considered in violation of the Church's teaching).


Many of these things are not "conservative" emphases at all, or at least not prominent "talking points."

We can disagree in good faith without the condescending descriptions of each others' views. I was with an old Baptist friend of mine on New Year's Day who is a democratic socialist in politics. We get along fine. We have respect for each other. I have homosexual friends, atheist friends, Muslim friends, tons of Protestant friends, people of all kinds of political persuasions and ethnic groups. I get along with anyone. I allow any viewpoint to be expressed on my Facebook page or my blog, as long as it is charitable and civil.

There is such a thing as a just war, and folks like myself can legitimately argue that particular wars qualify as such (and other Catholics can and do argue that no war in the history of the world ever did, but they can't claim that others are not allowed to disagree with them and still remain good Catholics). Reasonable men in good faith can disagree. We are allowed to.

I don't claim to be any sort of expert at all on Catholic social teaching. I have many other things that I am far more concentrated on, as an apologist (doctrinal and theological, rather than social). I readily grant that many Catholics know a lot more than I do about it in very many particulars. 

What I take strong exception to, however, is the claim that I am rejecting Catholic social teaching (or am grossly ignorant of it altogether) simply because I take what are regarded as "conservative" views on some issues (I would classify it as "progressive conservatism"), such as broad foreign policy and ways to improve the lot of the poor and underprivileged. Not true at all . . .And arguably, sometimes such critics can be said to be (at least in some respects) "more politically liberal than Catholic." Certainly, those who vote for pro-abortion politicians (given a choice of a pro-lifer) are acting in such a manner in that respect.


***

On the Question of How to React to Panhandlers and Beggars on the Street: What is Our Christian Obligation and Responsibility? + The Larger Question of Poverty: Causes and Solutions

 [ source ]
My friend Brent Robbins sent me the following "self-examination" of sorts and made a request that I write about it, if possible:

I get panhandled all the time by supposed homeless people while walking down the streets of Seattle. There is a person on a street corner holding up a cardboard sign at every stop light as well. I even get panhandled at church after mass! It's kind of epidemic. In all honesty, my reaction is pretty standardized when someone approaches me, "NO! Leave me alone!"

I assume they are alcoholics, drug addicts, potential muggers looking for an opening or legitimate people needing help. I can't tell their true intentions so I treat them all the same. Honestly, if I stopped and truly tried to help each person that panhandled me, I literally would never make an appointment or even make it anywhere. Plus, sometimes I fear for my safety or fear being put in a bad position. Anyone that lives in a large city would know what I'm talking about.

With all that, I have questioned my technique and don't think Jesus would do that. On the flip side, I'm not God, so I give myself slack. I am a big supporter of donating and volunteering at homeless shelters and food kitchens, but I have taken a hard stance against panhandling, but am questioning if what I do is in the mind of the Church.

If you could answer these questions:

As Christians, what are we obligated to do towards panhandlers?

As Christians, what should we do towards panhandlers, assuming we want to maximize holiness and minimize purgatory time for ourselves?

If we are obligated to do something more than tell panhandlers to go away like myself, could you give an example of how that conversation may play out?

Does it make a difference on if you get the feeling the purpose is lying to you?

Thanks for any help!!

This issue is a very good one to ponder, and can get quite complicated ethically in one sense, while it might be said to be simple in another. It's what could be called a "large and lumpy" topic. Holy Scripture is abundantly clear (beyond all argument) in teaching that we have an obligation to help the poor, insofar as we are able to do so. That is so obvious I don't think I need to even cite Bible passages, for those of us (most of my readers, I think) familiar with the Bible. But the first one that immediately came into my mind was Luke 3:11 (RSV, as throughout): "He who has two coats, let him share with him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise."

For a biblical survey of the general topic of "The Poor", see related Scripture passages, arranged by sub-topics, from Nave's Topical Bible. To pick out just one of many, here is Matthew 5:42: "Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you." The Catholic Church and most Christian communions I know of would concur in a general sense: that this is a Christian obligation incumbent upon all.

The question before us is practical application of the biblical commands to help the poor, to be beneficent and caring and compassionate for the plight of people less fortunate than we are: to be our brother's keeper. This is where complexity and confusion enters in. We need to clarify in our minds (Brent's sense of obligation and guilt that I think most of us can relate to) and for the sake of the poor and needy. Riches are to be shared, not hoarded solely for ourselves, etc. What do we do about it? We may have the very best of intentions: the biggest heart of gold in the world, but despite that, may go about it in an unwise way.

It doesn't follow, we need to note, that there can be no one at all who has possessions or savings in the bank or investments, or that all nice things (houses, cars, pools, big book or music collections [ahem!], fine clothes, etc.) are forbidden. Not everyone is called to give up everything they own, like the disciples and the rich young ruler (Luke 18:22). It's not a command binding upon all, to "Sell all that you have." Riches had become an idol for this particular man, and Jesus stated what was necessary in his specific case. In other instances, such as ordained / religious who take a vow of poverty, or the early Franciscans, it is a case of following the evangelical counsels. Scripture refers specifically to this:

Jeremiah 35:8-10 We have obeyed the voice of Jon'adab the son of Rechab, our father, in all that he commanded us, to drink no wine all our days, ourselves, our wives, our sons, or our daughters, [9] and not to build houses to dwell in. We have no vineyard or field or seed; [10] but we have lived in tents, and have obeyed and done all that Jon'adab our father commanded us.

St. Francis de Sales, in his Catholic Controversy, commented on this passage as follows:

So the Rechabites are magnificently praised in Jeremiah 35, because they obeyed their father Jonadab in things very hard and extraordinary, in which he had no authority to oblige them, . . . Fathers certainly may not so tightly fasten the hands of their posterity, unless they voluntarily consent thereto. The Rechabites, however, are praised and blessed by God in approval of this voluntary obedience, by which they had renounced themselves with an extraordinary and more perfect renunciation. . . .

If everybody runs after money and possessions, to whom will that word of Our Lord [Matt 6:19] be addressed: "Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth, "or that other [Matt 19:21]: "Go, sell all, give to the poor"? If every one will govern in his turn, where shall be found the practice of that most solemn sentence (Luke 9:23): "He who will come after me let him deny himself"? . . . [it] would be vain and useless if in the true Church all these parts are not made use of.

But the rest of us who are not bound by personal choice and divine calling, to follow the evangelical counsels,  are nevertheless called to be good stewards of what God has blessed us with. How do we help the poor? What do we do when approached by beggars and panhandlers; ostensibly destitute sign holders who appeal to the good will and good-heartedness of the average American person who is very well-to-do, by the world's standards, and especially by the historical criteria of "possessions"? Let's take a closer look at this.

I grew up in Detroit (till age 17), in an old, almost inner-city working class neighborhood (my house was built in 1916); went to all Detroit public schools, including Cass Technical High School and Wayne State University, both just outside downtown. I attend church in a parish (St. Joseph's) close to downtown, and have for twenty years, and lived in Detroit again from 1988-1999. Thus, I am very familiar with panhandlers and the destitute. There are plenty of them in Detroit, as is well-known.

Our parish actually states in its church bulletin, to not give money to beggars outside the church. We are told to direct them to our food outreach that occurs at certain times. This is the prudential judgment of our pastors, as to what is best, and we ought to be in subjection to our own priests. My own family brings food to contribute to this charitable work, every Sunday.

The last time I was approached by such a person outside our church (about four weeks ago), I said (quite truthfully) that I had no money on me. Oftentimes, I literally have no or very little extra money beyond my bills (as a full-time apologist of very meager income, with a family of six to provide for). Other times, I have some in the bank, but don't have cash, preferring the ATM debit card. This person had asked in the usual manner, then when I said I had no money, I noticed that she went off grumbling and (from what I could tell) putting me down.

Perhaps she (a black woman) thought I was racist, and had a stereotype of  what she thought was the typical white suburbanite, unconcerned about African-Americans in Detroit (which does indeed oftentimes hold true, and the highly segregated neighborhoods of metro Detroit reinforce it). Thus, I was falsely deemed to be an uncaring person. My heart was judged.

I have often had one or more of the following thoughts:

1) Many (who knows how many, but a lot) of such beggars and panhandlers are drug abusers or alcoholics, who will take the money given them and immediately go buy more drugs or drinks. They are almost never, however, violent. It's not a "mugging" scenario, though there is often the "con game" aspect to it. Very few beggars -- in my experience, none -- are muggers.

2) Assuming #1 is the case, it is far better to physically go with the person to eat at a restaurant, so that the money is used for healthy purposes. This way, we know that the money was used properly. While eating with them, we can also share Christianity and become more personally involved.

3) It is better to teach a man to fish rather than giving him fish to eat ("hand up" rather than a handout, which is the motto of a local charity called Joy of Jesus).

I think these are all relevant factors. There is much more going on than simply a person who has a need, and our obligation to help them in an immediate circumstance of begging. And there are more ways of assisting them than giving money on the spot. There are underlying, immediate and remote causes for their plight; both personal and societal senses of causation; closely related factors such as moral and familial issues, and personal responsibility. For every case of a truly "hard-luck" scenario, I suspect that there are five or more where the person under consideration has made wrong choices and is primarily responsible for his or her plight. I don't know the ratios, but these are all important considerations.

It doesn't necessarily follow that we don't help the person if we deem that they have largely brought about their own misery (I'm not saying that; mercy and charity includes compassion for these wrong life choices), but it gets to the question of underlying causes, and what to do about them, in order to effect long-term solutions to human deprivation and misery.

We know that there are many causes for poverty and homelessness (my major was sociology): drugs, family breakdown (in turn closely related to immoral sexual practices that lend themselves to divorce and broken homes), poor government programs such as the "Great Society" (the well-intentioned "war on the poor" begun by LBJ, that is a demonstrable failure), racism, economic conditions (here in Detroit the auto companies are extremely important), bad laws, lousy schools, negative influences of media and entertainment, music, or unsavory products of the Internet, etc.

How do we apply all that to the panhandling situation? I have tried to make a determination of whether the person who is soliciting was being truthful or not. One time I encountered a man who gave the usual story (I've heard it well over 100 times) of his car breaking down, and just needing $10 or $20 for gas. I decided to test it out. This particular person (I recall general details), who did not outwardly look like a "bum" or homeless person, said he had some money at home, and all he had to do was get there and would then be happy to pay me back. He swore that this was the case over and over. I gave him the money, and a way to get back to me. He never did. He was never heard from again.

I considered that a test case. I wanted to help and have the proper compassion, but not to be gullible, and not to be a stooge for a con. We are obligated to help less fortunate people, but we are not obligated to help liars and manipulators and con men, for in doing so, we are being bad stewards ourselves, not showing good judgment, and actually contributing to the ongoing personal problem by feeding into the sin; helping to enable it, in other words. If everyone falls for the con and gives money, they will go on doing this indefinitely, and lying is a serious sin.

Oftentimes, the beggar is a liar, who has honed his or her craft by cynically developing heart-grabbing tactics that have proven successful. They know what works, and they milk the tactics for all they are worth. We are not obliged to help liars of this sort: at least not in the form of immediate cash on the spot. We should take them out to eat. Then we're not taken advantage of. We freely share with them the necessities of life and show Christian love.

Once when I was in high school I ran into a guy outside the library I used to go to, who wanted a ride. He said he would give me some tickets to a concert in return.  I was completely taken in by this con man. I drove him around for several hours, often waiting out in the car, and scared my mother half to death, by not letting her know where I was (I still cringe thinking about it, even after some 35 years). He was a liar. I was utterly used. He took advantage of my good intentions, and even my mother had to suffer as a result of my naive and gullible stupidity.

On another occasion, my wife and I ran into a young woman who was in a very bad situation. We actually took her into our home for a few days, and then arranged to have her go stay at a temporary Salvation Army shelter (that coincidentally was the same place where I was born: it used to be a hospital). We tried to help her gain a footing and make a new start. Sure enough, once at the shelter for a day or two, we got a phone call from her. She said she had broken the curfew there and wanted to stay with us. We refused, on the grounds that she was not willing to help herself and be responsible; therefore, there was nothing further we could do.

I dimly recall a fourth incident where I tried to work with a man in the same manner. He said he had skills as a baker. Nothing came of it. It was a fiasco, just like the other three instances. I think these things have to be dealt with on a grand scale: with moral teaching, education, avoidance of broken homes and divorce. As our society rejects traditional Judaeo-Christian values, things get worse and worse. We see it all around us, and the inner cities are the worst.

I don't want to get "too political," but my own opinion as a Christian is that the root cause is the loss of these traditional moral values and the breakdown of the home and basic sexual morality. As a political conservative, I also critique the "Great Society" and welfare and more liberal social engineering for actually bringing about the misery through a series of complex causes, that they intended to alleviate. These efforts were socially naive (to put it mildly) and historically and morally shortsighted.

Families in the inner cities are far more broken down than they were before the 60s and all these massive social programs, designed to eliminate poverty. It has been said that the black family survived even the horrors of slavery, but couldn't withstand the deleterious effects of the Great Society. Children from unmarried African-American mothers in 2008 accounted for 72.3% of all births in that sub-group. Among white women it was 28.7%.

For unmarried white women, aged 15 to 44 in 1966 (just as the Great Society was kicking into high gear), the birth rate was 16 out of 1000 or 3%. Thus, the rate had exponentially exploded, to over nine times as much in 44 years: one biblical generation. And that is despite the fact that some one out of three pregnancies end in childkilling (aka abortion). The rate for "nonwhite" women under the same criteria, from 1966, was 12%, whereas now it is 72.3% among black women, or about six times higher.

These are momentous, massive societal problems, and we know from many sociological studies that illegitimacy and broken homes are perhaps the leading indicators of further poverty or a life of crime. A broken home (which usually means without a father) is a greater predictor of a life of crime, than even poverty itself. It perpetuates poverty in great proportion, too. Nor can racism be blamed as the primary culprit.

It is well-known now that the vast majority of black people who are murdered, are killed by other black people; not by racist whites (with figures as high as 90%). Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King was murdered by a white man (I visited the site in 2007), but Malcolm X was not. His widow, Betty Shabazz, died in 1997 of burn injuries as a result of her grandson setting fire to her apartment. Violence and deaths among African-Americans have gone far, far beyond racist white persecution.

Another illustration of this is the case of an incident involving Rosa Parks: the civil rights giant. I met her once; visited the spot where she refused to move to the back of the bus (in Montgomery), and have sat in the bus itself. The Wikipedia article on Parks states:

On August 30, 1994, Joseph Skipper, an African-American drug addict, attacked 81-year-old Parks in her home. The incident sparked outrage throughout the United States. After his arrest, Skipper said that he had not known he was in Parks' home but recognized her after entering. Skipper asked, "Hey, aren't you Rosa Parks?" to which she replied, "Yes." She handed him $3 when he demanded money, and an additional $50 when he demanded more. Before fleeing, Skipper struck Parks in the face. Skipper was arrested and charged with various breaking and entering offenses against Parks and other neighborhood victims. He admitted guilt and, on August 8, 1995, was sentenced to eight to 15 years in prison. Suffering anxiety upon returning to her too small central Detroit house following the ordeal, she moved into Riverfront Towers, a secure high rise apartment building where she lived for the rest of her life.

One article on black-on-black crime noted:

The Reverend Damon Lynch III says the family unit is suffering and therefore, so is the community at large.

"The biggest challenge is restoring the family unit," said Rev. Lynch. "The destruction of the black family is the main cause - the root cause - for all of these ailments that we see in our community. The violence, the teenage pregnancy. The infant mortality rate in our community - and people watching this - many of them know the history. In 1920, 90 percent of black families had a father in the house. In 1960, 80 percent of black families had a father in the house. In 2011, it's only 30 percent. Three out of 10."

I digress into these stories to show that neither poverty nor crime are primarily due to racism. They are huge societal problems that have very complex causality (including a close relation to the breakdown of the family and traditional Christian values), and therefore, are not resolved in a simple fashion, by giving money out to a panhandler.

Therefore, in my opinion, the problem of poverty must be dealt with on a grand scale, not a small scale, but with a very different model than the failed Great Society: going back to the self-help, learn-a-vocation philosophy of Booker T. Washington. What we need is a Christian-informed capitalism; not socialism. The former is a proven success: the latter rarely if ever is. Rather than giving a beggar a fish that helps him for a half-hour, we teach him how to fish, which helps him survive for a lifetime. Non-metaphorically, this means teaching him an occupation (and to make one available by fostering a thriving economy), so that he can support himself and not have to beg.

That isn't accomplished by giving a person $20 on the street, that will likely be transformed into drugs or another drink. We do have models of successful programs to help the poor: usually private, faith-based enterprises, such as Joy of Jesus, here in Detroit, or the widely-praised Focus Hope: another local organization that was led by a Catholic priest, the late Fr. William Cunningham. Charleszetta "Mother" Waddles (d. 2001) was a legendary figure in Detroit charitable works. Her organization now primarily donates cars to poor people. We have donated one of ours to it. Faith-based charities always seem to be far more effective than government programs.

There are some government (bipartisan) incentives to economic development that actually work. Free enterprise zones, promoted by Robert Kennedy and Jack Kemp, are quite effective to create opportunity. Mexicantown in Detroit, a mile from where I grew up (Springwells Village), was a great recipient of this benefit in recent years.

We must teach traditional values, too. If a preacher talks about concern for the poor, but ignores the known factors (other than racism) that create poverty: bad social programs, crime, broken homes, promiscuous sex, then he does nothing to alleviate the problem in the long run. He puts a small, temporary band-aid on a gaping wound. We must have good schools for everyone. For years, school choice (a proven method to improve quality) and teacher pay based on merit have been rejected by the teacher unions, so public schools (and the poorer the neighborhood, the worse) continue to crank out kids who can't read, and thus, won't be able to get a job. I was privileged to attend the best public high school in Detroit, and one of the very best in the country, but Detroit high schools today on the whole are a disaster, with widespread illiteracy and atrocious non-graduation rates.

It is a known fact that schools can succeed, even in the inner-city, with the right techniques and devotion. An example in Detroit is the Cornerstone Schools. Good education, like strong families and hopeful economic opportunities and faith and religious observance, defeat poverty. Merely throwing money at the problem without sensible longterm solutions (Great Society) doesn't help things; it makes them worse. This is now demonstrable fact, once we get past all the posturings and rationalizations and mere partisan bickering: always blaming the other guy or race or social class.

Another entire discussion could be had about creating economic opportunity (meaning, bottom line: decent-paying jobs available for all). This existed under both Republican (Reagan, both Bushes) and Democratic (JFK, LBJ, Clinton) presidencies, while in presidencies under both parties (Nixon, Carter, Obama), bad economic conditions have dominated. The thing to do is to put into place policies that will help alleviate poverty by creating widespread opportunity through availability of jobs, solid education, and promotion of traditional family and sexual and communitarian values.


To go beyond a quick $20 bill handout and provide some lasting solutions, which is really where love and compassion "get practical and prudent", we have to take into account these larger causal factors. The best way to truly assist such a person is to direct him to a church that teaches traditional doctrines and morality, a good school, and a faith-based social program with a proven track record (if needed), to help get him on his feet and established and self-sufficient.

By supporting the appropriate (most effective) institutions and charitable organizations financially, we help the poor in a tangible, effective way. Our taxes also go to governmental assistance programs like food stamps or unemployment insurance. Our donations in the Catholic Church go partially to a wide variety of social programs.  We're already providing some solutions to the beggar's plight just from taxes and church donations, as well as other charitable works that we support. I may not directly aid a beggar outside my church with a ten dollar bill, but I have put food in the offering basket, and donate to the church that in turn offers a food pantry for the area's poor. So I have helped them: just in a different way.

I think all of this necessary analysis lies behind the proverbial scene of being confronted by a beggar. If someone feels led at the time to give them money on the spot, that's fine and great, and good as far as it goes, but it is not going to help alleviate the poor person's problem as a final solution. It works for a few minutes. The best way, as I stated above (if we want to help right now), would be to take them out to eat right at that time, if possible. If a beggar's family or other personal influences have let him down or led him to these straits, the Church can be his family. There is hope.

But the first thing necessary is to not keep repeating the same old society-wide mistakes and folly that have led to the tragic, truly alarming and troubling situation as it is now. Good life-choices set the stage for the progression of the quality of our life. And there are many things we can do and promote in order to ensure that solid life-choices are made on a wide scale. We can't solve every social problem, but there is an awful lot we can do if we will closely examine what actually works and what has abysmally failed and led to sad results the opposite of the original good and charitable intentions. We must apply our minds to come up with effective solutions, and not just our hearts. Both together create acts of profound love that surpass the often guilt-laden urge to give money to the panhandler on the spot.


***

Blaise Pascal on Biblical and Theological Paradox, and Heretics' Miscomprehension and Consequent Resort to False Dichotomies

John Calvin
From: "Thoughts on the Pope and the Church," included in Miscellaneous Writings (translated by M. P. Faugère; London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1849), pp. 376 ff.
* * * * *
There is then a great number of truths, both in faith and morals, which seem antagonistic, and yet harmonize in admirable order.


— The source of all heresies is the exclusion of some one of these truths; and the source of all the cavils brought against us by heretics, is their ignorance of some one of these truths.
— And it usually happens that, being unable to perceive the relation of two opposing truths, and believing that the admission of the one involves the exclusion of the other, they adhere to the one and renounce the other; and fancy that we do the contrary. Now this exclusion is the source of their heresy, and the ignorance we have shown them to labour under, the ground of their cavils.
+ 1st Example. Christ is God and man. The Arians, unable to combine these things, which they hold to be incompatible, say, he is man : therein they are orthodox. But they deny him to be God: herein they are heretical. They pretend that we deny his humanity: therein they show their ignorance.
+ 2d Example. Respecting the Sacrament:—We believe that the substance of the bread being changed, and being consubstantially in that of the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, it is really present in it. This is one truth. Another is, that this sacrament is also one of the types of the cross and the glory, and a commemoration of both. This is the Catholic faith, which comprehends the two truths seemingly opposed to each other.
The modern heretics, not understanding that this sacrament contains both the presence of Christ and its type, and that it is both a sacrifice and a commemoration of a sacrifice, believe that the one of these truths cannot be admitted without necessarily excluding the other.
They make their stand upon this one point,—that this sacrament is figurative; and therein they are not heretical. They think we exclude this truth; and thence it is that they bring so many objections to the passages in the Fathers which affirm it. Lastly, they deny the presence; and in that are heretics. . . .

— Therefore it is that the shortest way to prevent heresies is to instruct men in every kind of truth ; and the surest way to refute them, is to declare it as universally. . . .
+ The error they all fall into, is the more dangerous, from each pursuing one truth: their fault is not in adopting falsehood, but in not embracing the countervailing truth.***

Ridicule and Sarcasm Regarding Sin and Absurdity Sanctioned by God (Argues Blaise Pascal); Many Biblical Examples Provided

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662): combination of his portrait and death mask (Snark International)

From Provincial Letters , Letter XI (18 August 1656), pp. 167 ff. Bracketed, blue-colored additions are my own: biblical passages from RSV. Everything else is from Pascal.
* * *
Indeed, reverend sirs, there is a vast difference between laughing at religion, and laughing at those who profane it by their extravagant opinions. It were impiety to be wanting in respect for the verities which the Spirit of God has revealed; but it were no less impiety of another sort, to be wanting in contempt for the falsities which the spirit of man opposes to them.
For, fathers (since you will force me into this argument), I beseech you to consider that, just in proportion as Christian truths are worthy of love and respect, the contrary errors must deserve hatred and contempt; there being two things in the truths of our religion—a divine beauty that renders them lovely, and a sacred majesty that renders them venerable; and two things also about errors—an impiety, that makes them horrible, and an impertinence that renders them ridiculous. For these reasons, while the saints have ever cherished towards the truth the twofold sentiment of love and fear—the whole of their wisdom being comprised between fear, which is its beginning, and love which is its end—they have, at the same time, entertained towards error the twofold feeling of hatred and contempt, and their zeal has been at once employed to repel, by force of reasoning, the malice of the wicked, and to chastise, by the aid of ridicule, their extravagance and folly.
Do not then expect, fathers, to make people believe that it is unworthy of a Christian to treat error with derision. Nothing is easier than to convince all who were not aware of it before, that this practice is perfectly just—that it is common with the fathers of the Church, and that it is sanctioned by Scripture, by the example of the best of saints, and even by that of God himself.
Do we not find that God at once hates and despises sinners; so that even at the hour of death, when their condition is most sad and deplorable, Divine Wisdom adds mockery to the vengeance which consigns them to eternal punishment? "In interitu vestro ridebo et subsannabo—I will laugh at your calamity." 
[Proverbs 1:26-27 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when panic strikes you, [27] when panic strikes you like a storm, and your calamity comes like a whirlwind, when distress and anguish come upon you.]
The saints, too, influenced by the same feeling, will join in the derision; for, according to David, when they witness the punishment of the wicked, "they shall fear, and yet laugh at it—videbunt justi et timebunt, et super eum ridebunt."  
[Psalm 52:5-7 But God will break you down for ever; he will snatch and tear you from your tent; he will uproot you from the land of the living. [Selah] [6] The righteous shall see, and fear, and shall laugh at him, saying, [7] "See the man who would not make God his refuge, but trusted in the abundance of his riches,
and sought refuge in his wealth!"]
And Job says: "Innocens zubsannabit eos—The innocent shall laugh at them."

It is worthy of remark here, that the very first words which God addressed to man after his fall, contain, in the opinion of the fathers, "bitter irony" and mockery. After Adam had disobeyed his Maker, in the hope, suggested by the devil, of being like. God, it appears from Scripture that God, as a punishment, subjected him to death; and after having reduced him to this miserable condition, which was due to his sin, he taunted him in that state with the following terms of derision: "Behold, the man has become as one of us!—Ecce, Adam quasi unus ex nobis!" [Genesis 3:22] —which, according to St Jerome and the interpreters is "a grievous and cutting piece of irony," with which God "stung him to the quick." "Adam," says Rupert, "deserved to be taunted in this manner, and he would be naturally made to feel his folly more acutely by this ironical expression than by a more serious one." St Victor, after making the same remark, adds, "that this irony was due to his sottish credulity, and that this species of raillery is an act of justice, merited by him against whom it was directed."

Thus you see, fathers, that ridicule is, in some cases, a very appropriate means of reclaiming men from their errors, and that it is accordingly an act of justice, because, as Jeremiah [48:26?] says, "the actions of those that err are worthy of derision, because of their vanity—vana simt et risu digna." And so far from its being impious to laugh at them, St Augustine holds it to be the effect of divine wisdom: "The wise laugh at the foolish, because they are wise, not after their own wisdom, but after that divine wisdom which shall laugh at the death of the wicked."
The prophets,"accordingly, filled with the Spirit of God, have availed themselves of ridicule, as we find from the examples of Daniel and Elias.

[1 Kings 18:26-27 And they took the bull which was given them, and they prepared it, and called on the name of Ba'al from morning until noon, saying, "O Ba'al, answer us!" But there was no voice, and no one answered. And they limped about the altar which they had made. [27] And at noon Eli'jah mocked them, saying, "Cry aloud, for he is a god; either he is musing, or he has gone aside, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened."]
In short, examples of it are not awanting in the discourses of Jesus Christ himself. St Augustine remarks that, when he would humble Nicodemus, who deemed himself so expert in his knowledge of the law, "perceiving him to be puffed up with pride, from his rank as doctor of the Jews, he first beats down his presumption by the magnitude of his demands, and having reduced him so low that he was unable to answer, What! says he, you a master in Israel, and not know these things!—as if he had said, Proud ruler, confess that thou knowest nothing." St Chrysostom and St Cyril likewise observe upon this, that "he deserved to be ridiculed in this manner." [John 3:1-15]
  . . . I am sure, fathers, these sacred examples are sufficient to convince you, that to deride the errors and extravagances of man is not inconsistent with the practice of the saints; otherwise we must blame that of the greatest doctors of the Church, who have been guilty of it—such as St Jerome, in his letters and writings against Jovinian, Vigilantius, and the Pelagians; Tertullian, in his Apology against the follies of idolaters; St Augustine against the monks of Africa, whom he styles "the hairy men;" St Irenaeus against the Gnostics; St Bernard and the other fathers of the Church, who, having been the imitators of the apostles, ought to be imitated by the faithful in all time coming; for, say what we will, they are the true models for Christians, even of the present day.

In following such examples, I conceived that I could not go far wrong; and, as I think I have sufficiently established this position, I shall only add, in the admirable words of Tertullian, which give the true explanation of the whole of my proceeding in this matter:

What I have now done is only a little sport before the real combat. I have rather indicated the wounds that might be given you, than inflicted any. If the reader has met with passages which have excited his risibility, he must ascribe this to the subjects themselves. There are many things which deserve to be held up in this way to ridicule and mockery, lest, by a serious refutation, we should attach a weight to them which they do not deserve. Nothing is more due to vanity than laughter; and it is the Truth properly that has a right to laugh, because she is cheerful, and to make sport of her enemies, because she is sure of the victory. Care must be taken, indeed, that the raillery is not too low, and unworthy of the truth; but, keeping this in view, when ridicule may be employed with effect, it is a duty to avail ourselves of it.

See also related passages:

Psalm 2:4-5 He who sits in the heavens laughs; the LORD has them in derision. [5] Then he will speak to them in his wrath, . . .

Psalm 37:12-13 The wicked plots against the righteous, and gnashes his teeth at him; [13] but the LORD laughs at the wicked, for he sees that his day is coming.

Psalm 59:8 But thou, O LORD, dost laugh at them; thou dost hold all the nations in derision.

Proverbs 3:34 Toward the scorners he is scornful, but to the humble he shows favor.

Proverbs 14:9 God scorns the wicked, but the upright enjoy his favor.

Amos 5:21 I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies.

Nahum 3:6 I will throw filth at you and treat you with contempt, and make you a gazingstock.

Matthew 7:3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 

***

More Love and Pearls of Wisdom from Radtrad Catholic Steve ("scotju" / "juscot") Dalton / Documentation of Various of His Irrational Rantings and Ravings

Steve "scotju" Dalton wrote on Christmas day:

This is the third time this year that Michael Voris has been attacked by members of the Church hierarchy. It's obvious that RCTV is upsetting the right people. People like this bishop of a diocese on it's way to oblivion, and bitter hate-filled laymen like Mark Shea and Dave Armstrong. These folks are sooo sensitive to the feelings of heretics, radicals, and other deviants, but when it comes to the feelings and desires of those who want the church as it has always been before Vatican II, you are suddenly transformed into a critter called a 'rad-trad'. you are accused of being a Nazi, a racist, a reactionary, . . .[two spelling corrections made]

Archbishop Allen Vigneron of the Archdiocese of Detroit (my own), had forbidden Michael Voris to use the name "Catholic" on his TV show, because of ongoing radtrad and quasi-schismatic elements of that production (made in Ferndale, Michigan).

Dalton has long been a severe critic of mine. He usually shows up when geocentrism is being discussed (he believes in that, as well as young-earth creationism), and possesses quite the uncontrolled, unbridled tongue. He seems to delight in bringing up my name in a calumnious fashion at the drop of a hat.

Apparently, I am described as "bitter hate-filled" simply because I did one little old post on Voris, objecting to his trashing of Amazing Grace as supposedly a terribly heretical Protestant song, that should never ever ever be performed in a Catholic church. I noted in my post a review of Voris' enterprise from the Catholic Culture website, that monitors the orthodoxy and fidelity of websites claiming to be Catholic. It describes Voris' liturgical opinion as "Extreme antipathy to the liturgy of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite." In my post on Amazing Grace, Dalton showed up in the combox, under the moniker "juscot."

For this unutterably wicked transgression,  Dalton feels justified in publicly describing me as a "bitter hate-filled" person who supposedly (so is his strong implication by citing my name) also calls people (i.e., those who aren't such) "Nazis" (which I've never done: a thing that can be quickly verified by a search on my voluminous site). This is par for the course, in the ongoing slanderous rotgut written about me, on the Internet.

Recently, a notorious inveterate troll (on my blog and on many other sites) dredged up the ridiculous claim that I supposedly "desperately" sought to keep up a Wikipedia entry about myself, out of my alleged extreme narcissism. The truth of the matter is that I have never at any time written anything on Wikipedia about anything: no editing or writing at all there: let alone a page about myself. Someone else put one up at one time (I don't even know who that person was), and folks who made themselves my "enemies" made up this myth that I had something to do with it (following another myth that I have the most bombastic, self-inflated ego in the history of the world), and had it removed.

But getting back to Dalton, on 21 December he described my previous post as follows: "Dave Armstrong went ballistic over Voris's criticism of AG and people like me who defended it." I often observe ludicrous speculations about my supposed (imaginary, fictional) emotional or mental state being made by people who think they know all about me. This is a classic case. I challenge the reader to check out my post in order to determine whether my demeanor and tone there would lead anyone -- who didn't already have an axe to grind -- to think that I "went ballistic." If we want to see "ballistic," I submit that we ought to read some of Dalton's other ravings about myself and other Catholic apologists. For example:

Question, if Bob Sungesis [sic] is so far out on the fringe, why are people like Dave Armstrong and Dave Palm so worried about him? Why are they even paying any attention to him? Why not just ignore him? Instead, you are giving him scads of free publicity he couldn't buy at any price. With all the problems we have in the Church with queer priests corrupting young men, evolution being taught instead of creation by God, parishes closing right and left, you would think that Sungesis's [sic] critics would be far more concerned about these things than a fringee living in a small Pennsylvania town. I got some advice for some of you, don't worry about Bob, if He's wrong about geo, the Jews, the state of the Church, and other things, He'll fade away in a few years without any smear campaign that some are directing at him. If He's right, no amount of smears or ridicule is going to make him fade away. Heck, the free publicity Armstrong, Shea, Palm, and others are giving him are insuring that his ideas will become more well known with each passing day! So, Dave, Dave, Mark, and others, keep up the good work of keeping Bob in the spotlight, go after those mean anti-Catholic Prots who outrage you, because they ignore you, make every little disagreement with someone in blogland into a petty feud, ignore the bigger issues, (like the priest scandal, the liberal theology) that are destroying the faith of millions of Catholics. I'm sure your reward will be great in heaven because of all the camel swallowing and gnat straining yo'll [sic] have to do before this is all over! (3 September 2011)

To respond briefly to some of the particulars in this sustained nonsense:

1) I pay "attention" to Sungenis because I think he commits several serious errors, and the business of the apologist is to note and refute such (see many examples and critiques on my "Radtrad Catholics" page: second section from the end). In other words, I am simply doing my job. I have nothing personal against Bob. We have written cordial letters back and forth on several occasions. We simply have some honest, serious disagreements.

2) It is almost certainly the case that Sungenis receives more exposure than I do: having been on TV, radio; having held several conferences, etc. He gets plenty of hits on his websites. Almost anyone who reads about his errors on my pages already knows who he is; thus I am not providing any "free publicity" to him to any significant extent. People know of him; they may not know of his serious errors that I have the unfortunate duty, as an apologist, to highlight and object to.

3) For Dalton, apparently apologetics is all (or merely) about personality disputes and "petty feud[s]", jealous wrangling. In fact, it is about the seeking and defending of truth as any individual sincerely deems that to be, in conjunction with a total obedience to the One True Church.

4) Speaking for myself (I don't speak for my friends David Palm or Mark Shea), far from "ignoring" either the priest sexual scandal or liberal theology, I have several posts and lots of links about the sex scandal, and an entire web page about theological liberalism and also half of one of my books devoted to it. Mark Shea at least writes quite a bit about Voris (as a search on his blog reveals); whereas I only have done so once.

One "Wes" made a very excellent point in the same thread where Dalton commented about Robert Sungenis:

Considering that the LA Times, Chicago Trib and other publications are basically using Sungenis and his group to make the Church look ignorant and paranoid, I can completely understand why people like Pat Archbold and the others you mentioned are out there making it clear that most all Catholics don't give these ideas the time of day. There's a reason these big publications are giving this group national attention and it's not because they find their theories credible or fascinating. They just want groups like this to be seen by the public as the face of the Catholic Church because the more the Church is discredited and marginalized as ignorant and paranoid, the less people will consider becoming Catholic and the more the Church's voice will be muted and neutralized in the public square. And the more the Church's voice is muted and neutralized in the public square, the easier it is for the relativists to push their immoral agenda.

In another comment a year ago in the midst of the usual tempest in a teapot "discussion" regarding geocentrism, Dalton opined that my "ego" was the reason for my writing against it:

John, I really appr[ec]iate your defense of geo[centrism]. It amazes me that Armstrong will allow you to post on his site when you fire salvo after salvo into his helio[centric] ship. He doesn't seem to realize that if he wanted to really hurt you, he would ignore you completely. Instead his ego drives him to attack geo and it's defenders, even though, as Rick points out, he and his buddies are losing the debate. (12-27-10)

Again, on his own site (on 8-31-11), Dalton was insistent that my one little ol' post about Voris (out of 2522) is proof positive of "jealousy" and some sort of frenzied agenda:

The one thing, however, that saddens me to no end is the in-fighting of Catholic apologetic bloggers against Mr. Voris. It is almost a jealousy and as long as it exists, the great restoration to which Michael Voris refers cannot occur. This is the same problem that the Church of Corinth had so long ago when followers of Apollos would fight against followers of Cephas or Paul, or vice versa. It's wrong. We do not follow Michael Voris or Dave Armstrong or Steve Ray or Mark Shea. But when we are divided like this, we hurt the Body of Christ . . . .

Also, Mike Voris has some powerful enemies in the blogging community. The two best know[n] are Dave Armstrong and Mark Shea. Both of these men have a [sic] overwhelming hatred for Voris, especially Mark Shea. . . . Dave Armstrong has been upset with Mike since Mike suggested that Amazing Grace, being a Protestant song, doesn't reflect Catholic theology. But why do they really lash out at him?
I think it boils down to these reasons. 1. Jealousy. Armstrong and Shea have been apologists for years. They have been praised by the blogging community (and others) as the best. Now comes Michael Voris and He's getting the praises and hosannas they have been used to getting. Instead of asking themselves, what's He doing that's attracting an audience, they're smearing him with some of the words I've already mentioned. Why? They're afraid of losing their audience to someone who has a winning, winsome, personality, as opposed to their snarky ones. Both Armstrong & Shea have become increasingly meanspirited, bitter, controlling and isolated from many in their audience over the last few years. . . . it's no wonder why many Catholics are attracted to Voris and repelled by the likes of Shea & Armstrong. 2. Both Shea & Armstrong are probably being used by certain powerful members of the clergy and the laity to bring down Mike Voris. 

Conspiracies abound! I supposedly have an "overwhelming hatred for Voris" because I spent all of an hour (two, max) writing one post about one opinion of his. Such absurdities are their own refutations.

Dalton (barely able to spell) savagely attacked Blessed Pope John Paul II on my blog, too:

John Paul the Great? The man aided and abbedded [sic] in the cover-up of queer priests by doing absolutely nothing to stop the scandal. The man also encouraged false ecumenicalism [sic] with nonsence [sic] like Assai [sic]. The rush to declare this extremely flawed individual a saint shows the extent of the spiritual and moral vacousness [sic] of the Church's clergy and laity. (4-23-11)

See the related posts:
Response (in Words and Actions) to the Vehement Criticisms of Geocentrists "johnmartin" and "juscot" 
Blogger's Spam Function Deletes Some Things Automatically (Twelve Comments Restored) / "juscot's" Ridiculous Attacks on My Catholicism

Dalton responded to this post as follows (with more of his ubiquitous quack psychoanalysis):

I must say, you must be very uptight and hyper-sensitive to lash out at someone who is a very minor player in the blogosphere. . . . I don't try to reason with people like you who are emotionally bent out of shape.

***

St. Paul on Sinners in the Church: Example of the Galatians

  St. Paul is our model of behavior (Gal 4:12; Phil 3:17; 4:9; 2 Thess 3:7-9). He, in turn, imitates Christ (1 Cor 11:1; 1 Thess 1:6).

The Apostle Paul on Galatians as Miserable Sinners

Galatians 1:6 (RSV) "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel"

Galatians 3:1-3 "O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? [2] Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? [3] Are you so foolish? Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?"

Galatians 4:9b ". . . how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits, whose slaves you want to be once more?"

Galatians 5:4 "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace."

Galatians 5:7 "You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?"

The Apostle Paul on Galatians as Fellow Christians

Galatians 1:2 "To the churches of Galatia"

Galatians 1:11 "For I would have you know, brethren, . . ."

Galatians 3:25-27 "But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian; [26] for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. [27] For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

Galatians 4:4-7 "But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, [5] to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. [6] And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" [7] So through God you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir."

Galatians 4:9a "but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, . . ."

Galatians 4:12 "Brethren, I beseech you, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You did me no wrong"

Galatians 4:19 "My little children, . . ."

Galatians 4:28 "Now we, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise."

Galatians 4:31 "So, brethren, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman."

Galatians 5:1 "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery."

Galatians 6:1 "Brethren, . . ."

Galatians 6:18 "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brethren. Amen."

There are similar dynamics with the Corinthian church as well.

Our Lord Jesus also calls all seven assemblies of Revelation "churches" (2:1; 2:8; 2:12; 2:18; 3:1; 3:7; 3:14; along with the repetition of "what the Spirit says to the churches" in 2:7 and similar passages), yet excoriates several of them in no uncertain terms (2:4-5; 2:14-16; 2:20-22; 3:1-3; 3:15-18).


***