Dwight Longenecker's Blog, page 339

Charity Begins at Home?

"Charity begins at home." Does anyone know the origin of this fatuous phrase? I hear it quoted among Catholics as if it is sacred Scripture, and when it is quoted it is most often as a response to my suggestion that a person ought to donate more to the church or to the poor. "After all Father," they say with that smug expression like they've just thought of something terribly clever, "Charity does begin at home."



I think, if the phrase means anything at all it means that "love" begins at home, and if you can't be charitable or loving to the people you live with, it's not worth pretending to love others.



Instead the people who don't want to give to the poor or to the church misinterpret the word 'charity' and think it means 'charitable giving to the poor' and end up denying the needs of the poor and the church by with holding their loot, and they do so with a sense of self righteousness.



So next time you hear someone trot out the phrase "Charity begins at home." Take a moment to gently ask what they mean by it. They're probably using it as a get out to justify their lack of concern for the poor.

St Michael

Sacra di San Michele

St Michael

St Michael's Mount

St Michael

Skellig Michael

St Michael and All Angels

Mont St Michel

Story from Jake Coffman

A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said: 'Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even 1 year old and I'm pregnant again. I don't want kids so close together. So the doctor said: 'OK and what do you want me to do?' She said: 'I want you to end my pregnancy, and I'm counting on your help with this.' The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady: 'I think I have a better solution for your problem. It's less dangerous for you too.' She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request. Then he continued: 'You see, in order for you not to have to take care 2 babies at the same time, let's kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If we're going to kill one of them, it doesn't matter which one it is. There would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your arms. The lady was horrified and said: 'No doctor! How terrible! It's a crime to kill a child! 'I agree', the doctor replied. 'But you seemed to be OK with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution.' The doctor smiled, realizing that he had made his point. He convinced the mom that there is no difference in killing a child who's already been born and one who's still in the womb. The crime is the same!

Compliance or Compromise

Christian student groups at Vanderbilt University have run afoul of the university's non-discriminatory policies. You can read about controversy here. What I find chilling is the university spokesperson saying that they "are working with the student groups to achieve compliance." Apart from the fact that 'achieving compliance' is a pretty awful turn of phrase...(do you comply or 'achieve compliance'?) It also sounds creepy--like some kind of Big Brother euphemistic official-speak.



"I am happy to say Sir, that with the use of enhanced interrogation techniques we have achieved compliance with Comrade Florsheim."



Now, far be it from me to suggest that these draconian, politically correct methods might one day be used against Christians, or that we should ever, in our enlightened society even come close to persecution of Christians...oh, it was Christians being hounded already by the intelligentsia? I'm sure it's just an isolated incident, and it was, after all, reported by Fox News and we know how biased and right wing they are...



Just sayin'.

From the Combox

The magisterium doesn't override what I have come to know through other epistemic modalities to be the right thing in this case nor am I convinced that the position of the magisterium concerning homosexuality is not grounded in the cultural prejudices of the situations in which it developed.




For my money this statement wins the intellectual goofball prize for this year. Anyone like to do a Fr. Z type fisk on this statement and explain to the rest of it what it really means? Entries in the combox please.

September Ride

Beautiful day for a ride in the foothills of South Carolina. That's my riding buddy Mikael--a truck driver, former soldier, former Baptist now gung ho Catholic.

Slubgrip Instructs

Worms. Come to attention. I am supposed to be lunching at the Commissariat with my old friend Brace, who I am pleased to say has been promoted to Undersecretary for Anglican Affairs, so it is most annoying to have to be a substitute teacher for you today, and I have no intention of following Boggurgle's syllabus on the temptation of teens. Nothing could be more tedious.



I thought instead that you might pick up a few pointers from my usual lectures on propaganda, errm, I mean education. I have been privileged to spend many years in the department of lower education, and would like to point out to you today the uses of the idea of democracy.



Democracy as such, is simply a method of the hairless bipeds ruling themselves. It is neither better nor worse than any of their other forms of government. When they themselves aspire to honesty, loyalty, fair play, compassion and what the enemy calls 'nobility', democracy is a terrible thing to behold. In such a context they really do share power with one another and seek to rule for the common good. However, like most everything the enemy has inspired, we can quite easily turn it to our advantage.



What you must do dear students, is shift their attention from democracy as a noble form of governance (in that nauseating phrase) "of the people, for the people and by the people" and get them to focus on the idea that the majority rules. Help them to see that whatever the majority want must be true and good in itself. Never let them see that, left on their own, the majority of the brutes are rarely right about anything. Helping them believe that the majority must be right in and of itself will mean that most times they will go along with whatever delightful weaknesses and idiocies the majority endorse.



Unfortunately for us, the enemy's own propaganda machine has been successful in getting the majority to hold views in some matters which are quite odious. You must get your people to overturn them. The way to do this is to introduce various innovations in a creative way. So when we want a particularly pleasing innovation like, for example, no fault divorce or abortion on demand (which the majority probably does not want) get your patients to campaign for it until they can get a majority vote. Get them to use every ruthless tactic in the campaign manual: lies, intimidation, manipulation of statistics, sentimental advertising and even tampering with votes. The cowardly little wretches may shy away from such behaviors at first, but you can tempt them very easily by helping them to see that 'it is all for a good cause.' Don't let them get confused with trite slogans of the enemy's like "The ends do not justify the means." That sort of thing will only muddy the waters.



If they do not get the majority vote on their delightful innovation first time around, they mustn't see that the majority don't actually want their innovation. That might cause them to question the rightness of the innovation itself. Instead you must tell them that the majority need to be educated. They must see themselves as "brave pioneers" launching out to lead mankind to a bright new future. Cultivate the martyr in them my nematodes and slugs. They must see themselves as liberators--the brave few who dare to challenge the hidebound establishment--the courageous souls who think outside the box and campaign for justice and fairness for all.



The enemy will attempt to cast them in the role of bullies and hypocrites. The other side will point out that our patients say they believe in democracy and the "will of the people" while all the time they are bullying the vast majority of ordinary people to accept something they find repugnant. Counter this by pointing out that the enemy's troops are amongst the most hypocritical bullies the world has ever seen. They mustn't see that this is an infantile attitude like the schoolboy who is caught cheating and cries, "But Billy Bunter was cheating too!"



With any luck dear slugs you will get them in a delightful double bind. On the one hand they will say they believe in democracy and majority rule, while in fact they are doing everything they can to push the elitist, overly sophisticated claptrap that we have been feeding them morsel by morsel for years. The result is most pleasing, and if you can pull it off you will know a sense of real satisfaction in accomplishing a little bit of tempting that has a certain finesse, and which will have very satisfying results for our continuing war with the enemy.



For the previous adventures of the demon Slubgrip purchase my book The Gargoyle Code.