I'm Not a Scientist, But...

This is darkly funny:

A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to "debate" on television. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.

This is the reason why Popular Science (which I don't read) is no longer allowing comments on their new articles; because the big mean "trolls and spammers" are confusing people with their "war on expertise."

Huh, you know, in my experience, genuine trolls are not usually very convincing; they tend to be more in the "swear, swear,out-of-context fact, CAPSLOCK SWEAR, dubious statistics, accusation of racism" department. Intelligent readers can usually pick them out.

No, I don't really buy the "trolls are skewering people's reactions" excuse. I think the above-quoted paragraph gives a much more honest glimpse into their thought process. Simply put, too many peons are questioning their scientific overlords and the overlords (excuse me; 'protectors') don't like it.

The sentence "Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again." is particularly illuminating. It's science. Everything is up for grabs! Science is supposed to be the pursuit of truth, wherever it may lead. The history of science is simply stiff with venerable theories and long-held consensueses  being overturned by mavericks who dared to question the establishment (Copernicus, Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, etc.). In fact, it's practically the definition of a great scientific achievement that it undermines the "bedrock scientific doctrine" of the time.

If more and more people are questioning the doctrines of Darwinian Evolution and Anthropomorphic Global Warming, maybe that means scientists should take a more critical view of those subjects instead of just blissfully going along with the established consensus. Maybe, instead of complaining about how persecuted they are, they should take a step back and ask themselves "okay, do the observed facts actually still support these theories and why?" Wouldn't that be both more apt to convince skeptics and more, well, scientific than just trying to shut out opposition?

That's the big difference between religious and scientific doctrine: religious doctrine is revealed, so the basic 'facts,' so to speak, never change: Scripture says what it says and no one has the authority to make it say anything different. Scientific doctrine is based entirely on observation, meaning that it only holds as long as the observed facts coincide with it. This makes them more bluntly demonstrable (i.e. you can observe water boiling at 100 degrees in a way you can't observe the Eucharist turning into the Body and Blood of Our Lord), but it also makes them more vulnerable to change (since the law "water always boils at 100 degrees" only holds good as long as no one observes it boiling at 80 degrees).

Scientific theories, especially comparatively recent ones like evolution and global warming, are always subject to change; every scientific theory is always one experiment away from obselescence. I would think that a magazine supposedly dedicated to the advancement of science would understand this.

Vivat Christus Rex!

If You Didn't See This Coming, You've Officially Not Been Paying Attention

            Well, that was quick.

            Only a little while after England officially legalized Same-Sex Marriage (we still love you, your Majesty!), one particular fellow wants some more: he’s suing to have his ‘wedding’ in a church.

            His reasoning? “I want…a big, lavish ceremony, the whole works.” And “I’m still not getting what I want.”

            Yes, because it’s all about what you want, isn’t it? Who cares about pesky things like ‘rights’ or ‘religious beliefs:’ the important thing is that you should be able to have anything at all that you want, and if some people have to lose a basic human right to religious freedom in the process, well, who cares? So long as you have your big, lavish ceremony, just like you always wanted, that’s all that matters. 

            Oh, by the way, would it really be that difficult to find a church of some stripe that would host his little party? Opposition to SSM isn’t exactly widespread in the land of hope and glory, and from what I understand there are numerous churches which have taken it upon themselves to put being diverse and tolerant ahead of their faith. Why not go to one of them? I suspect it would take about a minute’s search on Google to find a church that’s willing to host a same-sex ‘wedding.’ It’d be a lot cheaper than suing a major institution…oh, no? You really just want to shove your beliefs down someone else’s throat via the courts? Oh, very well then: carry on.

            By the way, at what point do we get to stop calling you a member of an oppressed minority?

            So, in summary, this guy wants to force churches to violate their own religious teachings just so that he can get “what he wants.”

            Ooooooookkkkkkaaaaaaaay.

             “I’m still not getting what I want” could easily be the motto of the whole Gay Rights Movement: “It’s all about us! All about our being allowed to do whatever we want without your telling us that you think it’s wrong or disgusting or pointing out that’s it’s unhealthy or contrary to your religious beliefs. Our being confirmed and unchallenged, even celebrated, in our perversity is much more important than your silly rights to ‘religion’ or ‘free speech’ or ‘freedom of association.’ So either get behind us our we’ll do everything we can to destroy you!”

            Remind me who the unreasoning bigots are again?  

            Say, Korra! What do you think of suing churches to force them to recognize same-sex ‘marriage’?

Fair ‘nough. 

Vive Christus Rex!

Progressivism, Independent Thought, The Spirit of the Age, and Other Nonsense

The Gods of the Copybook Headings

By Rudyard Kipling

AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,

I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.

Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,

And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn

That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:

But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,

So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,

Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,

But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come

That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,

They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;

They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;

So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.

They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.

But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,

And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Stick to the Devil you know.”

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life

(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)

Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,

And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “The Wages of Sin is Death.”

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,

By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;  

But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,  

And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “If you don’t work you die.”

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew

And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true

That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four

And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man

There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.

That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,  

And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

 And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins

When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,

As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn, 

The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

 

                It’s alarming how relevant Kipling’s poem still is.

                We hear a lot about ‘progressive Christians’ these days. Of course, ‘Progressive’ pretty much just means “whatever ideas are currently popular,” so today a ‘progressive’ Christian is one who supports Gay Marriage, women’s ordination, and all manner of sexual practices. Not so long ago, a progressive Christian was one who supported eugenics, colonization, and harbored serious doubts about the Divinity of Christ. God only knows what progressive Christians will look like in thirty years or so, but I’m very much mistaken if they’ll be anything like the ones we have today.

                Self-styled progressive Christians are never actually progressive; that is, they never actually build up the Body of Christ or do any good on Earth. In a sense, they aren’t actually ‘Christians’ at all. The world, and not Christ, is their God. A ‘progressive Christian’ is someone who tries to conform Christ to the world rather than the other way around.

                How can you tell a true Christian from a PC? It’s really very simple. As Catholics, we believe there are only two viable sources of revelation: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, which are infallibly interpreted by the Magesterium of the Church. Therefore, a true Christian will ground his teachings in these sources (Protestants only accept the first of these, but the point still applies). A PC will couch his argument primarily in terms of what is ‘modern’ or in historical interpretation or appeals to rights or equality. Anything, as a matter of fact, except Revelation. If he brings up Scripture at all, it will either be to cite out-of-context passages dealing with completely different topics or to explain why the passages that very clearly refute his position shouldn’t count.  

                For instance, there is absolutely no way you can use Revelation to justify women’s ordination. Scripture, so far as it goes, does not allow for it, and Tradition very definitely excludes the possibility. Yet the current fashion is equality for equality’s sake, meaning that all positions must be open to women, even those that have very excellent reasons for excluding them. Thus, to be ‘progressive’ means to favor women’s ordination.

                You see? Progressivism isn’t based on either Faith or Reason, still less Revelation, but simply on vanity; the desire to conform to the spirit of the age, to be thought trendy and enlightened and all that other rubbish. It’s nothing but the experience of the playground, where you automatically started parroting the opinions of the most popular kids, writ large over a whole society. The important thing wasn’t whether the popular kids were right or wrong; the important thing was that if you agreed with them, they might like you.

                This isn’t a new phenomenon. Every age has its own ‘spirit:’ its own insanities which it fancies makes it superior to all past ages and which it foolishly believes will become the new norm of humanity. An age is almost defined by its generally accepted views, most of which will be thrown out and mocked in the next age. And, of course, most people unthinkingly and unhesitatingly go along with the ‘spirit of the age,’ judging themselves very independent and progressive thinkers in the process. As a matter of fact, it’s usually the people who pride themselves on their independence of mind that are the most eager to conform. Throwing off whatever tradition they are born into in order to foster a ‘spirit of inquiry,’ they quite naturally slip into whatever are the most popular or ‘trendy’ ideas at the moment. They eagerly listen to whatever intelligent and charismatic speaker happens to cross their paths, absorb a lot of unconscious assumptions, and so naturally adopt whatever worldview is most widely held in their particular corner of the globe in their particular time in history, all the while priding themselves on their independence of mind and scrutiny of thought. And so, they accomplish nothing of value, cause a lot of trouble, and are either forgotten or ridiculed when the current of opinion shifts away from them, as it inevitably will.

                Independence of mind is one of those things you will never acquire so long as you are specifically looking for it. By throwing off everything that you fear will color your opinion, you simply create a mental vacuum which sucks in whatever current ideas happen to well-articulated in your general vicinity. If, on the other hand, you don’t bother about what kind of thinker you are and simply seek and follow the objective truth, you’ll find you become a much more shrewd and independent mind than your neighbors.

                The thing we always forget is that independence can never be absolute; it must be grounded in something. I am economically independent insofar as I can earn my own living, but I can only do so within a societal structure with a specific currency and economic system. Independent thought is only independent to the extent that it is based on accepted Truth. That is, you can only be safe from one idea by holding to another and contradictory idea. If you don’t hold the idea that “life is sacred” you will have no defense against the assertion “certain strands of society are unhealthy and should be liquidated.”

                It is skepticism, not dogma, that leads to tyranny. It is because we don’t hold the idea that “man’s first allegiance is to God” that we can conceive of the idea “man’s first allegiance is to the State.” Totalitarian states always first create doubt in people’s minds so that they can fill the gaps with the views they want the people to hold. Once you remove the traditional, assumed truth from someone’s mind, you can fill it with whatever you like.  

                We often wonder how such ordinary, otherwise decent people were able to commit or condone the atrocities of the Nazi State. No doubt future generations will ask the same thing regarding our tolerance of abortion. It’s really the same principle that allows for both: convince people that to be really modern, independent thinkers they need to shuffle off the “spoon-fed” beliefs of their childhood, and they naturally will fall in line with whatever the general opinion is. In Germany, the general opinion was Racialism, that the Jews were inferior, brutal, and dangerous and that the Aryan race needed to be supreme. Today it’s that sex is primarily about self-discovery and expression, that there’s no essential relation between sex and children, and that an unborn, unintended child doesn’t really count anyway.

                Both these ideas are false and evil, but one is popular and the other isn’t. That’s really the only difference between them. Someone who bases his thought on the simple truth “Thou shalt not kill” or “All mankind are ultimately brothers” would see through both in an instant.

                I would say, then, that people can be very roughly and broadly divided into two types: the type that holds to the truth, as he understands the truth, without carrying a whit how old it is or how many people have held it before or where he happened to get it from, and the type that believes that the truth is most likely to be found in modern thinkers, and that to find it he ought to divest himself as much as possible from the traditions and beliefs he was brought up with in order to see the world objectively.

                I should add here that both these men may end up wrong, and both may end up right. And, it goes without saying, both can turn out to be good or bad men. But the former has, I would say, a much better chance of being right and turning into a good man than the latter. The reason is this: the first man’s beliefs are likely based on tradition. Tradition is, by definition, tried and true. It may not be complete, and it may need to be criticized, but it certainly works. If it didn’t, it would never have become tradition in the first place. Therefore, the first man is grounding his personality in things external to and more durable than the present age. He thus is more likely to have a true conception of the beliefs and practices of his modern fellows, and his own beliefs and practices are more likely to yield good results, just as a venerable airplane model is much safer than the prototype that was only completed yesterday.

                The second man, on the other hand, by divesting himself of all his ‘prejudices’ and prior beliefs, does not see the world objectively, but simply opens himself up to receive whatever the world happens to give him. It’s a little as if a knight complained his armor was encumbering him and stripped naked, or if a sailor thought the best way to experience the ocean was to knock holes in his boat.

                And note this; every genuine advance in morality has not been the result of just throwing out past beliefs, but in applying them more forcefully. There was no new moral law that said slavery was wrong; the immemorial belief in the brotherhood of man and the Golden Rule declared it so. Nor did it take a ‘new morality’ (assuming such a thing is possible) to call for more rights for women: “Male and Female He created them” was all that was needed. Every advance, every time man has put a stop to some great, entrenched cultural evil has been accomplished by those who prefer the Truth to the spirit of the age. Contrariwise, every backslide, every new evil has come about when men mistake the spirit of the age for the Truth.  

                Our choices are really only to conform to objective truth, with all that implies about morality, human nature, and tradition, or to conform to the present age. For Christians, the choice ought to be clear: “If it be just in the sight of God, to hear you rather than He, judge ye” (Acts 4; 20). “He that shall deny Me, I also will deny him before my Father who is in Heaven” (Matt. 10; 33).  “Every one therefore that heareth my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man who built his house upon a rock, and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock.” (Matt. 7; 24-25). Clear, but no one said it would be easy. Let us pray that we will have the courage and constancy to hold fast to the Truth and to shun the spirit of the age.

Vive Christus Rex!

June 6th, 1944

 

If you know one of the few who remain who fought at Normandy, take a moment to say thank you while you still can. We owe so much to them. 

If not, watch President Reagan's tribute to the honor and valor of those men.

Vive Christus Rex!

Habeamus Papam!

Welcome Pope Francis!

Well, this was certainly unexpected.

Archbishop of Buenos Ares Jorge Bergoglio S.J. has been elected the 265th successor to Saint Peter, and has taken the name of Francis.

He's the first Pope from the New World, the first Jesuit Pope, and the first Pope Francis.

And he made quite a first impression.

He opened with a joke about the Cardinals "going to the ends of the Earth" looking for a Pope, then asked the crowd to ask God to bless him before he blessed them. Following this, he led a prayer for Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, and after the traditional Papal blessing unexpectedly asked for the microphone back for a final word with the crowd.

I honestly hadn't heard about him at all before yesterday, but all I've heard since is good. Actually, wonderful.

He's a Jesuit, but he's one of the good Jesuits that most of the Order hates because he's actually orthodox. He's already been denounced as a hater because of his stern words against homosexuality and abortion (if the Left hates you, that usually a good sign). He has a reputation as a remarkably humble and simple man; eschewing the archbishop's palace and driver for a small apartment and bus rides. Heck, even after being elected Pope he's already ditched security to ride the bus with his fellow Cardinals back to the Domus Sanctae Marthae following the announcement.

I'm told that he has a keen intelligence and rather cutting sense of humor. He also holds a Masters Degree in Chemistry (!), which makes me look forward to him talking about faith and science (oh, and I just can't wait for someone to try to pull the old "the Church hates science" trick now!), and has taught theology and philosophy at the university level.

In short, it sounds like the College of Cardinals made another spectacular choice, and the next few weeks should be very interesting.

Vive Christus Rex!
E Vive Papa Francesco!

UPDATE: His first non-official act outside the Vatican was to present a bouquet of flowers to the Blessed Mother at the church of St. Mary Major. I'm loving this!

Catholics and Concealed Carry

                In my post rejecting Cardinal Dolan’s calls for more gun control, and in subsequent discussion, the issue came up of Catholics and guns, and whether guns a detrimental to building a ‘Culture of Life.’ I believe they are quite the opposite; that armed citizenry is an essential element of a Culture of Life. I’m going to try to outline both why I think that and why I don’t see any conflict between my Catholic faith and my decision to carry a gun (or guns in general).

                The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in its section on the Fifth Commandment, has this to say on self defense:

                2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor…The one is intended, the other is not.”

                2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful…Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

                2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.

(Emph. mine)

                Thus far, fairly straightforward; it is not a sin to use force to defend ourselves from unjust aggression, even if that requires the use of lethal force.

                The sticking point for most people, I expect, would be the “moderation” clause: that self-defense requires “no more than necessary” violence. Aren’t guns immoderate violence?

                I would argue no, for a number of reasons. First of all, despite what we see in the movies, guns are not always lethal weapons. As a matter of fact, if I recall correctly something like 80% of handgun victims survive their injuries (rifles, admitedly, are a different story). The human body is much better at dealing with the kind of damage that bullets cause than we give it credit for. So using a firearm on another human is not automatically the same as intentionally dealing a lethal blow or willing the other person’s death.

                More importantly, though, my understanding of necessary or moderate violence is that you are allowed to respond at roughly the same level as the threat. That is, if someone is trying to knock you around a little, but you know they won’t actually kill you or deal you any permanent damage, then you can’t kill them (not sure what real-life scenario that would be, but hypothetically speaking). If someone threatens you with deadly force, has the means and opportunity to carry it out, and is acting in such a manner that you honestly believe he intends to follow through with his threat, then you are justified in responding with deadly force if that’s what it takes to get him to stop.

                See, I think most people fall into the trap of judging this by the weapons involved: gun-beats-knife-beats-fists. But actually, from a real-life standpoint, the type of weapon doesn’t really enter into the level of force being brought to bear. That is, yes, different weapons are better or worse for fighting, but that’s not the point. The point is “how much damage is this person attempting to inflict?” Legitimate self-defense is “how much damage do I have to inflict to prevent him?”

                For instance, fist vs. gun, who wins? Most of you probably say ‘gun.’ But now adjust it; a highly-experienced, trained, hardened fighter ten feet away vs. a mild-mannered accountant whose never thrown a punch in anger with a .38 pistol in his pocket? I’d lay my money on the fists in that contest.

                Now, if the first man in this example wanted to, he probably could kill or seriously injure the other guy. So who is bringing the greater force? The unarmed fighter, or the accountant with a gun?

                The answer: neither. Both are able to inflict deadly force against the other. One can do it at a distance, the other can only do it at close range, but each could kill the other. If they meet in the parking lot and the fighter acts in such a way to make the accountant think he intends to kill him, then the accountant is justified in bringing deadly force to bear on him, because that’s the same level of force he is being threatened with.

                So using a gun does not automatically mean that you are bringing immoderate violence in a fight. The Catechism permits gun use.

                What about ‘bigger’ guns: the ‘assault weapons’ that we keep hearing about? Aren’t those excessive?

                The thing is, every gun is a weapon and every weapon can be lethal. The fact that one is more efficient or easier to use than the other doesn’t really give it a moral character all of its own. Functionally speaking, there’s not much difference between an ‘assault rifle’ and a hunting rifle (except that the hunting rifle is probably going to be bigger, more powerful, and harder to use).

                And again, it all comes down to deadly force. If someone has the means and opportunity to kill you or someone you’re responsible for and are acting so that you honestly believe they intend to, then the question becomes what force is necessary to prevent their doing so? In applying deadly force, a long-gun (rifle or shotgun) is the best choice.

                Now, admittedly under ordinary circumstances the only time a rifle or shotgun would legitimately be used in self-defense would be a home-invasion; unlikely, but certainly not impossible (in fact, it’s becoming increasingly common). But the thing we forget is that circumstances aren’t always ordinary, are they? I’m not talking about uprising against the government (which is a whole other topic that I’m not going to discuss here) or fantasy scenarios like the zombie apocalypse. I’m talking about civil unrest, riots, natural disasters, blackouts, or any other time the social order breaks down. It’s at times like these, where some people hunker down and hope to ride it out and others use it as a chance to enact their darkest fantasies, that long-guns become all-but essential to survival. Just as an example, in the terrible Los Angeles riots of 1992 the residents of Koreatown were able to protect their lives and businesses solely because they were armed with so-called “assault weapons.” Afterwards, there was a massive upswing in the number of people buying guns. Suddenly, they realized just how much they might need them. 

                No one who buys a gun expects to use it all the time. If he has any sense, he hopes he’ll never have to use it at all. Guns are not bought for the everyday occurrences; they’re bought for the once-in-a-lifetime, unexpected disasters. The decision to arm oneself in a hostile world is, to my mind, simply an example of being prudent, similar to buying health insurance or home medical supplies. You pray you don't have to use them, but you know that if you need them, you'll want them.

                Then there is the question of martyrdom, and whether preparing to defend oneself with lethal force is contrary to the call of Christians to “be perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect.”

                The thing about martyrdom is that it has to be a witness of some kind; dying for one’s faith or to avoid comitting a sin. There’s no witness in being stabbed to death by a whacked-out thug after drug money. That’s simply murder. Unless we posit that the murder or assault of any Christian counts as martyrdom, I don’t think defending oneself is contrary to the call to witness the Gospel.

                On this note, St. Maria Goretti came up (for those who don’t know, she was a young Italian girl who was murdered resisting a would-be rapist). I would argue, though, that her witness was less in the fact that she was murdered resisting assault and more in the way she forgave her murderer. Also, remember that she is partially honored for preserving her purity through resistance, even at the cost of her own life, so I don’t think giving other young women the ability to resist without sacrificing their lives is contrary to the spirit of St. Maria.

                There is the question of whether it is more perfect to go unarmed and never deal violence to an aggressor, no matter what. Yes, I believe that is the more perfect choice, but in the same sense that celibacy is more perfect than married life. It is not that one is sinful and the other isn’t, it’s that one is good, but the other is better. Not everyone is called to be celibate, and not everyone is called to be unarmed. A universal call to either is impossible and contrary to the will of God.

                But isn’t it morally problematic to carry weapons specifically designed to kill other human beings? Again, a weapon is a weapon; they are designed to inflict violence, whether on human beings or animals. A weapon designed to inflict damage on a human being is better for defending against human beings than a weapon designed to inflict damage on animals. It is the nature of defense that damage will be done to the aggressor. We try to limit or minimize that damage as best we can by warnings or by avoiding conflict in the first place, but sometimes that simply isn’t possible. A man who is hopped up on drugs, or who is simply so hardened and embittered by life that he doesn’t care about pain or danger isn’t going to stop unless he physically cannot continue. To that end, the only defense may be to deal him a lethal blow. It’s not that we wish him dead, it’s that we want him to stop. The best defense, therefore, is a gun designed for this specific job; namely a handgun, an ‘assault rifle,’ or a shotgun (depending on where the encounter takes place).

                But, again, if we trust in God and believe that our ultimate end is with Him (as we must), then why the need to kill in defense of our own transitory lives? Because our own bodily lives are sacred and it’s no piety to treat them carelessly. Moreover, those who are responsible for the lives of others – husbands, parents, teachers, etc – have “a grave duty” to protect the lives they are responsible for. It would, therefore, be wrong of them to allow a violent aggressor to kill them and so remove their protection from those they are responsible for. Part of their duty to protect others is to not be careless with their own lives. Another part is to ensure, to the best of their abilities, that they actually could defend the people they’re responsible for if they needed to. Depending on their circumstances, that could include being armed (this, incidentally, is why I favor allowing teachers with CCW licenses to carry in schools).

                See, this is why I believe that guns can be a part of the Culture of Life. They allow parents to effectively protect their children, husbands to protect their wives, and teachers to protect their students. They allow ordinary people to live without fear of being victimized by the ruthless or violent. They discourage and prevent things like rape, murder, assault, and other manifestations of the Culture of Death.

                Think about it this way; say some mentally-disturbed or evil individual decides he wants to become the most famous person in the country by shooting up a shopping mall…but then he sees the news of the last mass shooting attempt and discovers that that guy was immediately stopped by an armed citizen. As a matter of fact, every time he hears about an attempted mass shooting, it seems like the perpetrator only managed to murder one or two people before being apprehended, shot, or frightened into committing suicide. Would you say he’s more or less likely to follow through with his sick fantasy with more armed citizens in the world?

                Or think about it like this; a man is out looking to indulge in his rape fantasy, but when he approaches a vulnerable-looking young woman, she suddenly pulls a Glock out of her purse, causing him to beat a hasty retreat. Not only has she been saved from a violent, traumatic, possibly-life-threatening experience, but he has been prevented from committing a grave sin and has been discouraged from attempting such a sin in the future.

                You see? Guns not only protect people from being attacked, but they discourage people from even attempting such attacks.

                Part of building the Culture of Life involves discouraging and breaking down the Culture of Death. Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens are part of that process. Not that I’m picturing a shooting war between the two cultures, but when people who are steeped in the Culture of Death are unable or unwilling to carry out their crimes because their victims are armed, then the Culture of Death is weakened. The crime is not committed, it doesn’t end up on the news, and other would-be-criminals don’t see it and aren’t inspired to do something similar. The violence which Cardinal Dolan rightly condemns is lessened by the presence of guns in the hands of ordinary citizens. Paradoxical, I know, but it’s been shown to work time and time again. Any honest researcher will tell you that when the law-abiding are armed, violence diminishes.

As long as there is evil in the world, people will need to be armed, and Catholics should not be afraid to choose to carry weapons if they feel they need to.

Molon Labe

E Vive Christus Rex!

Regarding Cardinal Dolan's Piece on Gun Control

Sorry, I didn't intend this to be "angry article day," but here's another one.              

              I love Cardinal Dolan. I confess he’s my personal front-runner for the next Pope. I always find him funny, insightful, and a great witness for the Church. Really, you just can’t say enough good things about the guy.

             But he doesn’t know a darn thing about guns.

 And I’m sorry, but I’m going to have be a little harsh here, because he’s a very influential figure in the Church (rightly so) and he’s so completely and dangerously wrong. His article is copied below, with a few comments in red.

It’s been an extremely full week in terms of news, with Monday’s surprising announcement from Pope Benedict, and Wednesday’s start of Lent.  But I wanted to be sure to take a moment to highlight the President’s call for sensible steps on gun control in his State of the Union address Tuesday night, as well as similar actions by Governor Cuomo here in New York State, and Mayor Bloomberg in New York City.

Gun control has been much on my mind since the Newtown killings, and, in particular, seeing the devastating effects that gun violence can bring when I celebrated the funeral Mass at Saint Mary of the Assumption parish in Katonah for Anne Marie Murphy, a brave teacher who died in that horrible tragedy, protecting her little student.

Can you name any gun-control measures currently being discussed that would have prevented this tragedy had they been in place at the time?

Advocating for gun control is not something new for the Church.  The Holy See has continuously been a strong voice in opposition to international arms trading, the world’s version of gun control; it’s even in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the official teaching of the Catholic faith (see numbers 2315-2316 in particular) .   Here in the United States, the bishops have for decades supported measures to get handguns off the streets, and to ban assault weapons.  To cite but one instance, in Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration, released in 2000, the bishops reiterated their support for legislative efforts that seek to protect society from the violence associated with easy access to deadly weapons. “As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer (especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children and anyone other than the owner), and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns.”

Both of these ideas: handguns off the street and a ban on “assault weapons” (as compared to what? Comfort weapons?) are horrible ideas, for reasons I’ll discuss below.

That’s why I found myself nodding in agreement when the President said, “I know this is not the first time this country has debated how to reduce gun violence.  But this time is different.  Overwhelming majorities of Americans — Americans who believe in the Second Amendment — have come together around common-sense reform, like background checks that will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on a gun.  Senators of both parties are working together on tough new laws to prevent anyone from buying guns for resale to criminals.  Police chiefs are asking our help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets, because these police chiefs, they’re tired of seeing their guys and gals being outgunned.”  It’s also why I was very much in favor a month ago when our own New York State legislature, heeding the call of Governor Cuomo, passed NY Safe, (New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act) the most comprehensive gun control bill in the country.

Most of what the President says is simply not true. Background checks don’t inconvenience criminals; the checks are extremely harsh as it is, and someone who thinks he’ll fail one will simply go to the black market. The ‘overwhelming majorities’ exist only in his addled brain (most of the country agrees more with the NRA than with the President, at a rate of, I believe, 46-43%). Police have the same weapons that civilians do; the days of cops with revolvers being outgunned by criminals with automatics is gone.

And I have to say, the President has a lot of gall to complain about “buying guns for resale to criminals,” since his own Justice Department forced (yes, forced) dozens of gun dealers to allow precisely these kinds of sales of weapons that ended up in the hands of some of the worst people on Earth, were used to murder hundreds of innocent people, and he, the President, then helped cover for them.

Whenever I mention my support for gun control, the calls and emails come in, telling me that I’m naïve, reminding me of the Second Amendment to our Constitution, and arguing that the only thing gun control measures will accomplish is to keep guns out of the hands of honest, law-abiding people.

And they’re completely right.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on what should be in each specific bill, and I will never be an authority on the number of bullets that should be in an ammo clip, or the proper way to conduct background checks before selling someone a firearm.  That’s the proper responsibility of our legislators, and, should constitutional questions arise, of our courts.  However, there can be no denying that, in the wake of Newtown, Aurora, Blacksburg, Tucson, Columbine, and almost countless other horrific and senseless deaths by guns, that something must be done.

Yes, there can be denying. I deny it. I deny that we have to put more useless, freedom-sapping laws on our already-overloaded books just because some nut-job went on a rampage. Clearly the over 20,000 gun-control laws we already have didn’t stop him, so what do you expect a few more to do?

            See, I hate it when people say “the government needs to do something,” because a lot of the time no it doesn’t. Most of the time when the government “does something” all it does is grow a little more bloated and sap a little more freedom and responsibility from the average person while having no impact on the situation it was supposed to help.

            The hard truth is that evil, disturbed people are going to do horrible things and there is nothing the government can do to stop them.

For me, regulating and controlling guns is part of building a Culture of Life, of doing what we can to protect and defend human life.  The easy access to guns, including assault weapons, that exists in our nation has contributed towards a Culture of Death, where human life and dignity are cheapened by the threat of violence.  No law, no piece of legislation, will ever be able to protect us from every act of aggression, or from the harm that can come from an individual bent on killing.  But, we must do what we can to minimize the opportunities for such acts, by limiting the easy access to guns – and, I would add, by increasing funding for programs to treat those who suffer from mental illness, especially those that might lead someone to commit mass murder.

Okay, now I have to work really hard to stay calm, because, again, I love Cardinal Dolan.

            Cardinal, guns are used to kill an average of 10,000 people each year in this country.

            They are used to save an estimated average of 2.5 million.

            Cardinal, I don’t see how taking defensive weapons out of the hands of law-abiding citizens counts as “protecting or defending life.”

            How, exactly, would you suggest that, say, an average young woman should protect her life and dignity against a 6’ rapist?

            How do you suggest that a father should protect his children from two men who want to assault them to steal their electronic toys?

            How do you suggest a mother should defend her home and her children from the person trying to break down her door?

            Would restricting their access and the access of millions like them to guns be protecting or promoting their lives?

            Guns are part of the culture of life, because they say that life is worth defending.

I have a long list of things to pray for this Lent.  Asking God’s help that our elected representatives in Washington and in state houses across the country have the courage and the wisdom to pass meaningful and effective gun control bills, will certainly have a prominent place in those prayers.

            Cardinal Dolan makes a number of very common and very dangerous mistakes in his thinking. One, he assumes that gun control keeps guns out of the hands of criminals. It doesn’t. Why we still think that laws can prevent criminals from, you know, committing crimes is something I simply cannot fathom. How much success did we have with prohibition? How much success are we having with our drug laws? I’m not saying crack should be legal, merely that no one who wants it actually has any difficulty getting hold of it. Why do we expect guns to be any different?

            Heck, the gun laws we have don’t do anything on that score. Machine guns, for instance, are almost totally illegal for civilian use. You have to pay a hefty fine, get a special permit, the works. It’s very nearly impossible in most states. Yet they still keep showing up at crime scenes. Why? It’s not because the handful of civilians who managed to run the gauntlet to acquire one immediately went out and shot up a crack house. It’s because there are something like ten times as many unregistered machine guns in the U.S. as there are registered. What law would stop that? The law has been passed; it was passed in 1934, and we still have criminals using machine guns.

            That’s the thing; they’re criminals. They’re breaking the law. Adding another one for them to break really doesn’t help things. We have a rich and flourishing black market in this country, because we have two massive, unsecured borders and thousands of miles of coastline. It’s not hard to sneak things in and out, if you know what you’re doing.

            No, gun control laws only affect people who obey the law. People who obey the law, who dutifully go through the kabuki theater of registering their handgun, submitting to the background check, getting a license, and so on aren’t the ones who shoot up schools.

            If you don’t believe me, take a look at the places with the strongest gun control in the U.S. Chicago? More people were shot in Chicago last year than soldiers were killed in Iraq. Washington D.C.? Not a whole lot better (of course, the politicians in charge of writing these laws don’t notice, because they have people with guns protecting them 24-7). Los Angeles? You’re kidding, right? Oh, how about Connecticut, which boasts some especially strict gun-control laws?

              Incidentally, I have to bring up gun-free zones. What is the thinking behind these? What causes anyone to think that someone who intends to bring a gun into a location for criminal purposes will be dissuaded in any way by a sign? No, a ‘gun free zone’ sign says one thing: it says “if you want to commit a crime here, no one will shoot back.” Or, as this excellent gun-control article put it, “a gun free zone is a hunting preserve for innocent people.”

            So, his first mistake is to assume that gun control will have any effect whatsoever on the criminals it’s supposed to protect against. His second mistake is to assume that guns are always and only used in crimes; to take lives rather than protect them. As I noted above, guns are used far more often to protect lives in this country than to destroy them. Even at the absolute worst estimate, by people who explicitly want to ban all guns, the use of guns by law abiding citizens to protect themselves and other people is ten times the rate of guns used in crime. We just don’t hear about it as much because a). a lot of such incidents don’t involve any shots fired and so don't make the news and b). the news media is mostly pro-gun control, so they don’t want to tell you about things that don’t fit their agenda. Cardinal Dolan ought to know this as well as anyone.

            Think about it; a murderous whack-job shoots up a bunch of unarmed people because of some deep-seated psychological problems. I agree that he shouldn’t have been able to get his hands on a gun in the first place, but no matter what you do, he’s going to be able to (and as a side note, try to imagine what will happen if he can’t. I’ll give you a hint; it caused the worst school massacre in American history). And somehow the solution is to make sure the unarmed people are even more unarmed?

            If Anne Marie Murphy, or one of her fellow teachers had had a gun and the will and training to use it, do you think Cardinal Dolan would have had to celebrate a funeral Mass for her? Isn’t it at least possible that most of the people murdered in Connecticut would still be alive now? No one can know what would have happened, but surely things would have turned out differently. Consider: do you think a man who walks into a school with a rifle and starts shooting children is looking for a fight? Does that sound like a brave man to you? A man who will stand a trade shots with armed opponents? Typically in shootings like this, the murderer will give up or kill himself at the first sign of armed resistance. But never mind that; we want to take away even more guns to make extra sure the next nutjob won’t have to deal with any armed resistance.

            The simple and horrible fact is that there are evil people in the world; people who would prey on ordinary, defenseless people. These people don’t need guns to commit harm; the same week as the Newton massacre, a man in China murdered 22 children with a knife. No law will stop them. Police will not protect you from them; they’ll just weep over your mangled body and swear to catch the crook before he does it again. You and you alone are responsible for your own safety and that of your family, and by far the best way to do that is with a gun. Look, I have a black belt; I’ve been studying martial arts for a decade and a half, I’m a fairly good-sized fellow, and even with all that I still wouldn’t count on hand-to-hand to save my life against a prison-hardened crook armed with a screwdriver unless I had no other choice. Guns are the great equalizer. A gun makes a 5’5” college student the equal to the 6’3” rapist. But laws of the kind that Cardinal Dolan is supporting would prefer to see her get raped so that people a hundred miles away can ‘feel safer.’

            Is that what he means by the ‘Culture of Life?’
            The big problem is that Cardinal Dolan (bless him) doesn't even bring up the topic of self-defense, or lawful gun-use, or any reasons why someone would want to have a gun, let alone present any counter arguments for them. Nor does he attempt to answer the objections he (briefly) says he has received. He seems simply to trust that the politicians know what they're doing and is ready to applaud anything that claims to achieve his desired end of less gun violence. Frankly, this indicates that his knowledge of the subject is limited entirely to his desire to see less violence. That's a laudable goal, but it means he probably shouldn't be speaking out on the subject at all.

            Cardinal Dolan specifically mentions handguns and ‘assault weapons’ (by which he means semi-automatic, civilian versions of military assault rifles). Those are two very different topics. Handguns are the guns you use for concealed carry. Assault weapons are the guns you wish you had when have to use the concealed carry weapon. Regarding handguns, these are precisely the weapons that protect innocent, law-abiding citizens. These are the guns that stop criminals. Can you really give me a good reason why we should “get them off the streets” and allow those (again, at rock-bottom, cooked-the-books, want-it-to-look-bad least) 100,000 citizens to get robbed, raped, and murdered each year?

            Regarding assault weapons. First of all, they’re not really ‘special’ guns (for a much more informed take, see the above linked-to article). They’re efficient and easy to use, but they’re not super-deadly killing machines. There are two points here: one, why citizens ought to have access to them, and two, why ‘banning’ them wouldn’t help anyway.

            Regarding the first point, assault weapons like the AR-15 are very popular because, again, they’re easy-to-use and fun to shoot. Moreover, they make an excellent home-defense weapon. And no, that’s not overkill. For one thing, assault weapons aren’t particularly ‘powerful’ guns: they’re actually relatively low caliber weapons. For another, in an intense situation like, yes, a home-invasion you’re probably going to miss, so you’ll want an accurate, high-capacity weapon. Finally, despite what we see in the movies, bullets don’t usually kill instantly (couple exceptions are the heart and the Medulla Oblongata in the brain). Rule of thumb is, if someone’s worth shooting once, he’s worth shooting a lot. Basically, if someone’s attacking you, you shoot until he stops. Whether that means he surrenders, runs, or dies doesn’t really matter. The important thing is to make him stop.

            Now, as to the second point, there already was an assault weapons ban, and that one was also supported by a public figure I admire. It did precisely nothing except make a lot of people angry. Why “Assault-Weapons-Ban II: The Wrath of Biden” would fare any better than episode one, I really can’t imagine.

            Then again, even if it did somehow work and scary-looking, efficient, easy-to-shoot rifles magically vanished, I’d like to remind you that the guy who shot up Virginia Tech used handguns. And if you magically made handguns vanish, there’s always that thing that good old Mr. Kehoe did in Bath, Michigan (see above link). What are you going to do then? Outlaw fertilizer?

            But all of that is, ultimately irrelevant. The Second Amendment of the Constitution says “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It doesn’t say “the right of the people to keep and bear such arms as a bunch of politicians protected by armed security details are comfortable with shall not be infringed too much.” I believe there can be a legitimate need for civilians to own so-called assault weapons, but I also believe that ‘need’ doesn’t enter into it, any more than the Catholic Church’s ‘need’ to operate hospitals and orphanages doesn’t enter into the First Amendment. You don't have to justify exercising a right. 

            Guns that are exclusive to the lawless and to the government are part of the Culture of Death. Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are part of the Culture of Life. They say “you will not victimize me. You will not harm my family. You will not take away my rights.” They prevent the Culture of Death from carrying out its desires with impunity. The laws that Cardinal Dolan naively supports would help to destroy that, as we have seen time and time again wherever harsh gun-control is enacted. England is now the violent-crime capital of the European Union. Australia isn’t much better. South Africa has stopped even counting its crime rate. Then there’s above mentioned Chicago, Washington D.C., and Los Angeles. The Culture of Death thrives where the Culture of Life is disarmed.

            I’m sorry, but Cardinal Dolan, like most people advocating gun control, is speaking out of grief and confusion and so is making a fool of himself by talking about a subject he doesn’t understand. I’m going to pray that none of these new laws ever sees the light of day, and that the ones already on the books get revoked.

Molon Labe
E Vive Christus Rex!

Thoughts on Pope Benedict's Resignation

Like the rest of the world, I was shocked and saddened by the news that our beloved Pope Benedict will be resigning. It's shocking because the last time a Pope resigned from office was back before we had Protestants (Gregory XII in 1415; resigned to finally end the Great Schism). Saddened because I love Pope Benedict. He's been the Pope throughout the time I've been maturing in my faith, and he's the Pope I saw and heard in person when I was in Rome.

But more importantly than that, he's just an eminently lovable person. The press nicknamed him 'God's Rottweiler,' but his writings, speeches, and mannerisms are anything but ferocious.

Case in point: St. Peter, meet St. Bernard

On the contrary, he's a remarkably gentle man, remaining open-minded and respectful even when discussing heresies and viciously anti-Catholic philosophies. Among those who have met him, the unanimous consensus is that they're struck by how very humble and gracious he is. The anecdote that, to my mind, encapsulates him best is during a Eucharistic procession in St. Peter's square, while he was carrying the Blessed Sacrament, he saw a pilgrim waving at him, and he smiled and gestured to the monstrance. "Not me," he was telling her, "Him." The focus for Pope Benedict is never on himself, whether his own theological views or his own public persona. Rather, it is always upon God.

As for my opinion of his resignation, I honestly don't think it's my place to really have one. Popes can legally resign, and it has happened before (very few things that the Pope does are unprecedented, though this is less out of policy and more due to the fact that, 2000 years in, there aren't a whole lot of unprecedented actions left). Considering the fact that he's an 85 year-old man responsible for roughly 1/7 of the world's population, it doesn't take much effort to see why he would resign. He clearly considers this the best decision for the Church, which, knowing what we know of him, can only mean that it most likely is the best decision. In short it's his prerogative, and while I'm sad to see him go and will certainly miss his presence in the Church, I'm happy for him that he'll finally have the rest he so richly deserves after a long life of service.

Regarding what this does to the Papacy, I think it will have mixed effects. On the one hand, this will ease some pressure on future Popes who find themselves unable to carry out their duties by giving them the option of graceful retirement. On the other, you can bet that from now on the press will hardly let a day go by without saying that the Pope should resign in disgrace for something that some priest did somewhere in the world, or just because they feel like it. On the other hand, the fact that the Pope resigned of his own free will, without any suspicions or pressure from the press, should help to mitigate this.

More importantly, though, it's a wonderful show of humility and trust in God. Benedict is quietly acknowledging that, in effect, God doesn't need him. It's not vital that he remain on scene to dispense his massive store of wisdom (and I'm not being ironic in the least; he seriously does have a massive store of wisdom to share), because it's not about him, it's about Jesus. And if his health means that he can't be an effective messenger for Jesus, then he'll step aside and let someone else take his place. As always, Benedict's focus is on Jesus.

Now comes the really icky part: having to listen to MSNBC news anchors trying to squeeze the Church into categories of 'Right and Left' while struggling to wrap their heads around what 'Papability' means.

Lord Jesus, watch over and bless your servant, Pope Benedict, and his successor.

Here's the link to his official declaration

Vive Christus Rex! E Vive Papa Benedicto!

UPDATE:

On a lighter note, I'd just like to point out that this is an incredibly badass photo!

No word yet on whether the Pope has developed superspeed.