An Update

I know that some are interested in an update on my status as a candidate for seminary.

Here it is: I am in. After reviewing my information and the recommendation from the diocesan Commission for Orders and Ministries, my bishop has given his approval for my sponsorship as a seminarian.

I literally just got the letter from the diocese this past Saturday. And on that same day the diocesan vocations director called me and invited me to the seminarians' summer get together on Tuesday and Wednesday. So I spent Monday getting ready and taking care of various errands.

I still need to be accepted to the seminary itself, since it is run by another, neighboring diocese. According to the vocations director, as well as every other priest I know, this is a formality. No one approved by their bishop has every been denied acceptance. So I am now, for all intents and purposes, a seminarian.

I would like to thank everyone who has prayed for me and my discernment. If you could continue to remember me in your prayers and ask God to help me further discern His will in my life, I would be grateful.

Prayer request

Today, June 15, 2009, at approximately 2:30 PM, EST, I will be interviewed by the Commission for Orders and Ministries of my diocese. This is a panel of priests who have been given the various material I have had to submit as part of the process for applying to seminary. Having gone over it, they will use this time to ask me any questions this material may have brought up. After the interview they will suggest to my bishop whether or not I should be accepted as a seminarian. His Excellency will take their suggestion into account when he makes his final decision.

This is one of the last steps in the process of becoming a seminarian. If any of you would be so kind as to remember me in your prayers today, I would greatly appreciate it.

My how the Liturgy of the Hours for today is difficult

OK, so...

Today is Corpus Christi... except, in the U.S., it's not. Fine. I think that moving the Solemnity so people don't have to attend Mass more than once a week is a bad idea, but I'm not in charge and - since I don't have access to a 1962 Breviary and thus cannot choose to use the old calendar for today - I am obediently praying the Liturgy of the Hours for St. Barnabas the Apostle.

One problem. St. Barnabas is on the calendar as a memorial. Both the Ordinary of the Liturgy of the Hours, i.e. the rubrics written in red, and the General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours say that memorials are not celebrated during the daytime hours of terce, sext and none (or midmorning, midday, and midafternoon prayer, if you prefer). But St. Barnabas has proper readings for terce, sext and none. So what's a man to do? Does the fact that he has proper readings trump the general norms? I am leaning towards not using the readings in his proper since both the rubrics and the praenotanda seem to say that I shouldn't.

Does anyone out there have a 2009 Ordo for the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite in the United States? What does it say?

On textual criticism

I would never deny that textual criticism can have its uses in the study of Sacred Scripture. But I am skeptical about how all-powerful this usefulness is.

For example, the Fathers confirm that the Apostle John wrote the Gospel of John and the three Epistles of John. Some textual critics argue that this cannot be correct because of the difference in writing style.¹ To investigate this further, I will propose and experiment.

Here is something I wrote on a lark in college. Read it and, if you are familiar with the general tone of this blog, tell me if you would have guessed it and this blog were written by the same man if you had not been told:

I don't trust the Care Bears. They're up to something. I believe that they are an alien species bent on conquering the Earth. Think about it. They live in the sky, among the stars. They fly around in strange vehicles.

And how comes they're always trying to spread peace and love? Because they want us all to be shiny, happy people? I think not. They're trying to disarm humanity and take away our ability to fight. When we have disarmed and all people are living in harmony, they will launch their quick and devastating attack, destroying our communications infrastructure and murdering world leaders. After this quick coup they will rule us all with an iron fist... er, uh... paw.

What I don't understand is how I am the only one to see it. They fire lasers from their freaking stomachs. FROM THEIR FREAKING STOMACHS PEOPLE! They use these tummy-lasers to eliminate any enemies that stand in the way of their diabolical plan of slowly sifting the fighting spirit out of the human race.

Once this information goes public, I will probably be targeted for "caring." I can only hope that this message reaches enough people in time. Don't let this cuddly alien menace get away with it. Fight these hibernating hell-bringers with all your strength. Do it for humanity.

I hope this experiment has been useful to you.

¹ I'm honestly not all that up on the current ins and outs of Biblical scholarship. Is this still a popular view? It certainly was when I was in high school and college.

The logic of modernity

At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State. ~Planned Parenthood v Casey

I believe that I've written explicitly enough that the killing of George Tiller was murder, and that it was both evil and foolish for Roeder to do so. That being said, let us reason together.

The quote above is, as stated, from the decision in the Supreme Court case Planned Parenthood v Casey. That means, at least insofar as the present day workings of the legal system of these United States goes, that the quoted position is to be taken as a basic principle contained in and protected by the Constitution of the United States. Now assume the following: Roeder defines human life in such a way that abortionists are not included under it, or at least under the category of human life whereby one is protected by a right to not be killed. Or assume Roeder defines the universe in such a way that it is a moral imperative for abortionists to be killed because of what they do. Or assume both, or any similar type of position, or every similar type of position.

Under such an assumption, how can Roeder be prosecuted for murder? He has a basic Constitutional right to define these things for himself, and to do so without any compulsion from the State. That compulsion obviously includes using laws against his position to punish him. This is the same logic that says abortion must be legal, else we would we using "compulsion" to define things like life for people and thus denying them their liberty. If Roeder holds any position similar to the ones given above, then he should be immune from prosecution under the Constitution of the United States as authoritatively interpreted by the United States' Supreme Court.

In other words, the logic of modernity and basic consistency demand that Roeder be free from prosecution by the State. If they were truly consistent, then pro-aborts would be decrying Tiller's murder, but at the same time they would be decrying any attempt to prosecute Roeder. They would admit that they do not like the murder of abortionists. But the answer to that is simple: if you don't like abortionists being murdered, then don't murder one. They would reach across the aisle, extending hands of peace and cooperation, so that both pro-lifers and pro-aborts could work together to make the murder of abortionists safe, legal and rare.

This is what logic would demand. Moderns love to claim the mantle of logic and reason. Let us see if any actually follow their first principles were logic leads.

Interesting

This is interesting, especially the Habermas quote. But, as far as practical matters go, demographics are destiny. If Europeans don't start having children, there soon won't be anybody left to practice the faith, comeback or no.

And now for something completely different...

I was browsing "teh interwebs" and saw this post by (amazing) sci-fi author John C. Wright. And, because I'm tired and feeling a bit whimsical, I thought I'd roll with it (even if I don't use ::shudder:: LiveJournal).



My wallpaper is a picture of one of the marines from Warhammer 40,000's Black Templar Space Marine chapter. Someone, somewhere on the web, used the drawing to make one of those "motivational poster" parodies. I'm using it because, for all its faults, the 40k universe can be fun. And because I like the caption. And because the Black Templars are kind of awesome.

You can click on the thumbnail for full size version of my desktop. AWE at a chance to get a glimpse into parts of my mind to which you have never before had access! MARVEL at the number of icons and files on my desktop! CRINGE as I continue to write cheesy lines like this one!

Contraception, abortion, euthanasia and the slippery slope

(N.B. This is a slightly modified form of an argument I first wrote in one of Mark Shea's comment boxes. The original is available here.)

There are a number of people who have pointed out that the acceptance of contraception will lead to the acceptance of abortion and euthanasia. Think, for example, of the prophetic words of Pope Paul VI in Humanae vitae. Yet there are many who argue that such a stance is an example of the fallacious slippery slope form of argument.

The argument that the acceptance of contraception logically leads to the acceptance of abortion and euthanasia is not a slippery slope. It entails necessary conclusions drawn from what the acts of contraception, abortion and euthanasia are, and from the principles that must be accepted to view these acts as morally acceptable.

Sex causes babies. This is what sex does. To say that there is a right to contraception entails holding that one has a right to the cause of babies - sex - without the result that naturally follows - the babies themselves.

Principle 1: a right to sex without babies.

There is, however, a problem: no form of contraception is 100% reliable. Barrier methods fail, pills fail &c. But we already necessarily hold that there is a right to sex without babies. Thus there must be an all purpose backup that will eliminate babies in the cases were contraception fails. This is abortion. This is how abortion was historically argued for by a number of people, i.e. as a necessary backup to contraception.

Moreover, it is still how abortion is argued for today. Please see this HuffPo article that Mark Shea links to here: "Others find that their dignity depends on being able to end the pregnancy." Human dignity depends on Principle 1, on the right to sex without babies. Thus human dignity depends on abortion.

There is, however, a problem. From the moment of conception there is a genetically unique, self-contained, self-directed, genetically human life. This is a fact that science - today's great god-king of all that is knowable - confirms. There is no logical way to say that this life is anything other than a human being. But Principle 1 necessarily demands that this innocent human being can be killed if it is not desired. Thus it must follow that human life only has worth dependent on circumstances. It has no inherent worth in itself.

Principle 2: Human life has no inherent worth.

Now, the chronically sick and the elderly can be difficult to care for. Caring for them can be just as difficult, if not more difficult, than raising children. But we have already posited a right to sex without children. How can we have a right to be free of the latter "burden," but not the former? We cannot, and Principle 2 gives us the way out.

The chronically sick and the elderly live lives that are of a lesser quality than others do. They live with pain. They suffer a loss of qualities such as speed, strength, agility, beauty &c. They are a "burden" on those who have to take care of them and are usually without a means giving much of anything back as compensation for being such a "burden."

We would certainly appraise the value of anything else that had so many detriments with so few benefits as being of little worth. And since Principle 2 holds that human life has no inherent worth, we can appraise the value of a human life the same way we would appraise the value of anything else. Thus we can appraise the life of the chronically ill and the elderly as being worthless and eliminate them is we so choose.

Contraception necessarily requires abortion because the principle behind the acceptance of contraception is that we have a right to sex without babies, and the only way to fully guaranty sex without babies is to have abortion as a backup for the failure of ontraception. The acceptance of abortion necessarily requires that some innocent human life is worth less than others and can thus be taken if it is undesirable. It thus becomes a necessary principle that human life has no inherent worth. And if human life has no inherent worth, then there is no reason why the life of the chronically ill and elderly cannot be appraised as having little worth and eliminated so as to relieve the burden that would otherwise be imposed on those who would have to care for them.

In proof form:

If you accept a right to contraception, then you accept Principle 1.

If you accept Principle 1, then you accept that abortion is a right.

Therefore, if you accept a right to contraception, then you accept that abortion is a right.

That is a valid hypothetical syllogism.

If you accept that abortion is a right, then you accept Principle 2.

If you accept Principle 2, then you accept euthanasia.

Therefore, if you accept that abortion is a right, then you accept euthanasia.

That is another valid hypothetical syllogism.

If you accept a right to contraception, then you accept that abortion is a right.

If you accept that abortion is a right, then you accept euthanasia.

Therefore, if you accept a right to contraception, then you accept euthanasia.

This is yet another valid hypothetical syllogism.

The conclusion is thus proved: If you accept contraception, logical adherence to principles demands that you accept abortion and euthanasia.