My translation of Francisco Suarez, De sacramentis, disp. 83, sect. ii, in which he explains and defends the prayers of the Roman Canon.
lumenscholasticum.wordpress.com/2023/07/03/sua…

RT @Vermeullarmine: Dialogue presupposes public order, whose restoration is the first problem to be solved.

Way too much modern Catholic moral argumentation boils down to nothing more than:

1. Human dignity, therefore
2. [Plug in desired conclusion]

It's lazy and intellectually unserious and utterly unconvincing to anyone who doesn't already agree with whatever conclusion one is trying to establish. It opens the door to all kinds of mischief, because the notion of "human dignity" is so vague and contested that it can be, and is, deployed to arrive at all sorts of conclusions, including conclusions that contradict one another. And for that reason, bare appeals to human dignity are inevitably question-begging, because what human dignity amounts to and what it entails are precisely what is in dispute between the different sides of the various issues to which the notion is applied (capital punishment, immigration, sexuality, or whatever).

This is one of the many high costs of having taken Catholic theology off of the Scholastic gold standard. Too many minds have turned to mush and simply don't know how to reason logically. They just repeat gauzy stock phrases and stomp their feet.

A calumny against a good man and holy priest. What Pater Edmund Waldstein defends is simply traditional teaching that Vatican II explicitly says it “leaves untouched.” What his persecutors are trying to insulate from criticism is their own personal theology, not Catholic doctrine

The world does not need an artificial intelligence that diminishes humanity; rather, it needs human intelligence enlightened by wisdom, political authority guided by conscience and technological innovation directed by charity. Only then will artificial intelligence become not a rival to humanity but a servant of the common good.

RT @Vermeullarmine: Chateaubriand observes somewhere that when the peak fever of the Revolution had passed, most people simply didn’t talk…

@michaelbd “The liberal (in his left- or right-leaning iteration) sees any appeal to a common good as a threat to the license of the individual.” thejosias.com/2023/03/27/a-b…

Never doom.

Right liberals are on the attack again, filling the timeline with their psychosis. Last time I checked the Federalist Papers refer to "the common good," the "public good," or "the public benefit" in Federalist Nos. 1, 2, 10, 13, 14, 22, 27, 30, 31, 37, 41, 43, 45, 57, 63, 64, 66, 71, 72, 73, and 79.

I am told that invoking the common good means you are a crypto-Marxist, and that the Framers were basically John Stuart Mill and Milton Friedman all rolled into one.

"The public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued.... no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object." Federalist No. 45 (Madison)

"The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society." Federalist No. 57 (Madison).

For an entire paper, forthcoming in the Catholic University Law Review, very much related to this subject, see Jeremy M. Christiansen, The Classical Legal Tradition as Our Tradition: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…

RT @Vermeullarmine: Now do “liberty,” about which no one has ever disagreed.

RT @Vermeullarmine: To love only what your country might ideally become, in aspiration, is not to love your real country at all, but only a…

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution (1833):

‘Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.’

That this amendment was intended to secure to every citizen an absolute right to speak, or write, or print, whatever he might please, without any responsibility, public or private, therefor, is a supposition too wild to be indulged by any rational man. This would be to allow to every citizen a right to destroy, at his pleasure, the reputation, the peace, the property, and even the personal safety of every other citizen…. Civil society could not go on under such circumstances…. It is plain, then, that the language of this amendment imports no more, than that every man shall have a right to speak, write, and print his opinions upon any subject whatsoever, without any prior restraint, so always, that he does not injure any other person in his rights, person, property, or reputation; and so always, that he does not thereby disturb the public peace, or attempt to subvert the government. It is neither more nor less, than an expansion of the great doctrine, recently brought into operation in the law of libel, that every man shall be at liberty to publish what is true, with good motives and for justifiable ends…. Without such a limitation, it might become the scourge of the republic, first denouncing the principles of liberty, and then, by rendering the most virtuous patriots odious through the terrors of the press, introducing despotism in its worst form.”

Ever since the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, there have been countless ripples bearing witness to the void of justice that exists in this world. Heartaches and joys have been a part of human experience for thousands of years. There is nothing new under the sun.

From the de of the Tower of Babel, the murdering hearts of pre-Flood man, unspeakable abominations among pagan religions, the harlotry of Israel, the negligence of the unduly afflicted, the malicious conspiracies that are responsible for the rise and fall of kingdoms.... all the way to the planes that flew into the Twin Towers, or even, lest I fail to mention, the murder of our Creator whom we hung up on a cross like a pig, and for which we (yes, you and me) are all responsible.

Let us not forget that it was this world that is spoken of when St. John wrote, "For God so loved the world that He gave His Only-Begotten Son so that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).

Yesterday, we saw another ripple in the shooting of Charlie Kirk.

As with each ripple in history, the City of Man has its "reactions", all of which are bound to be a mixture of good and bad, mostly bad. And more ripples will be made. Man is always trying to fix his own problem. But what the "law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh" (Rom. 8:3), neither can the best political philosophy or strategy that the best minds can engineer.

I am not at all suggesting utter passivity in the face of injustice, violence, and the disturbance of worldly peace. We can and must do what we can. We have no other choice. I will stand behind the best plan of action that will preserve justice and the common good. The golden rule of Christ remains, as does the requirement to protect the weak, punish evil, and guard peace.

However, despite what must be sought or what can be done, history certainly proves, and what the future will equally prove, is that the absolute "co-existence" of ideas is pure mythology.

Yesterday, someone lost his ability to be at peace with an opposing idea, religious belief, or political opinion, for which we rightly lament and accurately find unfortunate.

"We must wage our war in the realm of ideas, not in violence"

Absolutely, as much as can be done. But don't be fooled. As long as evil exists, and we know it will exist until the end of this world's history, the co-existence of ideas has never been nor will ever be absolute.

The 2 proofs of that are human history, which begins from Satan's genius trickery, which has its endless revelation in the ripples aforementioned, and the great Day on which "He will come again to judge the living and the dead, and His Kingdom will have no end."

While we call for the debate floor to host the fight of our ideas, know this -- ideas will all have their reckoning and will bow to One Single Idea soon enough. And I know Charlie Kirk believed in this.

St. Paul, the Apostle who angelically chanted about the love of Christ for mankind (Gal. 2:20-21), knew that this world will have to make way for that Idea soon enough because It will come "in flaming fire to take vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thes. 1:8-9).

Before we get bogged down with the fleeting questions of our time, let us not neglect to foster the right response to the greatest Idea that will slaughter all ideas in the time to come. As the wisest man once said after recounting the woes and wins of this life: "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, For this is man’s all. For God will bring every work into judgment, including every secret thing, whether good or evil." (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14).

What are you living for?

Μαρὰν ἀθα!

I first met Charlie Kirk about four years ago when I was in Phoenix for a speaking engagement. He reached out and invited me to breakfast. I was deeply impressed by him that day. He was a man of great intelligence, considerable charm, and real goodness of heart.  

I reconnected , after I saw him debate twenty-five young people who were, to put it mildly, hostile to his views. I texted him that I was so struck by how he kept his cool and his charitable attitude in the face of some pretty obnoxious opposition. I then asked him to appear as a guest on my interview program, “Bishop Barron Presents,” and he eagerly accepted my invitation. He was scheduled to come to Rochester, Minnesota in about ten days. The last contact we had was two nights ago. After I appeared on one of the evening news shows to talk about the Religious Liberty Commission, he texted me and told me how much he appreciated what I said and then added, “I’m excited to join you on your show soon. God bless you.”  

That last sentence shows what was most important to Charlie. He was indeed a great debater and also one of the best advocates in our country for civil discourse, but he was, first and last, a passionate Christian. In fact, when we had that breakfast in Phoenix, we didn’t talk much about politics. We talked about theology, in which he had a deep interest, and about Christ. I know I’m joining millions of people around the world in praying that he rests now in the peace of the Lord.

As Americans, we are witnesses in just the past few weeks to a vicious pattern of political and social disorder. At Annunciation Catholic Parish in Minneapolis, the killings of Harper Moyski and Fletcher Merkel, two innocent children. In Charlotte, the murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska. And now the political assassination of Charlie Kirk, known for his commitment to civil and rational discourse. We entrust each of these victims to God, our Heavenly Father and author of every human life, and his son Jesus Christ, the reason for our supernatural hope.

What we see unfolding in our nation is a vicious pattern of hatreds rooted in the rejection of God, of the dignity of the human person, and the sanctity of the family. We can eradicate these ills only through a firm reliance on God, through a deeper devotion to Christ and the Gospel, through a sincere love for persons reflected in law, and through a renewed commitment to justice and public order.

We are living through a perilous moment. Our challenge is not only one of partisan disagreement, law, and policy, but in a deeper way our challenge is to uphold the central goods of American political life: of faith, of families, and of a national commitment to live together in harmony as brothers and sisters.

Every single Animals as Leaders album and every single Opeth album, for starters.

Partial photos of my own modest collection. Many more upstairs but I can't be bothered to hobble up there on this sprained ankle to take photos, and the stuff that I consult most regularly is all down here anyway.

This is what the recent new arrangement looked like, before inevitable new purchases and other things were added:

@realbriankemple will be pleased to see that I recently acquired a set of his Reiser JoST Cursus reprint. Too bad it isn't in hardcover...

RT @Vermeullarmine: Rafa de Arizaga tells it like it is: iusetiustitium.com/john-roberts-c…

"You can't legislate morality" is a boomerism that must be purged from our minds and from the minds of others with all our energy.

No idea who this is, nor do I care, but if he had ever really “studied the humanities,” he’d have seen that organized force has always been an indispensable guarantor of civilization.