America's Original Sin

Not racism, but allowing the enslavement of a foreign race and bringing those slaves to the colonies, without consideration of the consequences.

Oligarchs at work.

NCR: The church must make reparation for its role in slavery, segregation by Shannen Dee Williams

From @BlkNunHistorian: "The systematic denial and erasure of Black Catholic history denies the fundamental truth that Black history is Catholic history." https://t.co/5PCuqVRQZu

— NCR (@NCRonline) June 15, 2020

"At the time, their project...was contrary to segregation laws. However, from the outset, black and white sisters alike have lived side-by-side...sharing every chore, every moment of prayer, every sorrow, and every joy of community life." https://t.co/k8gPTMUBAh

— Fr. Aquinas Guilbeau, OP (@FrAquinasOP) June 17, 2020

Human Dignity Is Black Dignity by Vincent Lloyd



Do Latins have something to say about healing and reconciliation beyond a religious version of civic nationalism? Could they even concede the freedom of association and separation as a political solution?

A Woman Believes...

That just because she was given a mouth and an emotional inclination to talk that she has the right to use it as she pleases.

Hence the list of sins of the word are much more important for women.

Woman, thy name is Discontent.

Women more unhappy than men until they reach mid-80s

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat... (Genesis 3:4-6)

Agnosticism

Why Agnosticism Is the Worst Idea Ever by Thaddeus Kozinski

Perpetual Youth? Would That Really Be a Problem for Today's Modern Woman?

The Age of Adaline

Blake Lively's Age of Adaline Timeless Beauty: See Her Stay 29 Through Eight Decades in New Movie Posters
RT

What a load of crock, wanting to grow old with someone you love. How many Uhmerican women today really want that, as opposed to being the one who stays young while letting the man age? Many men and women may lament the loss of beauty and youth in women, but the fading of both qualities, which are connected, is also tied to reproduction, that is a drop in fertility. And so the loss of youth is both a consequence of original sin (and a punishment in that way) but also a mercy, a means to counteract a woman's pride, narcissism, and disordered self-love, though it may seem to come too late for many as their characters are well-ingrained. (How many Uhmerican women practice immodesty to flaunt their sexual power over men to feed their narcissism and pride with the attention of men and women?) But it is not too late for conversion, though if they have been squandering their youth and their ability to bond to a man through promiscuity, it may be too late for them to have an opportunity to exercise happiness in marriage.


Similarly, in the case of men, there is the suffering (or infliction?) of physical evil as a way to open the path to humility and holiness, but for men it is not physical beauty or attractiveness but the diminution of his physical or intellectual abilities (frailty and loss of memory) is.

One of the 7 Deadly Sins

Greed explained: J. Paul Getty, Aristotle and the Maximum Power Principle (Resilience)

Facebooking Sins

Post by Orthodox Christian Network.

"Just Say No"

Peter Hitchens has posted on marijuana and drugs, and his opposition to their use and legalization.

While I was at the opening of the studio, the familiar smell of marijuana was in the air.

Choosing to induce pleasure through the ingestion of taking of some chemical [for example, the use of alcohol] can be permissible, or is not always contrary to the human good. But deriving pleasure while simultaneously obliterating or diminishing the use of reason?* Or deliberately surrendering autonomy/self-control by altering the brain? That is sinful, although the act's repugnance to reason might not be so clear to the untrained or to the vicious. For me, the use of "recreational" drugs is rather repulsive, and I would not consider using drugs because of the importance I place on reason and human agency. That's not my sin. Though I won't say that in severe circumstances it might not become more tempting.

*Could it be justified through the principle of double-effect, i.e. I intend to derive pleasure by taking this drug, but I do not intend to lose self-control or the use of reason?

... delenda est

Which city? I hesitate to say the name San Francisco because of its association with that great medieval saint, and I didn't want to write the name out in Latin both because that would be worse but also because I wasn't sure of the form. Would it be nominative or genitive, with "civitas" implied? Santcus Franciscus or Sancti Francisci? Apparently the former.

That place should be "carthagized." "Sodomized" already has a certain meaning and can't be applied to the whole city, though it can be applied to some of its inhabitants.

The natural setting is very pleasant; it's the people who are the problem. Let the worthy inherit the land.

While my strong emotions have since faded since I went to the city as I don't think about the city that much, the city is representative of what is wrong with California, especially as it becomes increasingly gentrified. A girl who is attached to the city life there, or the life in a big city, probably wouldn't make a good wife for someone seeking the simple life. (She'd probably gaze longingly at the city, like Lot's wife?)

It was a Sunday afternoon, so the people I saw on Union Street (and the adjacent streets) were probably people who live there or visitors; not too many who just work there. (How many white-collared workers work and live in SF?) "I see dead people." Spiritually dead. Was their appearance a consequence of their moral choices? Or maybe they just don't know how to take care of themselves, unlike Europeans city-dwellers, who probably aren't that much better morally. The 20- and 30-something women were not make-up free, but they still looked older. Too much time in the sun + the standard American diet? (How much daily exposure to the sun can one have while on a paleo diet before the skin begins to "age"?) Sheeple walking around, enjoying the latest fashion and their habits of consumption. No one likes to be alone so they were with others, but the fact that they have "friends" doesn't change the fundamental direction of their lives.

"So judgmental!"

City of Man vs. the City of God. When this order passes, are you going to blame it on those "fundamentalists" or "right-wing extremists" or those Christians?

If there is global warming, might it (and the accompanying famines and droughts) be a divine chastisement? If so, and the link to human causes has not been settled yet and we have the causation all wrong, should we be putting the blame on ourselves instead of CO2 emitters as such? Those who put foward anthropogenic climate change are likely to look for a man-made solution (leading to some measure of centralized global control), rather than repentance.

The modern man may still ask if God still punishes man for his sins, especially if He is so merciful. Some apologists may just say that anthropogenic climate change is the natural consequence of our lack of moderation with respect to energy and industrial civilization, and so this punishment is just the due result of our vicious lifestyle. But could God make use of natural agents (changes in solar activity, for example) in order to punish us? It seems that this is possible, as well.
Of course, this speculation is all predicated that global warming is actually taking place in the manner those scientists claim.

I'm going to put my thoughts about ROAM in a separate post.

CL: Retreating in Frustration

Pheromones? Or alpha charisma?

The Spearhead: Tingles in the Mist

Sexual attraction not wholly rational, though we may not understand all of the signalling that takes place at the animal level - chemical signalling plus certain sense impressions. What explains the appeal of the "big ape" to Julia Roberts? The brute physicality and alpha disinterest? Was there anything sexual in her interest, something more than mere fascination with an animal?

What explains the ape's attraction to Roberts? Some have said that she may have been giving off signals that she was fertile.

I am reminded of the realism of the Old Testament regarding women and their sexuality - Lot's daughters, for one, and the sin they attempted to commit with their father.

Scandalous or not?

This afternoon I went to Mass at OLP for the Feast of the Sacred Heart.
There was a couple who had a child out of wedlock, participating in a ceremony/rite for couples in marriage prep at the parish. It included something (consecration?) for the Sacred Heart, possibly followed by a blessing. I don't know - I didn't stick around to see what was going on. The couples in marriage prep were mostly Latinos/Latinas. There was one attracitve Latina brunette, but unfortunately, "she's taken." Where did the Vietnamese go? (I saw one Vietnamese couple.) There is still a sizeable number of Filipinos at the parish. The other Filipino parishes in the diocese (many of which are in Santa Clara) are not so orthodox or so traditional in liturgical practice.

Fr. Jose talked about ingratitude during his homily; he talked about how we felt when people don't show their gratitude or reciprocate. So of course I could relate. Too bad the homily started to get too long, as my mind drifted.

Anyway, back to the couple. Was their presence for a rite for engaged couples scandalous? After all it was obvious that the woman had a child (probably by the man who was present) and yet not married. Yes, sins can be forgiven, but even if they are forgiven, is their presence nonetheless a true source of scandal? Could it be miscontrued as a permissive attitude towards sexual sin on the part of the Church? Could such a couple be justly excluded from group marriage prep, and instead be pastored privately? How would such a situation be handled in the early Church? Is there a danger that the Church seems too lax in its handling of sin? Should we not hold people to a higher standard when grace is available? What about taking the notion of the near occasio of sin seriously? If the couple were careful not to leave themselves alone for an extended period of time would she have gotten pregnant?

If we really want to be perfect in caritas we must avoid the near occasions of sin, rather than make excuses by saying that we are weak or trying to circumvent the law, seeing how much we can get away with before we sin. We do not have the attitude that we must preserve a woman's virginity at all costs, as if it were the highest good (as some anti-Christian critics might allege). What we want is for the faithful to be held accountable to God through being accountable to others - their parents (or her parents). Some might say that we are not treating people like "adults" because we insist on their being supervised by elders while they are engaged in courtship. But we are taking into consideration fallen human nature and concupiscence. And there is nothing wrong with wanting to prevent an unmarried woman from becoming pregnant - if she does not marry (and there may be reasons why she should not marry the father of the child) the consequences are serious for the child as well as for the mother and father. (And the likelihood of her being married is lowered as well.)

There is also a question of fostering respect for the law. If a couple can show the consequences of their sin in public, without some sort of acknowledgement of guilt, is not respect for divine law also damaged? "We can get away with anything because God will forgive us."

What, then, is the Church doing to restore boundaries to courtship and the relations between men and women? It is not enough to give rules about dating - we have to restore a culture which involves the family and greater accountability. (And there is also the pastoral problem of feminist attitudes.)

God's mercy is abundant, as the Sacred Heart reminds us, but the same devotion also reminds us that our sins against God are serious. How do we strike a balance between good pastoring and avoid causing scandal to others? I would think that a repentent sinner would not be offended by being required to do public penance or to abstain from certain rites beceause charity should motivate them to be conscious of avoiding giving scandal.

Now the couple in question are not guilty, "strictly speaking," of scandal. But is their presence scandalous on the part of the Church not exercising sufficient discretion in its pastoring?


Are sentence adverbs a good development in English?

Sic transit gloria mundi.

On Friday morning a new BevMo! store opened in San Jose near Westgate. As part of the celebration of the grand opening, management was giving $25 gift cards to the first 500 customers, and some $100 gift cards to a lucky few. I didn't think that many people would show up, since it was a weekday and the gift card could not be used for alcohol, but I was wrong. I did snag a gift card though, but I think I must have been at the end of the 500.

The check-out line was too long so I decided not to get anything today.

I couldn't wait to leave that place. The Uhmerican sheeple was a depressing sight. "I see dead people." (The Sixth Sense) or "All I see are dead people." (Twelve Monkeys) There is a memorable line of dialogue in J.J. Abrams's Star Trek, spoken by Karl Urban's Leonard McCoy: "Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence."
For some reason that line comes to my mind frequently - probably because it was used in the trailer to introduce us to McCoy. We need something comparable that describes this "society" in which we find ourselves, something fitting for Uhmerica, a swirling tempest of ignorance, pride, narcissism, entitlement, impiety, propelled by the pursuit of self-interest and pleasure. A veritable catalog of the vices of the megapolis. Society is a word that is used loosely with respect to the Uhmerican megapolis. We may live among more people but have we less friendships in comparison with other and earlier polities. The people in line - all strangers. How many of them will I encounter again in the future? I would not be surprised if the number is 0.

I, too, was waiting in line for a freebie, and more than a few of them would probably agree that there is more to life than shopping and consuming. How many of them are Tea Partiers? True conservatives? Do they not know how dire our situation is? How problematic our political system and economy are? How ignorant are we of its complexity, or of the various exchanges and productions that are not obvious to us because they take place somewhere far away! What of our faith that this will all continue definitely? Our political economy is morally insane, but we act like this is all normal because we were born into and raised in it.

How can we take a magister seriously when he, too, is ignorant of first principles and has bad habits into which he has been trained in order to live and function in this society? Does he not become a mere "expert" with no moral witness?

In such a society a man who is naturally inclined to work for the good of the whole and "social altruism" is not sufficiently appreciated. He is not rewarded for his loyalty and affection; he's just another nameless individual, except to a few. Many do not believe in reciprocity or even simple gratitude; they pass over the chance to develop the requisite social virtues because "it's all about me."

Is it so "rational" to be so generous rather than acting like everyone else? How can this culture not turn men who should be virtuous into self-interested men? It's what everyone else is doing, and they are not looking out for him and his own. We may not live in Hobbes's dog-eats-dog state of nature, but aren't we close. Relentless competition for wealth, comfort and pleasure, promotion of one's own, living with narrowly defined associations instead of fuller civic friendships.

In such a fragmented "society" what can he do but live according to the order of charity as best as he can, fulfilling his obligations and duties to his family and his friends and work to consolidate wealth, power, and influence in whatever group he finds himself? Isn't that the rational thing to do, since he cannot expect anything from the strangers who live nearby and probably have different priorities and moral attitudes? Wouldn't a simple cost-benefit analysis show this to most people who understand the world they actually inhabit?

I expect that the number of disaffected men will grow, and after a certain point the elites may feel threatened by them. When vets begin to feel underappreciated or discarded, what then?



On Thursday, I was in the staff lounge for lunch and I heard an one of the teachers, a man in his 50s or 60s, asking a woman teacher (in her late 20s?) when her wedding date was, and when she would "no longer be living in sin." They were openly joking about it, and then another teacher, a woman in her 50s, added that she was cohabitating with her fiance, and his father refused to step foot in their residence until after the wedding. The first teacher proclaimed that he couldn't understand why people were like that. Really?

Not only is there no shame because they do not think cohabitating is wrong, but they are not aware or do not care about the opinions of others who might overhear their conversation. They are "proud" of living in such a manner. They may mock traditional mores but they are the ones who are lost but do not know it. They may think they are fine, upstanding individuals, but such attitudes and behavior is indicative of vice.

Vice is not necessarily knowingly doing something that is wrong (that might be incontinence), but doing something that is counter to reason, being dominated by one's appetite so that one believes that the good one wants is the true or complete good.

Such moral blindness may be more the effect of vice than the cause of vice for those who were raised with true opinion or with Christian faith. Those who sin knowingly because they love the apparent good too much eventually reject the truth in favor of their own moral truth? However, those who are raised with very little or no moral guidance become vicious if their appetites are not disciplined; living in accordance with [disordered] appetite is becoming vicious. Even though they may be so ignorant that they are excused with respect to sin.

One of the teachers mentioned the Arizona Sonora Desert Museum. I've never been there.

I can respect those who talk about structures of sin and live in poverty (or noble simplicity) and are as detached from the system as possible. But I cannot but despise academics who make a comfortable living partially from writing and "preaching" about it, as they are involved in one of the more prominent structures of sin today -- American higher education.

The City of Man

Liber Sapientiae 2

Dixerunt enim cogitantes apud se non recte:
“ Exiguum et cum taedio est tempus vitae nostrae,
et non est refrigerium in fine hominis,
et non est agnitus, qui sit reversus ab inferis.
2 Quia ex tempore nati sumus
et post hoc erimus, tamquam non fuerimus,
quoniam fumus flatus est in naribus nostris,
et sermo scintilla in motu cordis nostri;
3 qua exstincta, cinis fiet corpus nostrum,
et spiritus diffundetur tamquam mollis aer.
4 Et nomen nostrum oblivioni tradetur per tempus,
et nemo memoriam habebit operum nostrorum;
et transibit vita nostra tamquam vestigium nubis,
et sicut nebula dissolvetur,
quae fugata est a radiis solis
et a calore illius aggravata.
5 Umbrae enim transitus est tempus nostrum,
et non est reversio finis nostri,
quoniam consignata est, et nemo revertitur.
6 Venite ergo, et fruamur bonis, quae sunt,
et utamur creatura tamquam in iuventute sollicite.
7 Vino pretioso et unguentis nos impleamus,
et non praetereat nos flos temporis verni;
8 coronemus nos calycibus rosarum, antequam marcescant,
9 nullum pratum exsors sit luxuriae nostrae;
ubique relinquamus signa laetitiae,
quoniam haec est pars nostra, et haec est sors.
10 Opprimamus pauperem iustum
et non parcamus viduae
nec veterani revereamur canos multi temporis.
11 Sit autem fortitudo nostra lex iustitiae;
quod enim infirmum est, inutile invenitur.
12 Circumveniamus ergo iustum, quoniam inutilis est nobis
et contrarius est operibus nostris
et improperat nobis peccata legis
et diffamat in nos peccata disciplinae nostrae.
13 Promittit se scientiam Dei habere
et filium Dei se nominat.
14 Factus est nobis in accusationem cogitationum nostrarum;
gravis est nobis etiam ad videndum,
15 quoniam dissimilis est aliis vita illius,
et immutatae sunt viae eius.
16 Tamquam scoria aestimati sumus ab illo,
et abstinet se a viis nostris tamquam ab immunditiis;
beata dicit novissima iustorum
et gloriatur patrem se habere Deum.
17 Videamus ergo, si sermones illius veri sint,
et tentemus, quae in exitu eius erunt:
18 si enim est verus filius Dei, suscipiet illum
et liberabit eum de manibus contrariorum.
19 Contumelia et tormento interrogemus eum,
ut sciamus modestiam eius
et probemus patientiam illius;
20 morte turpissima condemnemus eum:
erit enim ei visitatio ex sermonibus illius ”.
21 Haec cogitaverunt et erraverunt;
excaecavit enim illos malitia eorum,
22 et nescierunt sacramenta Dei
neque mercedem speraverunt sanctitatis
nec iudicaverunt honorem animarum immaculatarum.
23 Quoniam Deus creavit hominem in incorruptibilitate
et imaginem similitudinis suae fecit illum;
24 invidia autem Diaboli mors introivit in orbem terrarum;
experiuntur autem illam, qui sunt ex parte illius.

Douay-Rheims translation