Q: What kind of Catholic are you?
Q: No, I mean are you liberal or conservative?
A: I no longer know what those words mean.
Q: Are you a dogmatic Catholic or an open-minded Catholic?
A: I don’t know what that means, either. Do you mean I believe the dogma that the Catholic Church proposes for belief?
Q: How is such a belief possible in this day and age?
A: What else is there?
Q: What do you mean, what else is there? There is humanism, atheism, agnosticism, Marxism, behavioralism, materialism, Buddhism, Muhammadanism, Sufism, astrology, occultism, theosophy.
A: That’s what I mean.
Q: To say nothing of Judaism or Protestantism.
A: Well, I would include them along with the Catholic Church in the whole peculiar Jewish-Christian thing.
Q: I don’t understand. Would you exclude, for example, scientific humanism as a rational and honorable alternative?
A: It’s not good enough.
Q: Why not?
A: This life is too much trouble, far too strange, to arrive at the end of it and then to be asked what you make of it and have to answer, “Scientific humanism.” That won’t do. A poor show. Life is a mystery, love is a delight. Therefore I take it as axiomatic that one should settle for nothing less than the infinite mystery and the infinite delight, i.e., God. In fact, I demand it. I refuse to settle for anything less.
On Labor Day it is good to recall Saint Joseph the Worker. When God decided to partake in our humanity, He could have had anyone for His foster father, and He chose a humble carpenter, a man who worked with his hands. Why?
The Bible gives us no indication that Saint Joseph was intelligent, brave or resourceful. He may have been all these things, but the Bible does not tell us. We know that he was of the House of David, but judging from all indications in the Bible he lived in humble circumstances. What made Joseph stand out to God other than the fact of his heritage?
Kindness I think, simple human kindness. This was graphically demonstrated at the very beginning when Saint Joseph first is mentioned in the Gospel of Saint Matthew 1:18 and 19:
Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about.
When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph,
but before they lived together,
she was found with child through the Holy Spirit.
Joseph her husband, since he was a righteous man,
yet unwilling to expose her to shame,
decided to divorce her quietly.
That was a question posed to Nancy Pelosi in response to her recent assertion that she (and we) must pursue public policies “in keeping with the values” of Jesus Christ, “The Word made Flesh”.
(Biretta tip: Breitbart.TV)
Some people like what I have to say. Some people don’t. One complaint I sometimes hear from the people who don’t is that I’m “angry.” So I want to publicly explore this dimension of my writing, on the blogs, in the comment boxes, and other venues. I want to answer the questions: am I really that angry? Is my anger, to the extent that it is really anger and not someone’s misinterpretation of my words, justifiable? Is it rational? Or is it entirely detached from reason and logic?
These questions themselves might leave you perplexed. Aren’t emotions and logic mutually exclusive? I think most people understand on some level that they aren’t, but we aren’t used to hearing why. Instead, typical debate rhetoric implies that if one is displaying an emotion, one has given up on logic. As is often the case with rhetoric, this claim is an absolute fallacy, it is the product of either unclear thinking or deliberate manipulation – a cheap lawyer tactic.
How many times, for instance, do you see in the television courtroom dramas the lawyer try to rattle the person on the witness stand to get them to display an emotion, and then use that emotion to discredit the facts the witness presents or the logic of the opposing counsel?
I co-blog with a lot of lawyers. For the most part, I like them, and I hope I don’t offend them when I say this. (Really guys!)
Comments may be left on my blog.