Postmodern liberal leaders insist that everyone should invent his own truth – yet also demand that everyone should conform to their code of political correctness.

Postmodern liberals still believe Schleiermacher’s dictum. Situational ethics, moral relativism, and the cultural relativism of truth claims are based on the idea that the truth must be discovered subjectively.

The relativism of truth claims made it possible for idealist philosopher Georg Hegel (1770-1834) to invent his own cosmos. He argued that the truth changes over time in accordance with his theory of historicism. However, historicism is logically impossible.

No cosmos can exist in which every individual invents his own truth claims. Historicists believe that each generation must subjectively discover its own truth. However, a generation seeking truth subjectively could never agree on its own truth claims because the subjective search for truth requires each person to invent his own truth. Hegel could not invent his own cosmos without implicitly inviting everyone to invent their own cosmos. Any society that invites its people to do this will shatter into fragments and collapse.

Read more

Bishop’s urging of Catholics to make use of electronic media might turn out to be a mistake.


Performer Bill Nye falls, passes out on stage. Bystanders elect to Tweet first, help later!

Read about it

Coping With A Personal Financial Crisis

1. Nothing you do seems to make a difference. In fact, just the opposite occurs.

2. People you trust and have made endless sacrifices for, reveal to you how little you really mean to them. Instead, they take advantage of your situation, knowing you are at the end of your rope.

3. 200% efforts to make changes in any direction are met by a thousand and one obstacles, all of them seemingly working in concert to make matters worse.

4. Opportunities appear and then vanish very quickly, before you can realize  them.

5. Friends and friendships become visible for what they really are, or have been, all along.

6. Everything and every goal you’ve striven for is erased from your life, one after another, with perfect regularity.

7. You find yourself alone, watching others move forward as your life comes to a halt on every level: financial, work, home, everything.

8. Wishing does no good.

9. Acting does no good.

10. You can point to a day on the calendar–very near at hand–when you will be destitute, ruined, and will have nothing, except that which you truly own free and clear and without any encumbrances. Even those things are in danger of loss, if they have no place to reside.

If you are over the age of 40, multiply all of the above by a factor of 10.

And there you are. Frustrated. Angry (some are, others not.) Without any visible hope or way out. Checkmate. You’re done.

Your days become zombie-like. You walk about numb, feeling nothing. Having nothing. Seeing nothing but doom, as it relentlessly creeps forward to consume all that you have, are, or ever will be.

This crisis is indeed an opportunity. A spiritual opportunity.

Read more

The Collapse of the Catholic Church in France

The IFOP Institute has just made a survey on Catholicism in France for the daily La Croix. The result is mind-blowing:

  • Whilst, in 1965, 81% of the French declared themselves as Catholics, they were no more than 64% in 2009.
  • More serious: whilst 27% of the French went to Mass once a week or more in 1965, they are no more than 4.5% in 2009.
  • At a doctrinal level, generally, it’s a catastrophe: 63% of practicing Catholics think all religions are the same; 75% ask for an “aggiornamento” of the Church on contraception and even 68% for abortion.
  • As for communion with the Roman Pontiff, the situation is no better: only 27% of practicing Catholics consider that Benedict XVI “rather well” defends “the values of Catholicism” (personally, I don’t even understand the question, but that doesn’t matter) when 34% think he defends them “rather badly”.

That’s the least we could say, that in view of the figures, it is urgent to change the strategy and reunite the living forces of French Catholicism to re-evangelise the former Eldest Daughter of the Church! To find all the survey data (in French): “La Croix“.

Read more in The Anglo-Catholic

Government funding will pump unprecedented amounts of new cash into Planned Parenthood, others, greatly expanding the abortion industry

Money_Bag_09_copy

Presently, an abortion might cost anywhere from $400 to $4000 dollars, depending on whether the woman has health insurance, or not. When insurance is available, abortion fees tend to increase to the maximum that’s payable under the health plan , in order to maximize the abortionist’s profits.

Imagine how many new abortion clinics might instantly pop up if a $1,000 procedure suddenly became a $10,000 one!

And what’s to prevent an abortion friendly government from wildly increasing the reimbursement rate for abortions, in order to expand the industry in an attempt to “normalize” and promote it, much as they did with all those ill considered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac home mortgages?

A $20,000 abortion is not hard to imagine, especially in light of what we already know about the wildly inflated prices of government funded hammers and toilet seats.

Government funded abortion is not health care. It’s simply another ill-considered attempt at social engineering that will further weaken the already failing fabric of our society.

If you think the recent financial collapse was bad, wait until your government tries doing the same thing with our “human capital”!

Contact your elected representatives in Congress and tell them that any new government health care plan must NOT include abortion funding.

Argentina and today’s United States … Interesting article by Jeffrey Kuhner, Washington Times

peron-obama

The disastrous path on which America is currently embarked was tried in another country. A fact not well known is that Argentina, prior to World War II, was an economic powerhouse. Beginning in the 1880s and continuing through the 1920s and 1930s, it was regarded as one of the most prosperous and advanced nations in the world. Then Juan Peron and his wife Eva took control in the 1940s until a coup in 1955 ousted them from power.

Argentina had a strong industrial base, thriving agricultural exports, huge cattle ranches, and a broad and expanding middle class. Like America, it served as a magnet for immigrants from all over the world, especially Italians.. Within 15 years under the Perons, Argentina, however, went from being one of the richest to one of the poorest countries. To date it has never fully recovered.

Upon coming to office, Peron, along with his popular beautiful wife, Eva, created a state characterized by lavish social spending, elaborate welfare programs, protectionism, confiscatory taxation, and runaway deficits. Juan Peron used class warfare rhetoric. He attacked big business, the banks, the private corporations, and the propertied class… He gave the labor unions power and made them pivotal allies of his regime… Then Peron expanded the bloated government bureaucracy to intervene in every aspect of business and life, which led to internal corruption.

Peron’s central socialist economic planning destroyed industrial productivity and growth. The world’s investment capital fled. Taxes, inflation, unemployment, and interest rates soared and the middle class was wiped out. Finally, an independent judiciary and media ceased to exist. Eva’s cult of supporters fostered a climate of violence and political enemies of the regime were exterminated. Argentina degenerated into the typical debt-ridden Latin American country that it still is today.

The failure of Argentina under Peron should serve as a warning to us. Socialism and a sky-rocketing debt can permanently impoverish even the wealthiest of nations and America is not immune from the laws of economics.

Obama is taking the first dangerous steps toward an American version of Peronism. His followers see him as a political messiah and a revolutionary change agent. He and the Democrats are plundering the country, using it as a vehicle to reward supporters and punish foes. They plan to confiscate wealth by taxing the rich and successful business class. Obama’s plan to do away with secret ballots will strengthen the labor unions. His wife, Michelle, is the Eva Peron of our time, a glamorous, chic, socialist fashion trend-setter who is beloved by the media.

Just remember, “Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.”

Read the article

Submitted by Robert K. And Ken K.

California Reflections on a Boston Book

faithful departed

What Ought the Bishops Do?

(Editor: the following email arrived on May 26 from California woman who has followed and interacted with the California bishops regularly.)

Forgive the length of this e-mail, but I just got through reading The Faithful Departed: The Collapse of Boston’s Catholic Culture by Philip Lawler, and I have to unload on someone.

The book is very insightful. Although the exact subject matter (e.g. Boston’s loss of Catholicity, the sex abuse scandal) is now water under the bridge, nonetheless, IMHO, it contains considerable food for thought for bishops. In fact, I started making notes as I was reading it of the areas where the same problems and patterns of episcopal behavior keep cropping up.

1) Protecting church institutions, not church faithful. Lawler gives the example in his book of the American bishops responding to the push for taxpayer-funded birth control programs simply by seeking exemptions for hospitals and doctors operating under the auspices of the Church. This had several bad results. Most importantly, by so limiting their arguments, they confirmed the popular idea that the Church’s opposition to contraception is just a narrow sectarian doctrine, rather than a universal moral principle. Secondly, they left the Catholic laity hanging out to dry. We saw the same thing here in California with regard to the Women’s Contraceptive Equity Act, in which, rather than presenting a principled opposition to requiring employers to fund contraceptives in their health coverage, the Church just whined about getting (and failed to get) an exemption for church-run organizations.

2) Opting for face-saving compromises that embolden the opposition. Lawler gives several examples in his book, reminding me of similar cases here in California. For example, there was Abp. Levada and the domestic partners debacle, where he got around explicitly providing health coverage for domestic partners of employees by saying that every employee could designate some other person who would get coverage. And again, the contraceptive equity act. I asked Ned Dolesji what happened after they lost the challenge to that law, and he indicated that Catholic Charities had managed some work-around. Probably many Catholic entities have just given up and are complying, but even if they have come up with some work-around which allows them to ostensibly comply with the law while somehow not really doing so, they have in fact emboldened the Legislature to move on to the next steps. If they stood up and said, “Sorry, then we won’t provide prescription drug coverage,” they would have shown that there were lines they were not going to cross.

3) The perennial problem of pro-abort politicians. The lesson from Lawler’s book is not to wait till election time to take them on. But they must be taken on. Issuing periodic general statements condemning abortion is meaningless if at the same time, those responsible for protecting and promoting it – indeed, those actually providing abortions – incur no penalties, or even disapprobation, from church leaders. (Ever since I heard of Ted Kennedy’s terminal condition, I have been thinking about this. Presuming that he does not repent, if he were to be denied a Catholic funeral and burial, or at least a public one, it would be the single most pro-life action the relevant bishops could take in this decade. Contrariwise, if he is sent out with full Catholic honors, these same bishops might as well not even bother saying anything about abortion ever again.)

4) Shooting the messenger. Yes, there are cranks and malcontents in every diocese, but that is not an excuse for circling the wagons and shooting at anyone who comes forward with relevant information concerning the questionable behavior (or orthodoxy) of a priest.

5) Lying. I find it so disturbing that spokesmen for church officials seem to have adopted, and are only held to, the very lax standards of honesty that apply to politicians and their spokesmen. Thus, as long as one is not absolutely covering up scandalous or criminal activity, it is acceptable to tell a better story rather than the true one. If it happens to come out later that Mr. Smith was actually golfing rather than attending a briefing when he got the news about such-and-such, that is accepted merely as a “clarification.” Two examples: 1) there was a Catholic World Report article about JPII, ca. 2003, in which it said that everyone knew that the Pope had Parkinson’s, though of course Joaquin Navarro-Valls denied it. It was simply taken for granted the Navarro-Valls would lie about it. (That prompted me to write a letter to CWR, in which I pointed out that we used to call that “lying.”) 2) Around the time of the bishops’ meeting in Dallas in 2002, the head of the USCCB flew off to Rome to consult about some matters, and then flew back. While he was gone, reporters were asking if he had gone to Rome, and his press people denied it. When he got back, they said, yes, he had been in Rome. Nobody made a big deal about the lying, but all I could think is that the new era of honesty and accountability was not getting off to a good start. (I have to confess that my recollection of the details of this second example are sketchy. What sticks in my mind is the apparent unconcern with which the bishop’s representatives told a lie of convenience – and no one called them on it. It was simply to be expected that spokespeople say whatever is helpful. Truth is a secondary consideration.)

6) The rush to forgiveness. Lawler’s book is replete with examples of bishops giving wonderful send-offs to despicable people, thanking them for their years of devoted service, the gifts they brought to their ministry, etc. I can think of similar cases here in California, for example, Bishop Ziemann in Santa Rosa. Again, my recollection of the exact details is a little sketchy, but I recall an article in Catholic San Francisco in which we were basically called on to admire Ziemann because he drew the line at paying millions of dollars in hush money for his peccadilloes. A few hundred thou were doable, but he decided eight million was too much (from the diocese he had spent into a $16 million deficit). What a guy! Then there was the priest who was arrested for possession of child pornography after his rooms at the seminary were raided. (Was he the rector, or just the dean? I forget.) As quick as the next issue of Catholic SF could get out, as he was being held without bail after entering a not guilty plea, we were being reminded about the need to forgive, we’re all human, years of service, etc. My reaction was, “Hey, he’s pled not guilty. Can we at least wait till he pleads guilty before we forgive him?” Is it really necessary to give everyone, no matter what they have done, a glowing commendation? Aren’t there times where at least silence would be more appropriate?

Again, sorry for the length of this, but I feel better having put this all down. Believe it or not, I also have some positive thoughts about bishops, but I won’t try your patience any further.

Article courtesy of the California Catholic Daily