|
..There comes a time in a fellow's life — or, well, at any rate, there has come such a time in my life, and I'm a fellow — when the prospect of making new friends becomes rather a bother. I don't mean the effort, or trying to be friendly; I mean the actual achievement, the success of the endeavor. I'm sure for some, the former struggle is more felt, and maybe has always been that way. But I've always had a bit of an extroverted disposition and happily fall into easy acquaintance with a stranger at the pub or in a queue at the post office or the like. The thing for me is about actual friendship, having new friends. One has to find room to fit them in. . .
In my editorial for the July/August 2025 issue of Gilbert magazine: Next year, the United States will celebrate its Semiquincentennial, or 250th anniversary. Per Wikipedia, other names under which this occasion is being heralded include “Bisesquicentennial,” “Sestercentennial,” “Quarter Millennium,” and—inspired, no doubt, by the advertising and marketing fads of late capitalism—the banal “America250,” which sounds more like a software suite than a memorial. In February, a rather ominous anniversary was marked, with pictures of “the dress” going viral on social media. Now, for those of us who were of the age of reason by the time of the Clinton Presidency, the term “the dress” needs, as they say on Wikipedia, “disambiguation.” So: no, not that dress. Folks born in the mid- to late-’90s, rather, might immediately have reckoned which dress I meant. At least, it seems the prime candidate of that noun’s instantiation alongside the definite article for those of later generations. I mean, of course, the (in)famous white and gold dress (or was it blue and black?) that became a viral meme first back in February 2015. Yes, last month was its decennial anniversary. Feeling old? But did I call it an ominous anniversary? Yes. Read on.
My editorial for the March/April 2025 issue of Gilbert magazine: To be Chestertonian means a particular mode of being Christian. Of course, to some Christians this very idea is offensive, even blasphemous. Chesterton himself, however, was not such a one. He believed in the witness and example of the Saints – that there was no contradiction between emulating them and following Christ. As he wrote of the great Saint whom he chose for his Confirmation patron, “St. Francis is the mirror of Christ rather as the moon is the mirror of the sun. The moon is much smaller than the sun, but it is also much nearer to us; and being less vivid it is more visible.” In this, he was merely recapitulating the logic employed by Saint Paul: “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.” I decided to share my thoughts on that Catholic Answers AI kerfuffle. You can read it over at Catholic World Report. Here is a sample: There is nothing new about emergent technologies and strategies being tested in evangelization. Stained glass, question-and-answer catechisms, casuistic manuals, vademecums, and so many other examples may be cited. In all of these cases, the integration of new means and methods was achieved by striking the right balance amidst possible tensions. A stained glass window could only capture the basics of the story of the Annunciation; it couldn’t replace the actual reading of the narrative from Luke. The pat answer in the printed manual possibly lacked in some points the leavening of wisdom possessed by the priest sitting in the box. I wrote the editorial for the most recent issue of Gilbert magazine, and looked at the dustup over Fiducia supplicans and a lesson from Chesterton that should help us not to lose our peace over it... We needn’t always be comfortable in our perilous perch in the giddy chariot that is the Church. From time to time, we may be bewildered, experience whiplash or worse jolts, when those at the reins seem to take a turn too fast or fail in avoiding a pothole. The charism of infallibility pertains to the chariot, in the end, not to the driver: we are assured that the wheels won’t come off, that the Thing will never turn over into a ditch. We are not assured of a smooth ride. Cardinal McElroy has responded to his critics and, inadvertently, proved not only that their criticisms are valid, but much more besides. It isn't that his argument does too little, it's that it does too much - far, far too much....
Published today at The Catholic Herald. Recently, a very well regarded prelate of the Church — whom I happen really to believe to be a very good and holy man — tweeted about the Moderna coronavirus vaccine. He wrote that vaccine “is not morally produced,” owing to the use in some phases of its production of biological specimens obtained originally through abortion. He “urge[s] all who believe in the sanctity of life to reject” this or any vaccine produced using such technologies. Check out the whole article.
In the editorial of the latest issue of Gilbert magazine, I cover the presumption Italian Prime Minister's quoting of Chesterton: The impetus behind the viral clip of Meloni’s speech, in the end, wasn’t Meloni herself, however impressive people may find her. What inspired the crowd that day, and what inspired the social media frenzy over her rousing remarks, was the content of the message. And the most remarkable thing about that is how unremarkable it really is. Read the whole thing here. And after you do that, subscribe!
I heard a guy on a radio call-in show pose this question: "Now that we are allowing the government to control people's bodies" (stick a pin here, I'll come back to it) "will we now allow the government to force males to undergo vasectomy, which is reversible, until they commit to a woman and agree to have children with her?" Now, I'll get to the question in a moment, but let's quickly take a closer look at that premise.
Scrolling thru Twitter, I came across the following exchange between a woman who had had an abortion after rape, and another who was conceived in rape...
This is not wisdom or compassion, but a dark and sad nihilism born out of injury.
My heart aches for both these individuals. But they both reminds us that abortion culture doesn't help women who are victims, it goes on and victimizes them more.  Geertgen tot Sint Jans: John the Baptist in the Wilderness; Encyclopædia Britannica.
Today (by the Roman Martyrology)* is the Feast of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist.
It has also been named as another opinions release day by the Supreme Court this week. I see a lot of people who seem convinced that today is the day we'll see Dobbs handed down. The question is whence these speculations arise? On the one hand, it could simply be guessing, in which case the person is, after all, playing fairly decent odds. For each opinion day that arrives with Dobbs not having been released, the odds of its release upon that day become statistically more likely. Poor at math as am I, yet even I can figure those numbers. On the other hand, some of the folks I see speculating might have even better reasons, because they are, some of them, a certain sort of people. That is, people who might know someone who knows someone who knows a clerk with whom yet another someone dined last night, and who at one point in the meal looked up over his glass of wine, raised his eyebrows, and heavily cleared his throat and either said no more or, more riskily, mentioned something vague about parking on the Hill. I mean, that sort of thing and this sort of person each have their precedents. Then again, just because no release days have yet been scheduled for next week doesn't mean they can't be added ad hoc. That, too, has precedent. So all we can really do is wait and watch and see what we will see. But I had mentioned Saint John the Baptist... I was tagged in a post on Facebook to which I've decided to respond, though in my own way and place. I don't really feel like subjecting myself to the name-calling and verbal abuse the original poster and his or her fans are known for. So instead I will share here the original post, the comment in which I was tagged, and my response. First of all, here is the original claim: 10-20% of pregnancies spontaneously miscarry. Every single woman who suffers that will be liable for a possible charge of 'negligent homicide' and have to prove her innocence if the MAGA nuts get their way. This is what happens when you have one monomaniac goal and absolutely no plan for what happens after that. Under this, I was tagged, with the simple statment, Joe Grabowski, this sort of thing is happening. So, let's take a closer look, shall we?
I recently remarked on how people are talking about the other privacy rights that seem to depend upon Roe being at stake in this debate, but how they don't seem to be doing anything about them that would be pragmatic if this really were their concern. In short, I said that these concerns, when posed in conversations about Roe, seem to me to be a red herring. Well, I have a similar observation to make about another line of argumentation that is maybe less a red herring than a straw man, but is in any case another distraction from the real issue.
 I saw this rather tiresome meme quoting Sister Joan Chittister. The quotation reads, "I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth."
Now, I have just about had it with this very common and very fallacious argument, and so I'm going to respond at length, and hopefully show why it is not only a tedious distraction, but also employs question-begging logic with regard to what "birth" means (or doesn't mean) in this whole discussion... |
Old SiteTo visit my old blog site, please click here.
|
RSS Feed