The Inner Struggle

“Spirited Away” and living a lie …

So, in the interest of removing distraction and helping “silence” (see my last short post about silence and distractions) I am not including music tracks or pictures in this post.

In my ongoing thoughts about this life, this world and this society in which I find myself living, I have gradually become aware of the importance of not “living a lie”. I have become aware of the importance of understanding my true place as a human being in the universe, amongst everything visible and invisible, for all eternity, of understanding what constitutes my “reality”.

I will look first at what I perceive to be the “common”, that is “generally accepted”, morality of our modern progressive society, that is the “normal world” which we “advanced” westerners live in. What I am “on about” in this post is my understanding of the perceived logical inconsistency, the inherent lie, of the popular Modernist Progressive western worldview, namely, that all morality is nothing more than a difference of opinion.

Lest I be accused of doing the “Straw-man” thing here, let me be clear that what I understand as the Progressive world view is the view espoused by the self described “Left” or “Liberals”, based on almost everything I hear and read these days from mainstream media communication and news, and everything appearing on Social Media these days such as Facebook (as an example, check out the Facebook page “Being Liberal”).

As a result of these observations, it seems that the Progressive world view can be summarized as:  “We, the sophisticated modernist progressives (self proclaimed Brights) believe that our point of view is correct, and all others are wrong … our opinion is the right opinion, …  because we say so,  and if you disagree with us then you are obviously stupid, and perhaps, absent provable stupidity, then even evil“.

If that summary of the Leftist view, as I understand it to be, is not the current common belief of all Progressives everywhere then I have failed utterly to find any evidence of something different. So, since the accepted view seems to be that “all morality is relative”, and I have a different view than the current Liberal mainstream, I am faced with a logical contradiction, namely that I am either OK with having different views because all views are of the same value, or I am stupid or evil or both because my views are different from the mainstream.

I don’t think that I can be both right and wrong at the same time for any particular values of right and wrong, because these two positions are logical opposites and I manifestly cannot be both “OK” and “not OK” at the same time. Moral relativism holds that anyone who believes that others are wrong are themselves wrong by that very definition of moral relativism.

Therefore I cannot be stupid or evil because I disagree with the manifest view of mainstream morality, in fact I must be at least as “right” as anyone else, whatever their views, right? Did I miss something there? …  Anyone? … Anyone? I think C.S. Lewis touched on this in his article about “Bulverism“.

So can I assume that I am alright with my understanding of the current modern worldview, that is, all moral views are simply a difference of opinion, and I am OK, right? If there is something else besides “I’m OK, You’re OK” in modern morality then I guess I totally missed it somewhere along the path. If I did miss something important, if that is the case, then “My Bad” and please point me in the direction that shows something different.

Otherwise, on with the discussion of why it’s a mistake to accept logical inconsistencies, and even outright lies as the basis for one’s life. The 2 items of interest here are the area of popular entertainment (most of the post), and the area of abortion (as a short case study in illogicality).

First lets look at popular entertainment. The subtle misdirection and illogicality of this review of the film “Spirited Away”  might be missed in the beauty of the film itself, but is actually a gentle effort to direct us away from Truth towards the worship of man as the summit of all and sole arbiter of what is good. Because of the subtlety it is all the more dangerous, layering humanist philosophy onto a beautiful entertainment.

Often our modern adventure movies are set in strange worlds and climax with a battle between the forces of good, represented by the hero or heroine, and the forces of evil, represented by the stranger, the odd, or the mean-spirited — for example, a witch, sorcerer, power-mad ruler, or someone else who uses their power inappropriately (for example the Star Wars series or Marvel’s super hero films). The “common man” (that would be us) seems to have little difficulty with being “for” good, and “against” evil. It just seems like common sense, right?

The modern intellectual view, however, seems to be that these scenarios make it all too easy for filmgoers to cheer for the good guys (with whom they quite naturally identify) and boo the bad guys (stand-ins for everything they don’t approve of). The assumption appears to be that it is somehow wrong or misguided to cheer for good and boo evil because there is no intrinsic difference between good and evil.

The sophisticated view seems to be that to indulge in this sort of partisanship is simplistic and the refuge of the deluded. In this purportedly flawed view of reality, the world is seen as the stage for dueling dualisms, an “us” versus “them” narrative where it is perfectly acceptable for one side to completely obliterate the “other”.

Ironically, this seems to be especially true of reviewers and filmgoers who are opposed to any discussion of the existence and manifestations of evil, (the absence of good) all around us every day and in our own lives and the lives of others. They seem opposed to any divergence of opinion which might threaten their view of man as the pinnacle of all things and the sole arbiter of the “good”.

This error is rooted in the greatest and the favorite lie of all the modernist, progressive lies, and the fundamental evil of our modern western world, the moral relativism of “I’m OK, You’re OK”. In this deception, any “evil” is given a pass in the guise of being of being simply “different” cultural values, rather than being the object of legitimate discrimination between evil and good.

This results in the dressing up of a variety of deviance, perversion, criminality, or simply “evil” activities as nothing more than the “other and the “different”. It is definitely NOT all about differentiating between “good” and “evil”, and of course, only the ignorant and unenlightened would object to important causes such as the de-facto defence of NAMBLA, or perhaps the “Right to Choose” option championed by “Planned Parenthood” under the supposedly constitutional sobriquet of “Freedom of Choice”.

When this “view of reality”, this “moral relativism” is expressed in a popular movie is this just harmless entertainment? Or does this plant the seeds of doubt about the acceptability of moral relativism. Is calling entertainment which draws clear lines between right and wrong “simplistic storytelling”  that is contributing to the creation of “hostility” a truth of a fabrication?

Doesn’t this vilification of clear moral delineation actually support the modernist worldview that prejudice and hatred (of evil) are two diseases of the mind in which we project our feelings of fear, resentment, self-disgust, anger, alienation, and paranoia on others whom we perceive to be different (especially strangers). In other words is knowing the difference between good and evil actually an evil because in actuality there is no difference that matters. Because in this progressive modernist morality, good and evil are just different points of view!

Does not the presentation of “hospitality”, “empathy”, and “self-esteem”,  as antidotes or as “spiritual practices” depreciate the true spiritual virtues of “compassion”, “sacrifice”, “forgiveness”, “charity”, and “love of neighbor” and in reality render worship to man, and man’s “common decency” as the defining measure of good and evil.

Doesn’t this slight of hand, this lie, overturn the actual roots of man’s “common decency” illustrated in the two thousand year old religious understanding of the theological virtues of Faith, Hope, Charity or Love, and compassion and love of neighbor all of which are tied up in “sacrifice of self” and are anathema to the Modernist Progressive view of morality.

To turn things on their head and acclaim a movie as “sometimes a movie gets it right”, and point to a godless celebration of humanist values like the movie “Spirited Away” is a perversion and a lie. Because “Spirited Away” is, in fact, an excellent movie and an excellent story. This is an English-language version of a Japanese animated film by acclaimed filmmaker Hayao Miyazaki. In the film a ten-year old girl named Chihiro becomes lost in an alternate universe and must find within herself the pluck and the love to endure a series of dangerous tests before she can go home.

The wonderful story in “Spirited Away” is the sugar coated distraction on the pill of evil contained in the explanation of “good” springing fully formed from the human being. To claim that “It will remind some viewers of Alice in Wonderland and The Wonderful Wizard of Oz” (because) “it is nothing short of wonderful to have a female protagonist on screen who engenders our empathy and support” deprecates and ignores the importance of the satire in the original work “Alice in Wonderland”, and “The Wizard of Oz”, ignores the true intent of these works and replaces the message of the originals with some shallow reverence to some “superior” politically correct progressive feminist ideal.

This is the fundamental error of believing that “all religions” are the same, also known as “Syncretism” and of equal relevance to the modern sophisticate, that is to say, not relevant at all since we now worship ourselves as the summit and sole arbiter of what is good and what is evil, and of course whatever we like or desire is the good and anyone who disagrees with us is evil or “not good”.

This flies in the face of the previous exposition regarding “judgement” and “discrimination”, the progressive’s immediate prequel condition that prejudice against any “other” or any “different” is in fact evil is immediately thrown away as they then dive into a rationalization of why they are the exclusive purveyor of what is “good” and all others are “evil.

The trap inherent in Syncretism is the denying of absolute truth, or of any truth, the oft misquoted Pontius Pilate “What is truth?” other than whatever I say it is. According to the Gospel of Wikipedia, some religions may have syncretic elements to their beliefs or history, but adherents of so-labeled systems often frown on applying the label, especially adherents who belong to “revealed” religious systems, such as the Abrahamic religions, or any system that exhibits an exclusivist approach. (the implication being here is that Abrahamic Religions are “exclusivist”and therefore questionable at best).

Such adherents (presumably to the Abrahamic religionssometimes see syncretism as a betrayal of their pure truth. By this reasoning, adding an incompatible belief corrupts the original religion, rendering it no longer true. Indeed, critics of a specific syncretistic trend may sometimes use the word “syncretism” as a disparaging epithet, as a charge implying that those who seek to incorporate a new view, belief, or practice into a religious system actually distort the original faith.

The consequence, according to (The Authority) of Keith Ferdinando, is a fatal compromise of the dominant religion’s integrity.[1] If one is unfamiliar with Professor Ferdinando then this reference, in this context, might be an acceptable appeal to authority for the validity of Syncretism, but even a passing acquaintance with his work would give this the lie.

Non-exclusivist systems of belief, (like modern progressive humanism)  on the other hand,  feel (reasonably) quite free to incorporate other traditions into their own whenever and however it suites their desires. In other words, adherence to revealed traditional Truth is a quaint superstition now superseded in our modern secular society.

Within that secular modern progressive society religious innovators often create new religions syncretically (New Age, Masons, some Protestant sects, Wicca, Pantheists, Scientology, Eckhart Tolle’s “Power of Now” movement, etc.)  as a mechanism to reduce inter-religious tension and enmity (seriously?), often with the at least partly intended effect of offending the original religions in question (but who cares about those superstitious savages).

Such modern religions, however, do maintain appeal to a less exclusivist audience (like we modern sophisticates where all Truth is merely fashionable opinion). Even the use of the term “audience” relegates religious belief to the sphere of “entertainment”. In other words, it is evil to point out the evil in the “other” or the “different” unless it is we the “good guys” pointing out the evil in those who disagree with us.

This “syncretic entertainment” argument employs the same logical subterfuge as the argument for “choice” enabling the rationalization of murder under the guise of abortion and the mother’s “right to choose” because the fetus is not a human but simply a piece of undifferentiated tissue. The big lie surfaces again with the case for abortion, in which it is an article of faith that “something” is “not something” unless and until we make an exception when we need it to be “something” rather than “not something” so that we can make handsome profit selling the “something”.

But at the same time as the child is described as “simply tissue” the abortionist is very careful in dismembering that child to insure recovery of undamaged organs which same organs are are then sold on the market to the highest bidder as “Human” organs of great value and for great profit for the abortionists and their companies.

That wonderful logical reality slip is where pointing out evil, drawing attention to evil is itself evil in the form of prejudice. Except that this sin is just A-OK when it is the progressives themselves painting all who disagree with them as evil, then it is all just fine, just like the explanation of the murder of a child as “simply the disposal of a piece of “undifferentiated tissue” which somehow miraculously becomes a few moments later, by some transubstantiation of the satanic abortion industry, a “human” organ for sale to the highest bidder.

This is the signature work of the Prince of This World, and his children follow his ways … “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” (John 8:44),

And this big lie, dressed in many little truths and facts, but twisted at the end into this perversion of logic, this ability to say one thing in support of one’s views regarding what that person finds desirable, and then immediately turn it all on it’s head and say the exact opposite a moment later as if somehow there is no connection, no logical connection, between the one and the other is the signal sign of the work of evil and the is the fundamental platform of the humanist progressive worship of man as the pinnacle of all things.

Well, that is quite a bit for now so I will move the rest of this to the next post – part II of

 

Cheers

Joe

cdn-ddh-heavy-weather-87471.jpg

Standard
The Inner Struggle

Duty … Virtue … and especially Suffering …

Inner Thoughts”  Rodrigo Rodriguez, from the album “Inner Thoughts” (2006)

Marcus Aurelius – was Roman emperor from AD161 to AD180,

Marcus Aurelius – was Roman emperor from AD161 to AD180,

When searching for answers about “what constitutes right living?”, and “how does one know when one is following the right path?” one is really asking oneself “How do I know with certainty what is the will of God?”  Understanding the perfection of love, that is “love of another besides myself” consists in striving towards the perfect conformity of my will with the divine will.

I think it is sitting right in front of our face and residing in our soul of we are honest with ourselves. It is expressed  simply in a concrete and detailed way in the duties of my state and the various circumstances of my life. The “duties of my state” determine particularly how I must act on a daily basis so as to be always in conformity with the divine will.

Those duties are expressed in the commandments of God, known in “natural law” to all men, in all times, in rules and customs, commands of superiors, and tasks imposed by obedience, my duties are those required by my family life, my profession or occupation, my social activities, and by good citizenship.

And so, as is known in “natural law” to all men, in all times, Marcus Aurelius reflects on Duty: Our duty is to Begin the morning by saying to thyself, I shall meet with the busy-body, the ungrateful, arrogant, deceitful, envious, unsocial. All these things happen to them by reason of their ignorance of what is good and evil.

On Virtue: But I who have seen the nature of the good that it is beautiful, and of the bad that it is ugly, and the nature of him who does wrong, that it is akin to me, not only of the same blood or seed, but that it participates in the same intelligence and the same portion of the divinity, I can neither be injured by any of them, for no one can fix on me what is ugly, nor can I be angry with my kinsman, nor hate him,

On Suffering, : For we are made for co-operation, like feet, like hands, like eyelids, like the rows of the upper and lower teeth. To act against one another then is contrary to nature; and it is acting against one another to be vexed and to turn away.” going forward in duty by virtue regardless of the consequences and violence we might suffer whenever the all too human tendency to refuse co-operation, to insist on doing things our own way, to work against each other and to experience the suffering inherent in human relations whenever the reality of selfishness and self worship impact the smooth exchanges of daily relations.

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book Two.

We understand, from reading the “ancients”, from reading the “classics”,  that “natural law” is knowable and known, to all men, in all times, since man began. And God’s will, as discerned in natural law, is also marked out for me by the circumstances of my life, whether it is important or not, down to the very smallest detail, in health or sickness, wealth or poverty, interior joy or aridity and emptiness, success or failure, struggles, misfortunes and losses.

From time to time I am presented with tasks – special tasks – of patience, generous activity, love, or renouncement, detachment, submission, and sacrifice. These tasks may come to me through the actions of my superiors, governing bodies, professional organizations, family members, or some combination of the actions and consequent fallout of such actions involving some or all of the above groups.

But everything is permitted by God, “To them that love God, all things work together unto good” (Rom 8, 28), so it remains to me to discover what the divine will may  be in each task with which I am presented. Sanctity does not consist in doing extraordinary things … sanctity is reduced to simply the fulfillment of duty … therefore it is most definitely possible for me to attain to sanctity regardless of how insignificant I may view my role in the tapestry of life.

Therefore I must be persevering and punctual in the fulfillment of my duties, diligent, being careful in my actions, accustoming myself to see the expression of God’s will in every one of my duties, no matter how trivial. I must fulfill my duties not only when I feel great fervor but also when I am sad, tired, frustrated, or in a state of spiritual aridity. I must express constancy with generosity.

It may feel small and insignificant but it takes uncommon virtue to fulfill all one’s duties without carelessness, negligence, or laziness, to avoid the pitfall of giving everything a “lick and a promise” or just going through the motions in order to “get it done”. It takes uncommon virtue to put the effort into attention, piety, and spiritual fervor, to pay attention to the details, for the whole combination of ordinary duties which make up my daily life. The details matter.

I must not be discouraged by failure, either resulting from outside forces or from my own failure of attention or lack of competence – my mistakes and forgetfulness and so on and so forth. Always acknowledge faults and failures, take ownership of them and begin again with renewed commitment.

What else is there to say about “duty”? It seems something of a truism that in our great self-regard we find it easier and more attractive to identify the duties of others than our own, and inversely, there will always be a plenitude of folks more than willing to tell us what our duty may be should we find ourselves momentarily unfocused and apparently idle.

Well, I suppose that might just be enough for one post – I will continue next post with thoughts a about virtue and how one employs virtue to carry out one’s duty and perhaps then into how this persevering way of life, constantly doing one’s duty by exercising virtue results in suffering …

Hmmm

Cheers

Joe

 

Standard
Life in a small town, The Inner Struggle

Counsel and Mercy … listening and acting …

“Wind of the Western Sea” Bill Douglas, from the album “Songs of Earth and Sky”, (1998)

Everything mentioned in my previous post may well be provably “true” but the focus of the post is not on “facts”, and “truth”, but rather on my personal “agenda”, my own “truth” so to speak, and my observations of my own conduct in what I am saying about “others”.

I am poking at the frailty of the faceless undefined “class” of persons who are “dealing” with the problems by ignoring them or just walking away, intentionally avoiding responsibility and commitment.

I am observing how I react to this perception and the offense I take at the actions of “others”. My reaction to the perceptions seems to be a wellspring of unhappiness which I choose to drink at.

Roaring Hairy EGO!

Roaring Hairy EGO!

“Sniff …” obviously crass lower castes, every mother’s son of them. And well, wouldn’t you know it, the great roaring hairy legged EGO strikes again. I find nothing considerate, merciful or charitable in judging perceived actions of “the others”.

Isn’t it really more reasonable, and merciful, to assume a level of misery on the part of the “others” that may be even greater than my own in my observations and feeling of desperate helplessness, Oh Lord, the problems are so BIG and my ability is so small.

I used to have a default position with respect to the goings on around me to the effect that “one should never assume malice on the part of actors when simple stupidity and incompetence  will account for what is going on“. Another iteration of these sentiments is any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice“.

Better Get My fire Suit Ready ...

Better Get My Fire Suit Ready …

So my almost daily experience ofActive Stupid” on the part of many managers and directors in government service (outside my 8 years in the military but including my 15 years in “Social Services”, “Justice”, and “Health Care”) informed my acid view of all bureaucracies everywhere and my uncharitable opinions about the incumbents of these civilian food chains.

Even these “charitable” defaults of giving the actors “the benefit of the doubt” about motives fail the sniff test for Charity and Mercy. Every event may be a “fact” but reality on the ground indicates that if God judges me the same way I have been judging others for years, then I am truly screwed and I better get my fire suit ready.

Isn’t it truly more reasonable to assume a level of misery which blinds the “others” to everything except their very own ocean-like puddle of misery. Charity, charity, charity, compassion, compassion, compassion, mercy, mercy, mercy. What am I blinded to, and by what?

So, once again, regard the position of modern man, Progressive man, secular man, and consider the spiritual life of that subject man. In looking at myself as an example of the subject man, I am like a child, walking a dark path without help or guidance, and finding myself at a fork in the road, I find I cannot proceed alone.

While I have a few clues about which road leads to home I fail at every turn to act upon those clues. Two roads lie before me, one leading to the kingdom of the spirit, the kingdom of God, and the other to the kingdom of this world, the kingdom of the flesh, of Mammon.

On the one hand, we have the calm peaceful kingdom of the spirit. I think we all inherently wish to choose the kingdom of God, but unfortunately the Kingdom of Mammon also has it’s attractions, and these attractions try to seduce us to their path. We struggle against these attractions and allurements.

How is one to deal with the kingdom of the flesh and all its passions and attractions and appetites? A couple of things come up, the first being listening to God’s voice … Huh? what does that mean … I never “hear” God’s voice.

The world I live in is so noisy with all the various temptations of the secular yelling their mating calls at the tops of their various voices. I am distracted and deafened by the voices of creatures and filled up with the noises of the world and the answering noises of my own appetites.

The voice of the Holy Spirit is the “whistling of a gentle air” (I Kings 19, 12). To hear this voice we must be silent, silent exteriorly and silent interiorly, only in silence can the the voice of God be heard. Second, I am attached to my own judgement and the limited councils of my own wonderful mind. Even a little attachment  to my own ideas is sufficient to deafen me to the voice of the Father.

Attachment to my own opinions seems to be never good, even when the opinions are about good things. These attachments to my own opinions and views seem to be rooted in my self love, and as I have remarked before, if I am full of myself there is no room for God, and I think I am unlikely to hear his gentle voice if I have shut him out of a soul which is full of myself.

Like a sailing vessel which cannot be moved by the wind as long as it is moored, so my soul cannot enjoy the precious influence of the voice of God if it is “moored” to it’s own opinions. Trying to practice awareness of the presence of God, and trying to stay recollected minute by minute, hour by hour, so easy to say, so hard to do, overcoming the noisy habits of a lifetime. Listening to the “whistling of a gentle air“.

Speak then, O Lord, for Thy servant heareth; Thou hast the words of eternal life. Speak to me, that it may be for me some comfort to my soul, and for the amendment of my whole life, and also to Thy praise and glory, and everlasting honor” (Saint John of The Cross Imit III 2, 1-3)

Anyway, more thinking … more praying … listening

Cheers

Joe

Shikamaru’s expression “What a drag.” was “めんどくさい (mendokusai)” in the original Japanese Naruto manga and anime, which translates as – “troublesome” or “bothersome”.

This is a very common phrase to use when you don’t want to do something. I find behaving myself with charity and mercy and listening to the voice of God to be troublesome and bothersome. Not easy to put into practice.

Standard
The Inner Struggle

The Motive for Fraternal Charity …

“ゆりかごの歌”, William W. Spearman IV, from the album “Beautiful Japanese Songs” (2006)

*****

Presence of God — O Lord, teach me how to love You in my neighbor and to love my neighbor in You and for You.

There  are not two virtues of charity, one the love of God and the other love of neighbor; for the charity by which we love God and the neighbor is one and the same. We love God because he is infinitely lovable, and we love the neighbor because faith teaches us to recognize in him a reflection of the lovableness of God. The motive for fraternal charity is the same as the motive for loving God, as we must always love God either directly in Himself or indirectly in the neighbor. Because fraternal charity has God for its ultimate object and last end, it is identical with the theological virtue by which we love God. …

… If I love my neighbor because he is congenial, renders me service, or sympathizes with me, or because I enjoy his friendship, if I love him because of his fine qualities and pleasing manners, my love is merely human and is not the love of charity. If I am good to my neighbor and help him because I am sorry for him or feel bound to him by human ties, my love may be called sympathy or philanthropy, but it cannot yet be called charity. …

… The more my love is based on human motives alone — like congeniality, natural gifts, ties of blood — the more it is simply human love which has nothing of the merit and value of charity. “Love of neighbor is not meritorious if the neighbor is not loved because of God”. (St. Thomas) …

fromDivine Intimacy“, by Fr. Gabriel of Saint Mary Magdalene, O.C.D. , Copyright 1953 Monastero S. Guiseppe – Carmelitane Scalze, (Discalced Carmelite Monastery in Rome), 2014 edition. day 258, The Motive For Fraternal Charity, pp 751 -753.

As mentioned previously, I can’t say enough good aboutDivine Intimacy“,  it is available at Baronius Press https://www.baroniuspress.com/book.php?wid=56&bid=48#tab=tab-1. Read it daily. Save your soul.

*****

So it seems to me that we need, very much need, the unlovable in our lives in order to facilitate the practice of fraternal charity. It seems to me that it is much too easy to fall into the trap of human love all un-noticed unless the loved one is of the unlovable category of folks – the difficult one, the malicious one, the unpleasant one, the narcissistic one, in other words, one can be fairly sure of the practice of charity only when the object of that charity is thoroughly unlovable.

What a drag!

Cheers

Joe

Shikamaru’s expression “What a drag.” was “めんどくさい (mendokusai)” in the original Japanese Naruto manga and anime.

Today’s quick Japanese phrase is めんどくさい (mendokusai) – “troublesome” or “bothersome”. This is a very common phrase to use when you don’t want to do something. The phrase is translated in the dubbed anime as “What a Drag”.

Standard
Pen as Sword - Social Commentary, Politics and Economics, Uncategorized

The Elephant Acts …

“Alberta”, Bob Dylan, from the album “Self Portrait, (June 1970)

I would like to think that “The Donald” read my post yesterday, understood it and acted on it, but on balance I would have to admit that I am not that delusional. Over at “LifeSiteNews” we find this article:

*****

001-a-the-elephantWASHINGTON, D.C., January 23, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – In his very first pro-life action, President Donald Trump signed an executive order today reinstating the “Mexico City Policy” banning government funding of foreign pro-abortion groups like the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

A cultural political football, the policy was first enacted by President Ronald Reagan in 1984 and was maintained by President George H.W. Bush until it was rescinded first by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1993. Eight years later, President George W. Bush reinstated Mexico City and it was in effect until Barack Obama reversed it upon entering office in 2009.

The Mexico City Policy bans funding to organizations that perform abortions overseas or lobby for legalizing them in foreign nations.

Trump’s pro-life action comes a day after the 44th anniversary of the notorious Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling, which along with the Court’s Doe v. Bolton decision, established abortion-on-demand as the law of the land. (read more)

***

Here in Canada we remain steadfast in our commitment to killing all inconvenient people. The left claims half a million marchers in the “Women Who Kill Children” march which took place yesterday. They also claim that’s about 5 times the number of folks who showed up at the Trump inauguration event.

Those are pretty good sample sizes even if they are exaggerated. They are probably significantly better samples than the national political and social pollsters typically get with their sample leading surveys conducted to prove and support those who hired them.

Let’s assume for a moment that they are accurate in their estimates. That’s 1 in 5 folks decided to attend Trumps inauguration. That would also imply that 4 in 5 folks hate Trump because he is against abortion and think it’s just A-OK to kill babies and old folks.

001-a-clueless-usefull-idiot-or-a-possessed-person

Blessed Virgin Mary as Bloody Vagina.

1 in 5 seems to be about the observed proportion of folks in the general population who seem to understand the difference between moral right and moral wrong based on their conduct and their expressed opinions.

1 in 5 might just be the proportion of folks in the general population who can actually imagine anything or anyone outside their immediate tweet circle of self worship.

Yesterday I mentioned in my post my thoughts on how we move past this polarization: “I think “Not taking anything personally, even when is is obviously intended to be both personal and as hurtful as possible, is how we get out of this conflict.”

So the first thing that pops into my mind after the initial shock and pain (which was EXACTLY what that little girl intended with her sign) is – Gee, Islam is even more anti-abortion that Catholicism. How come she decided to target Catholics rather than Muslims?

A number of things come to mind – Ignorance? Cowardice?, Hate? Pride? Black Lives Matter but Catholic Lives Don’t? All of the above and more? On the topic of Black Lives I would posit that significantly more black lives are lost every day because black women like the little beauty above choose to kill their children, than from all the other causes put together. And it is white Democrats who have been pushing this Holocaust since at least Lyndon Johnson took office. How wierd and totally disfunctional is that?

It’s difficult not to take this personally and not to imagine evil things. This evil, seen and experienced everywhere, IS personal. Maybe the Muslims have got it right! Maybe we should be praying for the coming of Sharia? And I suppose THAT is my sin – lack of charity and lack of humility.

Cheers

Joe

001-a-lotr-frodo-hobbitsA major Scouring of the Shire is LONG overdue …

Standard
The Inner Struggle

Things Seen and Unseen …

A couple of things today, short and sweet (“Thank God” says my reader (s))

First check out an excellent post over at David Warren’s blog entitled: “the downside of killing people”. Well worth the time, especially for Canadians who may not have noticed that it is now legal to kill folks in Canada now, not just babies who have no say.

The other point is to adjust a possible misconception or error (on my part) I chatted about three or so posts ago here and here, concerning the point of view of the Spirit. An authority who I respect highly (and thank for his generous direction) has commented:

*****

Some of your assertions have a dualist slant to them. So there is a seeming metaphysical difficulty in your take on human spirit.  Soul and human body are intimately united. The soul, being the kind of thing it is, though spiritual and therefore immortal, is a little “out of sorts” without the body.

I don’t think you can, therefore, say the spiritual soul is outside space and time without qualification. It is spiritual and therefore not quantifiable but it “animates” a particular body located in relation to other bodies.  It is immortal, so not time bound as to its persistence but it is created in time, coming into being with the body it vivifies. 

As far as the spiritual is concerned, yes, the quality of the immortal soul is all, in the end, that matters.  The body will return to dust.  However, the sanctification of the spirit is in, many instances, the sanctification of the body and of the material.  Conversely, the sanctification of the body, because of their unity, is the sanctification of the spirit or immortal soul.”

*****

This is an important qualification, and one which raises it’s head immediately as you begin thinking about God, Infinity, and His “All-ness” when regarding our spiritual “Not-all-ness”. I am headed in this direction and I apologize for not having adequate words in my vocabulary to describe what I am thinking (yet).

More to follow as it appears on the White Board of my mind.

Cheers

Joe

coptic-desertCharity and Humility, Remember, Remember, Remember

 

Standard
The Inner Struggle

Cultural Decline … part 2

A couple of days ago I posted from the pit of depression feeling angry and disgusted with “society” in general. Today I am thinking that a lot of the “feelings” I entertain when I am thinking those thoughts are rooted in my own lack of forgiveness, charity and compassion. I am excessively judgmental and lose sight of just how much I have been forgiven in my rush to judgement of others who I know nothing about, especially as it comes to motives and intentions.

The same sort of “feelings” I rant about and attribute to others are polluting my own reason and conclusions.  God’s own love for me is unwavering. he is constant even when I turn away and nothing I do causes His love to fade. He is relentless in his pursuit of me and never gives up on me.

Jesus teaches that anyone who is forgiven much should be so touched by this forgiveness that he or she is moved to love as much and to forgive others in his turn, as he has been forgiven. But that only happens if we allow our hearts to be melted by the mercy given to us. Jesus gave all he possible could when he died on the cross. There is no way we could possible repay Him for that. The only possible response is the response of the heart. to embrace His love and let it make one a more merciful and forgiving person – to pay it forward …

Cheers

Joe

Standard
The Inner Struggle

Day by day …

Started yesterday shoveling madly at 7:00 AM to make sure the walks and such were clear for customers and deliveries. Here we are 24 hours later and everything is melting and every where I shoveled is clear and dry. Great.

Today things were warm enough to melt in places and the weather geeks are calling for rain tonight before everything freezes up again and makes morning driving treacherous. Japanese Chill Out on the speakers, sipping Port and contemplating the difficulties for modern man  in the FIAT of the Blessed Virgin.

Over on David Warren’s blog we find the following tonight:

I am struck by the contemporary response to the ancient Christian doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, as of the Incarnation and the Virgin Birth. We just can’t believe anyone was so “pure.” Which is a paradox: for in the same moment we think this we have undermined our notion that there is no such thing as purity. We have revealed that we know exactly what we are denying. This is the paradox of atheism. I’ve never met an atheist who did not know exactly which God did not exist, little as he knew Him.

and

Quia fecit mihi magna qui potens est:  “For He that is mighty hath done great things to me: and holy is His name.”

This is the mystery of the fiat of Heaven, the decree that we are strangely free to honour or ignore. In our sinfulness, we usually ignore it. But she who was without sin honoured it without hesitation, becoming in that moment the Mother of God. At the moment of His earthly conception, she, as his mother, set for the world His first example, of joyful obedience to the Father’s will.

We sinners find this hard to understand. We moderns are afraid to render the fiat as Mary did; are alarmed even to hear it, because God’s plan for our own future may not be congruent with our own plans. And it is true that we have the right to choose: the way of life or the way of death. And have been given some time to think about it.”

And, as he so often does, David has absolutely nailed my stumbling block to the wall in perfect clarity.

As Augustan prayed “But I, miserable young man, supremely miserable even in the very outset of my youth, had entreated chastity of You, and said, Grant me chastity and continency, but not yet. For I was afraid lest You should hear me soon, and soon deliver me from the disease of concupiscence, which I desired to have satisfied rather than extinguished.”
Confessions, XIII, Chapter 7, 17

I find myself vaguely reluctant, a shadowy background of reluctance, seen out of the corner of my spiritual eye. Reluctant in my prayers offering myself and all that I am and ever will be wholly to God’s plan for me lest it turn out to be not what I expected or wanted. I remarked on “Confessions in another post alluding to this discomfort.

I know with certainty that as much as I am reluctant so am I failing to live God’s will for me and yet I know absolutely that He holds everything in his hand and I am nothing without his thought. So much for logical embracing of reality … my mirror is warped. I see the knot and cannot touch it with the tools at hand. What now?

To think on the fact that God created all and is all good and deserving of all our love.  How could a being such as this have anything but my best interests in mind in His plan for me? So  it has to be as Augustine proclaimed: “…concupiscence, which I desired to have satisfied rather than extinguished.”.

I am, obviously, quite attached to my favourite sins, my favourite trains of thought, my favourite judgements and opinions, my pride, my ego, my surety that I see things aright … hmmm. Charity for all and malice towards none, a high setting of the bar. Do I REALLY want to give up being judgmental when it is so much fun and makes me feel so superior?

Time for another glass of Port.

Cheers

Joe

Das_Jüngste_Gericht_(Memling)“May God grant you always…
A sunbeam to warm you, a moonbeam to charm you,
a sheltering Angel so nothing can harm you.
Laughter to cheer you. Faithful friends near you.
And whenever you pray, Heaven to hear you.”

Standard