Pride in my son June 12, 2005Posted by Administrator in Blogging, Family.
add a comment
Pride is the sin "most hated by God" (7). "Everybody is infected with the virus of pride," writes the author. "But there is a particular kind of pride in each individual; at least a particular kind dominates. . . . Searching into our type of pride is very important for obtaining a true knowledge of ourselves and for making fruitful efforts to root out sin and vice from our lives" (8).According to the booklet, pride comes packaged in fifteen different ways, some of which seem at first glance oxymoronic. For instance, we would recognize immediately that pride is the basis of the sins of self-centeredness and vanity; but did you ever stop to think that self-pity, timidity, and scrupulosity are sins that have their basis in pride? If self-pity includes resentment, suspiciousness, or harboring resentments, it is based in pride. If timidity springs from unreasonable fear that makes us worried of others' opinions so that we cater to human respect rather than act as we should-that stems from pride. If scrupulosity fixes our attention on the wrong things so that we pay too much attention to them and are unscrupulous in more important matters-that stems from pride. (A note to the scrupulous: Give this booklet a pass.)
HUMILITY (also from Catholic.com):
To Thérèse, littleness and humility were identical. She wrote, "Holiness does not consist in one exercise or another, but in a disposition of the heart which renders us humble and little in the hands of God." The result, Msgr. Johnson writes, is true humility, "the removing, through surrender to grace, of . . . faults and failings, so that, where pride and self-love have hitherto dominated, the love of our Lord may reign instead."
Why the commentary on pride vs. humility? This could in fact result in a truly huge post. . .which I'm not going to get into now, and perhaps never will. But I offer it as I contemplate the work of my son, who engages in spirited, fearless and assertive apologetics with various debaters, Catholics, atheists and trolls across the Internet. His skills are infinitely greater than mine were at his age (infinite in that my skills were non-existent when I was 14-15), and in some ways even surpass mine nowadays.
And I sit, suffused with what society typically calls a form of pride, as I observe my son take on this spirited battle; becoming indeed more than my wife and I might have hoped for him.
Is this pride sinful? I hope not. It may not even be actual pride in itself.
But before I slap a label on it, I am going to continue sitting here and relish the feeling of observing my own son taking his teachings and running far with them, farther than I did or have.
It is a wonderful feeling, to have such a blessing as my son.
Ovarian transplants June 8, 2005Posted by Administrator in Catholicism.
add a comment
CNN reports the recent birth of a child from a woman who had an ovarian transplant from her twin sister. Read it then return here.
The question: Are ovarian transplants morally acceptable?
I offer two countervailing arguments. In all honesty, I have no preference for either. I bring this up because I am truly stumped by this.
Argument in favor: This procedure involves a surgical intervention in the woman to correct a deformity that prevents her from conceiving children through normal, vaginal intercourse. Like the correction of blocked fallopian tubes, or even the outright BYPASS of blocked fallopian tubes that still allows a woman to conceive naturally, the procedure maintains the integrity within the married couple of the threefold purposes of sexuality; procreative, unitive and pleasure. Looking at the situation in this fashion, it appears that the procedure is morally licit.
Argument against: One could argue that the procedure still violates the procreative component of sexuality, in that the woman is carrying the child of genetic union of her husband’s sperm and her donor’s egg, thereby rendering her role to one that is little removed from surrogate motherhood. This argument revolves around the idea that part of the procreative wonder of sexuality is intimately tied into the unique genetic packages each parent brings to the conjugal act; that in the individual uniqueness each parent brings and then is united in the fertilization of the egg and the creation of new life (in creating a unique combination of genetic material) there is a particular interaction that takes place, peculiar to that couple that cannot be substituted through the replacement of genetic material native to the woman with material native to another woman. The child, in a sense, becomes offspring of the father and the donor woman, not the man’s wife.
Adultery? Surrogate motherhood? A correction of a simple organic problem? Let’s have some debate on this one. Frankly, my head spins when I consider this.
Some additional details to consider: My understanding is that the women involved in the CNN story are identical twins, though I can’t seem to confirm that. If so, then the genetic argument against this procedure may be mitigated in that the genetic material transplanted is identical. However, for purposes of discussion, let us assume the following:
The transplant does not affect the procreative abilities of the donor
The technology is available to recipients that are not perfectly matched genetically with their donors, as is the case with many other transplants.
Whenever I get hammered by the argument that solascriptura is sufficient in determining moral issues, all we need to do is point to current affairs such as this one, that could not POSSBILY have been envisioned 2000 years ago.
What are you? June 7, 2005Posted by Administrator in Polls.
add a comment
You are ‘Gregg shorthand’. Originally designed to
enable people to write faster, it is also very
useful for writing things which one does not
want other people to read, inasmuch as almost
no one knows shorthand any more.
You know how important it is to do things
efficiently and on time. You also value your
privacy, and (unlike some people) you do not
pretend to be friends with just everyone; that
would be ridiculous. When you do make friends,
you take them seriously, and faithfully keep
what they confide in you to yourself.
Unfortunately, the work which you do (which is
very important, of course) sometimes keeps you
away from social activities, and you are often
lonely. Your problem is that Gregg shorthand
has been obsolete for a long time.
A tip of the hat to GodofBiscuits for posting this interesting quiz.
Oh dear, I’m afraid some things CAN’T change June 6, 2005Posted by Administrator in Catholicism, Mechanistic Relativism.
add a comment
With howls from Frisco MRTs due to start up anytime now, Pope Benedict re-affirmed centuries-old church teaching that same-sex unions are a bad thing.
Is anyone surprised?
Beware the barrage of incoming honking. Once again proof that the Church is on the Right Track.
Revisiting Revenge of the Sith June 6, 2005Posted by Administrator in Blogging, Drama.
add a comment
Grasshopper Doth Seek The Truth is an outstanding site. And it is chock-full of wonderful links.
Here I offered my own wisdom on the meaning of the Sith movie. Seek-Truth provides a link to the Galvin Report that provides another awesome essay on the Sith and its mirroring of Christian teaching (whether Lucas meant to or not). Check it out.
add a comment
The thing is VERY LONG, but also very much worth it.
Why then, do so many people – most of them on the far left – so fundamentally hate humanity?
There’s nothing “progressive” about what these people believe. It is refined selfishness and moral cowardice. I can understand not wanting to go overseas and lose blood and treasure to solve other people’s problems. I can at least understand that. But these “progressives” should be thanking whatever they take to be sacred – which is nothing – and hit their knees in gratitude that better, braver people have built them the kind of Sanctuary where torture and state-sponsored murder are so far from their closed eyes that even the act of imagining such horrors is beyond them.
We live in an age of miracles, and we just don’t see it. All of the magicians who stand on generations of other magicians – engineers, technicians, architects – go unnamed and unsung, while common actors, tradesmen whose art form has barely advanced since the days of Babylon and Egypt, are deified and rewarded as no living gods in history.
We, in our Sanctuary, who sleep in warm, dry, safe places without a second thought of the men and women who shiver in the cold to keep us free and secure, are getting very far away from the forces that have threatened us for millennia and threaten us still, as potent as the black rage of an incensed mob of religious lunatics killing people in response to some real or imagined slight. And yet our elites – bored, pampered and without a glimmer of perspective – search the inside of our walls by night, looking for cracks to enlarge.
And finally, my favorite:
"For these highly nuanced deep-thinkers like Ward Churchill and Kos and Howard Dean and all the others, the world is divided into Progressive People Who Naturally Agree With Me on one hand and Jesusland on the other."
Notice the term "nuanced".
READ IT NOW!!!!!
Request for rules of engagement June 5, 2005Posted by Administrator in Blogging.
add a comment
I have been hit over the head by ethical objects swung by various Internet denizens the past few weeks. I have NOT been commenting upon them until I’ve had a chance to consider them at length and allow my passions to die down somewhat.
It seems that certain I-junkies are offended with my “ethics” in operating in blogdom. To wit:
-I linked a certain notorious MRT under my listings for “Know Thine Enemy”
-This same MRT lurked on this site, broke the rules, and was subsequently banned, though the link remained up.
-I continued to comment upon HIS site on the things he was bringing up there.
It seems that the combination of these events sparked ethical queasiness in some people, and I was excoriated by various MRTs as well as member(s) of DogSnot for being “hypocritical”.
I open this up to the general community. I am unaware of established rules for working in blogspace. It seemed appropriate to me at the time to ban the MRT for violating the rules I established (for this blog alone), yet to comment upon his offerings in his own site, based only on what he said there. I still see no reason for me not to continue to do so, though I have abstained from such activity until I can get clarity on the “ethics of blogspace”.
As for banning the fellow while keeping his link on my site, here I can see some ethical difficulty. To be honest, I simply forgot about the link to his site, and when this was brought to my attention, I eliminated the link. For keeping the link after the ban, I HEREBY ISSUE A PUBLIC APOLOGY!!!!. That was a silly and thoughtless thing for me to do.
Otherwise, I’d like to hear from all and sundry on this. What do you think? Can a person ban a miscreant from their site and continue commenting on that other person’s site?
My only request in engaging in this topic is that “feelings” are fine for posting your opinion, but to convince me that I engaged in perfidy, I need some logical argument attached.