Majorian

Over the past several weeks, Carrie Prejean Boller has complained that she was removed from the Presidential Commission on Religious Liberty because of her Catholic beliefs, and she has called out myself and other Catholic members of the commission for not defending her. This is absurd. Mrs. Prejean Boller was not dismissed for her religious convictions but rather for her behavior at a gathering of the Commission last month: browbeating witnesses, aggressively asserting her point of view, hijacking the meeting for her own political purposes. The Catholic position on matters of “Zionism,” to which I fully subscribe, is as follows: all forms of antisemitism are to be unequivocally condemned; the state of Israel has a right to exist; but the modern nation of Israel does not represent the fulfillment of Biblical prophecies and hence does not stand beyond criticism. If Mrs. Prejean Boller were dismissed for holding these beliefs, it is difficult to understand why I am still a member of the Commission. To paint herself as a victim of anti-Catholic prejudice or to claim that her religious liberty has been denied is simply preposterous.

Over the past several weeks, Carrie Prejean Boller has complained that she was removed from the Presidential Commission on Religious Liberty because of her Catholic beliefs, and she has called out myself and other Catholic members of the commission for not defending her. This is absurd. Mrs. Prejean Boller was not dismissed for her religious convictions but rather for her behavior at a gathering of the Commission last month: browbeating witnesses, aggressively asserting her point of view, hijacking the meeting for her own political purposes. The Catholic position on matters of “Zionism,” to which I fully subscribe, is as follows: all forms of antisemitism are to be unequivocally condemned; the state of Israel has a right to exist; but the modern nation of Israel does not represent the fulfillment of Biblical prophecies and hence does not stand beyond criticism. If Mrs. Prejean Boller were dismissed for holding these beliefs, it is difficult to understand why I am still a member of the Commission. To paint herself as a victim of anti-Catholic prejudice or to claim that her religious liberty has been denied is simply preposterous.

The core issue in this tweet is the bishops assertion that “the state of Israel has a right to exist.” This phrase on its face sounds harmless, even obligatory in contemporary discourse, but it carries with it assumptions that do not sit cleanly within the traditional Catholic framework. As I understand the tradition of St. Thomas Aquinas, rights properly belong to persons and, analogously, to communities ordered toward the common good, but not necessarily to specific political regimes as such. A state itself is not a moral subject with inherent claims to continued existence. It is instead better viewed as an an instrument; a political form that is justified only insofar as it secures justice, order, and the common good. To say that a state has a “right to exist” suggests something stronger than our tradition allows, as it implies a sort of moral permanence, as if the regime itself enjoys a standing that places it beyond fundamental critique. Kingdoms are not sacred objects, and they can be legitimate or illegitimate, and their endurance in part is contingent on their conformity to right order. Even the most historically Catholic polities were never granted a sort of unconditional metaphysical entitlement to persist. Political authority does not arise from popular will but from God. Every regime is ordered to the common good, and its exercise is judged accordingly. A ruler who governs justly participates in legitimate authority; one who rules for private interest deforms that authority into tyranny. The better question bere is not whether a state possesses an abstract “right to exist” (as really no state has an absolute right to exist), but whether its rule reflects right order. Barron’s other clarification here (that the modern state does not fulfill biblical prophecy and therefore remains open to criticism) is much closer to that tradition. However, it sits uneasily alongside the earlier claim he made. If a state can be freely criticized and morally evaluated, then its “right to exist” cannot be ABSOLUTE in the way the phrase suggests. The result (I think) is a subtle but important shift from a moral evaluation of political order to a kind of baseline affirmation of regime existence. I believe it is better to focus on a harder, more demanding question, which is not whether a state has a right to exist, but whether it actually deserves to exist in its current form by how it serves justice and the common good.

The core issue in this tweet is the bishops assertion that “the state of Israel has a right to exist.” This phrase on its face sounds harmless, even obligatory in contemporary discourse, but it carries with it assumptions that do not sit cleanly within the traditional Catholic framework. As I understand the tradition of St. Thomas Aquinas, rights properly belong to persons and, analogously, to communities ordered toward the common good, but not necessarily to specific political regimes as such. A state itself is not a moral subject with inherent claims to continued existence. It is instead better viewed as an an instrument; a political form that is justified only insofar as it secures justice, order, and the common good. To say that a state has a “right to exist” suggests something stronger than our tradition allows, as it implies a sort of moral permanence, as if the regime itself enjoys a standing that places it beyond fundamental critique. Kingdoms are not sacred objects, and they can be legitimate or illegitimate, and their endurance in part is contingent on their conformity to right order. Even the most historically Catholic polities were never granted a sort of unconditional metaphysical entitlement to persist. Political authority does not arise from popular will but from God. Every regime is ordered to the common good, and its exercise is judged accordingly. A ruler who governs justly participates in legitimate authority; one who rules for private interest deforms that authority into tyranny. The better question bere is not whether a state possesses an abstract “right to exist” (as really no state has an absolute right to exist), but whether its rule reflects right order. Barron’s other clarification here (that the modern state does not fulfill biblical prophecy and therefore remains open to criticism) is much closer to that tradition. However, it sits uneasily alongside the earlier claim he made. If a state can be freely criticized and morally evaluated, then its “right to exist” cannot be ABSOLUTE in the way the phrase suggests. The result (I think) is a subtle but important shift from a moral evaluation of political order to a kind of baseline affirmation of regime existence. I believe it is better to focus on a harder, more demanding question, which is not whether a state has a right to exist, but whether it actually deserves to exist in its current form by how it serves justice and the common good.

The core issue in this tweet is the bishops assertion that “the state of Israel has a right to exist.” This phrase on its face sounds harmless, even obligatory in contemporary discourse, but it carries with it assumptions that do not sit cleanly within the traditional Catholic framework. As I understand the tradition of St. Thomas Aquinas, rights properly belong to persons and, analogously, to communities ordered toward the common good, but not necessarily to specific political regimes as such. A state itself is not a moral subject with inherent claims to continued existence. It is instead better viewed as an an instrument; a political form that is justified only insofar as it secures justice, order, and the common good. To say that a state has a “right to exist” suggests something stronger than our tradition allows, as it implies a sort of moral permanence, as if the regime itself enjoys a standing that places it beyond fundamental critique. Kingdoms are not sacred objects, and they can be legitimate or illegitimate, and their endurance in part is contingent on their conformity to right order. Even the most historically Catholic polities were never granted a sort of unconditional metaphysical entitlement to persist. Political authority does not arise from popular will but from God. Every regime is ordered to the common good, and its exercise is judged accordingly. A ruler who governs justly participates in legitimate authority; one who rules for private interest deforms that authority into tyranny. The better question bere is not whether a state possesses an abstract “right to exist” (as really no state has an absolute right to exist), but whether its rule reflects right order. Barron’s other clarification here (that the modern state does not fulfill biblical prophecy and therefore remains open to criticism) is much closer to that tradition. However, it sits uneasily alongside the earlier claim he made. If a state can be freely criticized and morally evaluated, then its “right to exist” cannot be ABSOLUTE in the way the phrase suggests. The result (I think) is a subtle but important shift from a moral evaluation of political order to a kind of baseline affirmation of regime existence. I believe it is better to focus on a harder, more demanding question, which is not whether a state has a right to exist, but whether it actually deserves to exist in its current form by how it serves justice and the common good.

Made it to an old fashion diner. Love that these places are open - even with 2 feet of snow.

The core issue in this tweet is the bishops assertion that “the state of Israel has a right to exist.” This phrase on its face sounds harmless, even obligatory in contemporary discourse, but it carries with it assumptions that do not sit cleanly within the traditional Catholic framework. As I understand the tradition of St. Thomas Aquinas, rights properly belong to persons and, analogously, to communities ordered toward the common good, but not necessarily to specific political regimes as such. A state itself is not a moral subject with inherent claims to continued existence. It is instead better viewed as an an instrument; a political form that is justified only insofar as it secures justice, order, and the common good. To say that a state has a “right to exist” suggests something stronger than our tradition allows, as it implies a sort of moral permanence, as if the regime itself enjoys a standing that places it beyond fundamental critique. Kingdoms are not sacred objects, and they can be legitimate or illegitimate, and their endurance in part is contingent on their conformity to right order. Even the most historically Catholic polities were never granted a sort of unconditional metaphysical entitlement to persist. Political authority does not arise from popular will but from God. Every regime is ordered to the common good, and its exercise is judged accordingly. A ruler who governs justly participates in legitimate authority; one who rules for private interest deforms that authority into tyranny. The better question bere is not whether a state possesses an abstract “right to exist” (as really no state has an absolute right to exist), but whether its rule reflects right order. Barron’s other clarification here (that the modern state does not fulfill biblical prophecy and therefore remains open to criticism) is much closer to that tradition. However, it sits uneasily alongside the earlier claim he made. If a state can be freely criticized and morally evaluated, then its “right to exist” cannot be ABSOLUTE in the way the phrase suggests. The result (I think) is a subtle but important shift from a moral evaluation of political order to a kind of baseline affirmation of regime existence. I believe it is better to focus on a harder, more demanding question, which is not whether a state has a right to exist, but whether it actually deserves to exist in its current form by how it serves justice and the common good.

Most people would rather invent or assign misfortune to an enemy than confront themselves. It is far easier to say “they did this to me” than to admit you permitted it through your habits or your weakness/general refusal to act. So these people will build their "identity" around resentment, constantly looking outward for a cause and therefore never becoming a cause themselves. In reality this is actually not an identity, because they define themselves by the actions of others. They are lambs intentionally walking to the slaughter because it is easier to complain about being acted upon than to act This is a refusal of amor fati, which (for those who haven't listened to one of my nietzsche rants) is not merely accepting one's fate, but also loving it and taking everything that happens to you and treating it as raw material to be shaped. The weak will endure their circumstances and complain about them, whilst the strong will absorb them and transform them. Obviously this is not about denying injustice or pretending the world is fair (when it obviously isn't), conversely it's about understanding that blame w/o subsequent action is merely impotent paralyzing rage. The moment you make others the primary explanation for your condition, you surrender YOUR ability to change your condition. One can apply this concept to Christianity as well: God does not ask you to control everything that happens, but He will judge what you did with it. Grace is not an excuse for one's own passivity, if anything it is a demand that you rise to meet it. Your body, your discipline, your character are not accidental characteristics but instead are the cumulative result of what you have chosen to tolerate. Amor fati means refusing to waste suffering and outsource ones own responsibility to act to "them." It's ultimately the refusal to live as a reaction, but as a being of action itself. It has always been you versus you, because you are the only thing in your life that can be mastered.

It's you versus you. It's literally always been you versus you. "They" are not making you a fat loser, you are doing that.