So many things to discuss, and no idea where to start...
There's the China letter, though I have yet to see reaction and really have not given it an inordinate amount of thought. One sneaking suspicion, seconded at dinner the other night by someone who has long experience in HS-gov relations, is that the whole thing is choreographed. Not in a fake, conspiracy theory sort of way, mind you, just in a "Now, we're agreed regarding the material questions, and here's how it'll play out so that no one loses face," sort of way. More when I have something intelligent to say.
then, there's the brouhaha folks seem to want to stir up between Scalia and Roberts. I do not think it is going anywhere. Roberts has thick skin, and neither man has the kind of ego that would make for voting against professional judgment because of some real or imagined personal animosity. Those on the Court who see clearly, see clearly. Those who are ideologically committed will not be swayed by argument, however cogent, and regardless of the presence of trenchant remarks. This brings me to the point. I admire Scalia's intellect, and substantially agree with him on, well, most things. THis makes it all the more frustrating when he fails to restrain his pen, and in what seem to be veritable paroxysms of arrogant intellectual superiority, calls his fellow justices' opinions, "irrational," "not to be taken seriously," etc. I have never once come across such a statement of his that furthered the substance of his own arguments in any way. Ususally they simply served to impugn the competence of a colleague and insult the intelligence of his readership (I mean, of course the opinion was irrational, and for the reasons you have spelled out so nicely. Why, then, do you need to say it? Why, man? Why?).
There is a great deal more that I would discuss, from the sublime to the ridiculous. Another sign the Apocalypse is near is this Youtube video. You will laugh in spite of yourself.
I should be working on my doctoral dissertation right now. I had planned on an early start. Ester, Joe and I hit the hay with an episode of NCIS at, get this: 19:53 hours yesterday. That was right after homemade Chinese dinner. It was, as Joe says, “Dee-licious!” I was at the computer by 04:41 hours.
That’s when it happened.
I checked my e-mail and found the following argument offered in an advertisement that arrived via forwarded e-mail: abortion is actually a social good, because it provides a means for guaranteeing that every child is a wanted, loved child.
Feminists for Life president, Serrin Foster is wont to point out in her many,many speaking engagements, that “child abuse has risen.” Now, I do not know whether statistics will bear out a rise in rates of child abuse: I do know that it is extremely difficult to measure our improvement as a society in terms of our care for and tutelage of children, whether ours or others’ in our charge. Statistics may not be the best way about it.
When, however, New York City 2nd graders are read, “Heather has two Mommies,” and Catholic Charities of Boston is forced to close its adoption operation over its refusal to place children in gay households, we have lost sight of what “caring for children” really means. In the first case, what passes as an attempt to reduce the psychological stress on a child growing in an “alternative family” situation, by soft-pedaling ideology under the guise of prejudice removal/prevention education, actually goes to trump parental supervision of children’s moral and social education. The second case is a more brazen example of moral insanity passing under the name of equality: courts refusing to allow a century-old religious charity to place children in adoptive homes based on a prudential judgment regarding the best interests of the child.
This brings me back to my point. Love is the identification of one’s own good with the good of another, or the refusal to distinguish one’s own good apart from the good of another, so that the good of the other effectively becomes one’s own good. Love is an attitude of the will. As emotion, love is primarily a disposition to sacrifice.
The idea that only children desired by grown-ups ought to be brought into this world is an idea that can only arise in a mind unformed to love and incapable of it.
I love most when I do what I know to be truly good for another, regardless of the consequences to myself. There are a very, very few chances in life to show true love (though there are still more than appear at first glance): choosing to keep an “unwanted” child is one of them.
Now, it’s past 05:30.
 New York City School Curriculum Sparks Controversy, NPR - All Things Considered, 1/26/1993, Show #1009, Seg. 11.
We love disagreeing, and we would love to disagree with you, but we can only disagree with you if you write to us at:
Of course, there are other reasons for writing to us besides disagreement. Have something you want me to see or maybe treat on the blog? Send it in. Appreciate all the fine work we're doing? Let us know.
A caveat to potential stalkers: writing e-mails in one's own blood is an extremely messy and inefficient business.
A caveat to all would-be correspondents: If you do write, we can publish it. That does not mean we will, though. We are reasonable men. If you want anonymity, just ask for it, and you shall receive it. Just remember: sign with your real name. The first thing we do is check for a real name. We delete all unsigned e-mails.
LD & HP
"Chronicles from the Front" Copyright 2006-2012. All rights reserved.
Not too Shabby for a Tenderfoot
Chronicles from the Front Supports Fr. William Casey, CPM