Skip to main content

You Got A Doctorate? Seriously? (Was Cantor Really That Bad?)

This is the kind of stuff that makes me sure I could add something to our national conversations, such as they are. I'm sure I'll be destroyed by a media deception, or words taken out of context. But we've got to do better than this. Lurking in this pile of nonsense is the idea that consent between two parties is sufficient to establish moral licitness, and a real connection to the common good. In other words, markets are neither moral, nor amoral. But Catholics--left, right, or center--cannot believe this.

The state exists to promote the common good; that is, the sum of all the conditions necessary for every single person to reach the end for which they were made. To believe that a particular intervention by government is imprudent, unwise, or unnecessary is different than believing that government has no licit role by definition in promoting the common good. For this reason, I believe that this philosophy is ultimately destructive, because it views government as such as the enemy. "Limited government" is only useful insofar as that limitation serves healthy self-determination, economic and otherwise, and personal growth.

If we've got nothing to replace standard left-liberal programs but rhetoric about "liberty," (which means today, "radical individual autonomy,") we're going to keep losing. Americans generally do want to be left alone, but not at the expense of the disabled, the very poor, and good things like public libraries, schools, and the arts. Generally, we are in debt to ourselves, so various means of social assistance and organization do need reform. Yet too many people hear, "Government is bad," when we say "reform." What they ought to hear is, "Government needs to work for its people, not for large firms, or for politicians who support failed programs for personal gain and public approval."

Can we have Cantor back, before we lose that seat to Planned Parenthood?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con
My wheelchair was nearly destroyed by a car last night. That's a bit melodramatic, I suppose, because it is intact and undamaged. But we'd left my power chair ("Red Sam" in the official designation) in-between the maze of cars parked out front of Chris Yee's house for Bible Study. [Isn't that a Protestant Bible study?--ed.] They are good friends, and it is not under any official auspices. [Not BSF?--ed.] They're BSF guys, but it's not a BSF study. Anyway, I wasn't worried; I made a joke about calling the vendor the next day: "What seems to be the problem, sir?" 'Well, it was destroyed by a car.' As it happened, a guy bumped into it at slow speed. His car got the worst of it. And this only reinforces what I've said for a solid 13 years [Quickie commercial coming] If you want a power wheelchair that lasts, get a Quickie. They're fast, obviously, and they're tanks. Heck, my old one still would work, but the batteries ar