Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

  1. Site: southern orders
    2 weeks 4 days ago

     


  2. Site: PaulCraigRoberts.org
    2 weeks 4 days ago
    Author: pcr3

    We Finally Know Exactly How That Atlantic Editor Got Included in the Houthi meeting

    The alleged “security leak” happened because of Apple’s Siri artificial intelligence.  It is more evidence that I am correct that the digital revolution and nuclear weapons are mankind’s greatest mistakes.

    Notice also, although it has not been mentioned, that the Atlantic’s editor Jeffrey Goldberg when he got the invitation to participate in a discussion of US military action against Yemen did not behave honorably and inform Trump’s national security advisor that he had been mistakenly included.  Instead, he took advantage of the situation and then published the confidential information.  So once again we see that the liberal/left has no integrity.  It was Goldberg, not Waltz who behaved inappropriately.

    https://www.westernjournal.com/finally-know-exactly-atlantic-reporter-got-messages-complicated-anyone-thought/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=elliance-patriot-update&utm_campaign=CAN&utm_content=2025-04-07 

  3. Site: PaulCraigRoberts.org
    2 weeks 4 days ago
    Author: pcr3

    God’s Chosen People at Work with America’s Help

    https://x.com/nada_chehade_/status/1907923803608592595 

  4. Site: southern orders
    2 weeks 4 days ago

     In honor of Masters’ Week in Augusta, I post a photo of me in the early 1970’s after having crashed through the main gate of the Augusta National (Magnolia Lane) as I drove some friends of my father to the parking lot, got out, took a tour and left and no one knew the difference. THEY LET ME THROUGH ON WASHINGTON ROAD! Even then, that would not have been allowed. I guess my Masters’ green 1970 Chevy Nova confused the guard at the gate as he waved me through!


  5. Site: PaulCraigRoberts.org
    2 weeks 4 days ago
    Author: pcr3

    The US Cannot Stop Interfering in the Affairs of Other Countries

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-pressures-milei-break-china/5883782 

  6. Site: PaulCraigRoberts.org
    2 weeks 4 days ago
    Author: pcr3

    Elon Musk agrees with me

    https://x.com/america/status/1908557679494054208 

    I have been making this point for years.  Now Elon Musk makes the point and everyone notices.

    It has been going on so long that now the federal district judiciary is a Tower of Babel.  We don’t even have Americans familiar with our mores in  the judiciary.  We have Japanese, Chinese, Africans, Arabs, Indians, Greeks, Hispanics, and LGBT+ interpreting our law or dictating their preferences.

  7. Site: PaulCraigRoberts.org
    2 weeks 4 days ago
    Author: pcr3

    The Tariff Issue

    Paul Craig Roberts

    The tariff controversy is being colored in the most scary ways possible, because the Democrats, media, and ruling establishment want rid of Trump. It is also important to understand that tariffs are not the only way to limit imports.  There are other means, such as quotas.  Quotas on imports into the US of Japanese cars were part of the US auto producers bailout negotiated in the final year of the Carter administration.

    I will attempt to put the issue in a correct perspective.  It is not Trump’s intention, at least at the present time, to institutionalize a tariff regime.  Trump is using tariffs as a threat to secure agreements that he thinks are in America’s interests.  So far 50 countries have, according to reports, agreed to remove their tariffs on US goods.  The countries responding aggressively seem to be China and our European allies.  I explained yesterday how Trump could better have gone about his task.  Nevertheless, as the Commerce Secretary said, Trump’s tariffs are not expected to extend beyond a few weeks or a few months of negotiation.  

    During this time there could be supply disruptions.  Apparently, Trump is aware and has released an 11-page appendix that exempts all sorts of imported items that US producers require to continue their operations.  Whatever disruption does occur, should be small compared to the Covid lockdown supply disruption, the basic cause of the current inflation. The Covid disruption was pointless and counterproductive.  The tariff disruption, if there is one, is the cost of establishing a fair and uniform trading system.

    So, Trump is not being arbitrary or on a rampage to destroy international trade. Tariff negotiations, especially with so many countries and products can go on for years.  Trump might think that he only has two years to get anything done before the Democrats steal the midterm elections and bring his renewal of America to a halt.

    President Trump has spoken of tariffs in a wider and much more important context.  Over most of American history until the First World War, tariff revenues were the source of government revenues.  An income tax was unconstitutional and a violation of freedom.  The definition of a free person is a person who owns his own labor.  A slave does not own his own labor, and a serf only owns part of his labor.  A person required to pay an income tax does not own that part of his labor that he must provide to government in order to avoid imprisonment.  The difference between a medieval serf and an American taxpayer is the serf paid the tax in kind as hours worked, and the American pays the tax in money as a percentage of his income.

    Classical economists, real economists  unlike the faux ones of today, understood that factors of production–labor and capital–should not be taxed, because the supply of both to the economy is reduced by taxation.  Supply-side economics is based on this principle. Thus, its emphasis on lowering the marginal rates of taxation. Reducing the supply of factors of production, reduces the economic growth rate and the national income.  The century that the US economy has labored under income tax has costs us substantially in lost income. The classical economists said that taxation should fall on consumption not on factors of production.  

    Traditionally, imported items are finished goods–German cars, French wines and perfumes. High priced goods are for the wealthy, so tariffs fall on the rich. The working class does not indulge in Porsche cars and Clicquot champagne. However, for about 30 years much of our imports have consisted of the offshored production of US firms.  When Apple, for example, brings its products made in China to the US to be marketed, they come in as imports and worsen the US trade deficit.  Instead of beating up on China, Trump should call the US corporations that offshore their production for US markets to a White House conference and point out to them the consequences of their policy:  the shrinkage of the American middle class, the loss of tax base, decaying infrastructure, and loss population of America’s former manufacturing cities, the pressure on city and state pension systems, the pressure of lower ratings on municipal bonds.  Trump should ask the executives if they went too far in maximizing profits that benefitted a relatively few at the expense of the many, and what they think they should do about it.  Capitalism ceases to serve the general interest when it separates Americans from the incomes associated with the production of the goods and services that they consume.

    Trump has spoken of returning to tariffs as the source of government revenues and abandoning the income tax. This is consistent with correct economics and with freedom.  Such a change would be possibly the most important reform in American history.

    It would be a difficult reform to achieve, because ideological, not economic, considerations intervene.  Taxing the rich became the agenda of mass democracy.  Taxing the rich was not seen as punishing a person for being successful.  A successful person was portrayed as having become rich by exploiting labor.  As fortunes were “stolen” by exploiting labor or resulted from government preference or legal privilege, income taxation was perceived as an instrument of justice. It is certainly perceived that way today by the liberal/left and the Democrat Party.

    As an income tax is emotionally satisfying to the liberal/left, we are stuck with slower economic growth an less national income.

    It is disturbing that the liberal/left agenda has made American politics so highly partisan.  What we see today is literal hatred of Trump, Republicans, conservatives, and white heterosexuals by the liberal/left.  Hatred makes democracy dysfunctional.  Politics cannot function as each side is intent on destroying any achievement by the other side.  As democracy ceases to function, dictatorship becomes the means of governance.  The liberal/left’s agenda to remake America by destroying its roots and recasting it into a different kind of society means the death of democracy and the rise of dictatorship.  This is our real problem.

  8. Site: PaulCraigRoberts.org
    2 weeks 4 days ago
    Author: pcr3

    GEOFOR

    CENTER FOR GEOPOLITICAL FORECASTS,  Moscow  — April 8, 2025

    Paul Craig Roberts: “Indeed, why are there negotiations at all?”

     

    Shealah Craighead / White House

     

    The GEOFOR editorial board asked Paul Craig Roberts – Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy (USA), a PhD in Economics and US Undersecretary of Treasury in the Reagan administration – with a request to assess the course of negotiations between Russia and the United States, as well as their prospects.

     

    – Despite numerous statements claiming that U.S.-Russia negotiations are progressing well – and the fact that Moscow has even sent its ambassador to Washington – it seems that there has been little real progress on the issue of Ukraine. At least, this is the impression given by the actions and statements of the Ukrainian side, as well as by the way European countries continue – and even attempt to increase – their military support for Kiev. Do you believe this to be the case? And how do you see the prospects for the settlement of the Ukrainian conflict?

     

    The prospect for ending the conflict would be much better if President Putin had kept control of the process. Instead President Putin entered into an unknown process in search of an unspecified agreement. By doing so President Putin has allowed extraneous issues to clutter the process, such as President Trump’s demand for Ukraine’s rare earths as payment for US military and financial aid during the Biden regime. This is now an issue in the negotiations between Trump and Zelensky even thought it has no relevance to ending the conflict. What will be the next issue that will cloud the process?

     

    According to the CIA confession recently published in the New York Times, the conflict in Ukraine from the very beginning was a war between the US and Russia, a war started and conducted by Washington. Ukraine merely provided the war dead. With the intention of initiating a conflict with Russia, the US overthrew the elected Ukrainian government and installed a US puppet. While President Putin attempted to dodge the reality with the Minsk Agreement, the US trained and equipped a large Ukrainian army. President Putin, who was unprepared, was forced to intervene in Donbas when the Biden regime, NATO, and the EU cold-shouldered President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov’s plea for a mutual security agreement, and the Ukraine army was poised to invade Donbas and subdue the two independent republics.

     

    Therefore, as the conflict since its beginning has been between Washington and Russia, why is Zelensky a party to the negotiations? Indeed, why are there negotiations at all? President Putin’s job is to deliver a military victory and impose the terms of peace on the defeated, not to risk negotiating away a Russian victory. Why is Zelensky a party to a peace settlement when his term of office expired months ago? What does it mean for Trump and Putin to sign an agreement with a person who under the Ukraine constitution is not a member of the Ukraine government?

     

    The claim that “negotiations are progressing well” is nonsense. How are negotiations going well when President Trump is treatening Putin with more punishments when it is Putin who is keeping Trump’s agreement and Zelensky? NATO? Washington? who is/are violating it? How does Trump’s outburst against Putin build confidence that the negotiations need?

     

    It does not. So, is Trump serious, or is he just enjoying being a tough guy on the world scene?

     

    The problem with ending the conflict is the way Putin conducted it. It was as if President Putin was afraid of obtaining a victory. To avoid a victory Putin paid a high price in Russian casualties. The war was conducted as if its objective was negotiations. Instead of a Russian victory, Putin seems to want a great party settlement, another Yalta agreement. This is my opinion of why Putin acted as he did. He saw the war as a means of coming to a broader settlement with the West.

     

    The consequence of the never-ending war is that it has taken Putin months longer to remove Ukrainian forces from a few kilometers of Russian territory than it took Stalin’s Red Army to drive the German Wehrmacht out of thousands of miles of Russia, Eastern Europe, and enter the streets of Berlin, and in Ukraine Russian territory is still in Ukraine’s or Washington’s hands.

     

    To the world, the way Putin has conducted the war looks like a failure of Russian arms, and this has been the message of the Western media during the entirety of the conflict. If this is the way Trump also sees it, it is bad news for the Ukraine negotiations. Trump will see himself dealing with a weak opponent who cannot win a war. So why make any concessions? Why not pile on demands? Trump is in a mortal conflict with the American Establishment. A victory over Putin boosts Trump’s status in his domestic conflict.

     

    If Trump wants to end the war in Ukraine, it is a very simple step. All Trump has to do is to say that the war would not have happened if the Democrats had not stolen his 2020 reelection, that he has no stake in the conflict, and is withdrawing America’s participation. That leaves Zelensky facing Putin to resolve the issue. If Putin had quickly won the conflict, it would not be an issue today.

     

    – In addition to the Ukrainian issue, the U.S.-Russia dialogue also includes questions of normalizing relations and restoring mutual trust. In this context, how do you assess the recent visit to Washington by the head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, Kirill Dmitriev, who reportedly held ten hours of high-level talks at the White House on a wide range of issues – from joint development of Russia’s rare earth deposits to restoring air services between our countries? In your opinion, how realistic is constructive dialogue in these areas, especially if the negotiations on Ukraine reach an impasse?

     

    If Kirill Dmitriev is an Atlanticist Integrationist enamored of the West, he will be taken to the cleaners. Wall Street would love to again get their hands on Russia and its assets. The exploitation of Russia would keep Wall Street in plenty for decades. I regard this development as extremely in advance of any evidence that would support at this stage Russia opening its resources to the West. It would be an act of national suicide for Russia.

     

    – As always, I can’t help but ask about domestic politics in the U.S. The  Republican majority in Congress is currently quite slim, and according to media reports and pundits, there also appears to be a lack of consensus within the party itself regarding the foreign policy direction of the new administration. To what extent do these factors limit President Trump’s ability to carry out his plans? And does he have the means to overcome them?

     

    In recent articles, www.paulcraigroberts.org, I describe why the Trump regime does not understand all of the forces that are operating on the world. Trump is handicapped by this lack of understanding. He is also handicapped by the fact that the majority of Republicans both in House and Senate are not with him. The Republican Establishment–RINOs–Republicans In Name Only, enjoy life in the existing American Establishment in which their reelection is made secure by campaign donations from the Israel Lobby, the Military/Security complex which always needs an enemy, the pharmaceutical companies, agri-business, financial interests, and energy interests. It is the powerful private interests that rule America, not people voting. The winning political candidates owe their position to those who finance their campaign, not to those who vote for them.

     

    The RINOs will support Trump to a degree, because the advaantage of being the ruling party is that you control the Congressional committees and subcommittees and get the rewards of being the whore for the American Establishment.

     

    President Trump is up against an institutionalized Establishment, sophisticated in political warfare and accustomed to ruling. For Americans, this is the fight that counts, not a fight with Iran for Israel or a fight over Ukraine. But if Trump cannot win his domestic fight, he will have to seek victory abroad. Therefore, Russia, Iran, and China remain potential targets.

     

  9. Site: LES FEMMES - THE TRUTH
    2 weeks 4 days ago
    Author: noreply@blogger.com (Mary Ann Kreitzer)
  10. Site: Rorate Caeli
    2 weeks 4 days ago
     A great opportunity for those interested in matters of Sacred Music in the Traditional Roman Rite, in New Hamburg, Ontario -- halfway between Buffalo, NY, and Detroit, MI, so a great summer outing during what is a vacation week for many for the national holidays of both Canada (July 1st) and the US (July 4th).From the organizers: Dr. Andrew Childs, longtime music director at the ChurchNew Catholichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04118576661605931910noreply@blogger.com
  11. Site: Public Discourse
    2 weeks 4 days ago
    Author: Joshua Katz

    “Like the mythical phoenix rising from the ashes of its former self, we envision an education system that emerges stronger and more vibrant, building upon our nation’s foundational values while meeting the challenges of today.”

    Thus Jason Bedrick of the Heritage Foundation, the chair of the drafting committee of “The Phoenix Declaration: An American Vision for Education,” unveiled in mid-February in Tempe, Arizona, just outside Phoenix. “Education,” Bedrick and the fourteen other drafters (including my American Enterprise Institute colleague Robert Pondiscio) remind us, “is the cornerstone of individual opportunity, family flourishing, and national prosperity.”

    The brief and elegantly composed document about K–12 education emphasizes various virtues: knowledge, character, and “the good, the true, and the beautiful,” as well as virtue itself. No doubt the declaration will prove controversial in our polarized environment, but it is difficult to understand how anyone, regardless of political persuasion, could raise serious objections to something specifically intended to be “American” rather than “conservative.” Yes, some—not for the most part readers of Public Discourse—may not appreciate that there is one mention of God (children deserve to “achieve their full, God-given potential”), but as long as “In God We Trust” remains on American coins and bills, I would hope this would not prevent people from joining the list of signatories and advocates. Noting that “[s]tudents should . . . learn about America’s founding principles and roots in the broader Western and Judeo-Christian traditions” is not religious advocacy; it is a simple comment that you cannot count yourself an educated person in this country if you have no knowledge of the Bible.

    The declaration espouses seven principles: “parental choice and responsibility,” “transparency and accountability,” “truth and goodness,” “cultural transmission,” “character formation,” “academic excellence,” and “citizenship.” The explanations of each are straightforward: for example, the opening sentences of the first two principles are “Parents are the primary educators of their children” and “Schools, as secondary educators, should work with parents, not attempt to serve as replacements for them.”

    The unveiling of the declaration took place at a conference in a hotel just a few blocks from the center of the Arizona State University campus. In addition to the rousing keynote addresses of Ryan T. Anderson and Bill McClay, sessions were held around six of the seven principles. (Because there were three sets of parallel sessions, one—“citizenship”—got the short end of the stick.) I was honored to participate most vigorously in the session that considered the third principle, “truth and goodness,” whose opening sentence is “Education must be grounded in truth.” Along with Erin Valdez (University of Austin), I acted as a respondent to remarks by Rachel Alexander Cambre (Belmont Abbey College) based on her recent white paper “Liberal Education’s Antidote to Indoctrination.” What follows are some of the remarks I made that day, based on my expertise as a linguist as well as on my experience as the father of a young child.

    “Oak Trees” and Two Kinds of Goodness

    Cambre’s white paper nods here and there to etymology. She points out that the word indoctrination has its root in the originally far less loaded Latin verb docēre (“to teach”) and, referring to Roosevelt Montás’s 2021 book Rescuing Socrates: How the Great Books Changed My Life and Why They Matter for a New Generation, notes that education is literally a “drawing out” (Latin ex/ē, “out of” + dūcere, “to lead”). (To be specific, the source of educate is not Latin ēdūcere, which has the basic meaning “to lead out,” but rather the derived ēducāre, “to bring up (children), nurture.” But this is of minimal importance right now.) As Cambre nicely puts it, “Whereas education draws out, indoctrination imports in.”

    Sometimes looking into the deep background of a word is useful for understanding our current situation. Other times it is less so. Consider, for instance, the English verb wield: if you want to know why it means “use” but takes as its object only weapons and force, it helps to know that the Old English form, wealdan, meant “to have power over,” that the closely related Modern German noun Ge-walt means “power, violence,” and that these forms all go back to a prehistoric root with the meaning “rule.” That said, this same root is also part of the histories of the personal names Oswald, Ronald, and Walter—but it is unlikely that anyone can make much of this other than impress at a cocktail party.

    Still, linguistic histories do often offer a window onto metaphor, and I suggest that thinking etymologically about truth is useful even though it would be unreasonable to claim that the word’s deepest associations have a direct impact on how people use it today.

    The noun truth and its associated adjective true have long histories in the language, going back respectively to trēowþ and (ge)trēowe in Old English, a thousand and more years ago. Together with trust, which may be a Scandinavian loanword, they go back to *deru- or *dreu- (“be firm, solid, steadfast”) in Proto-Indo-European, the mother tongue of 5,500 or so years ago that gave rise to Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, English, and many other languages. (An asterisk indicates a reconstruction rather than an actually recorded form; the precise details are to some extent disputed in this case and need not occupy us here.) And this is interesting in the present context because the same root also underlies our word tree (Old English trēow, a neuter noun homophonous with a feminine one meaning “trust, loyalty”).

    Now, throughout its history in English, tree has always referred to any sort of tree. But a number of cognates of tree throughout Indo-European mean specifically “oak” or denote other hardy trees with strong roots deep in the ground that are able to withstand buffeting winds—trees whose wood makes good spears: Greek drūs (“tree, esp. oak”; cf. doru, “shaft of a spear”), as well as Old Irish daur, Welsh derwen, and Albanian d(r)ushk, all of which mean “oak.” These trees are durable—an adjective I use advisedly since its source, Latin dūrus (“hard, firm, solid”), also goes back to *dreu- (it was once something like “drūrus”).

    Unsurprisingly, the Phoenix Declaration does not have all the answers. But it is an important volley in the restoration of truth, goodness, and many other necessary qualities to K–12 education in America.

    So when we say, “Education must be grounded in truth,” the linguist in me suggests that we imagine a durable and robust (cf. Latin rōbustus, “oaken; strong,” the adjective corresponding to the noun for “oak,” rōbur) oak: “Drawing students out requires an oak tree in the ground.”

    And how do oaks propagate? Through acorns, of course, which, when they are good, fall into fertile soil, and, provided they are not eaten by animals, turn eventually into full-grown oaks. At the risk of stretching the metaphor too far, we might say that the larger the forest of oaks, the greater the dominion of truth.

    There is more to say about truth and goodness. A curiosity about the word true is that it has two quite distinct meanings. The one that the drafters of the Phoenix Declaration were surely imagining is “conforming to reality,” as in “a true story.” But the other meaning—incidentally, the only meaning of the adjective’s cognates elsewhere in the Germanic languages: e.g., German treu—is older and remains important: “faithful, loyal,” as in “a true friend.” The same split is found in good as well. We speak of believing things “on good authority” and “with good reason” while also prizing our “good friends.”

    The question then arises: what do we do when the two kinds of truth and goodness come into conflict, especially in education? How are we to act when someone is a good teacher—someone who is a true buddy to a child in his or her care—but who at the same time says things in the classroom that are untrue and not capital-G Good in a deep way?

    Last year, my wife and I visited a nursery school classroom where the teacher went by “Mx.” (rather than “Ms.,” “Mrs.,” or “Miss”) and had posted signs about “their” pronouns: “they/them.” We left the visit knowing that we would not send our daughter to that school. And yet we did not feel entirely comfortable since we agreed that the teacher, though actively espousing something we do not consider Good, did herself seem good: a genuinely sweet and caring person.

    There was some disagreement among the conferees in Tempe about how parents, administrators, and (in the case of a public school) the government should respond to such a situation. Broadly speaking, conservatives and libertarians approached the matter differently—as they did other matters, too. Unsurprisingly, then, the Phoenix Declaration does not have all the answers. But it is an important volley in the restoration of truth, goodness, and many other necessary qualities to K–12 education in America.

    Image by stone36 and licensed via Adobe Stock.

  12. Site: Rorate Caeli
    2 weeks 4 days ago
     "Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?" But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, "Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites Shew me the tribute money." And they brought unto him a penny. And he New Catholichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04118576661605931910noreply@blogger.com
  13. Site: Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
    2 weeks 4 days ago

    Alex Schadenberg
    Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

    The Ontario Death Review Committee (MDRC) published two new reviews of Ontario MAiD (euthanasia) data between 2018 - 2023. The two MDRC reports focus on (Waivers of Final Consent), (Navigating Complex Issues Within Same Day and Next Day MAiD Provisions).

    The first three MDRC reports (Report 3) (Report 2) (Report 1) were released in October 2024. I have included three articles about these reports.

    • Article 1: Some euthanasia deaths are driven by homelessness, fear and isolation (Link).
    • Article 2: Ontario Coroner's euthanasia report: Poor at risk of coercion (Link).
    • Article 3: Ontario: At least 428 non-compliant euthanasia deaths (Link).

    Dr Ramona Coelho
    Dr Ramona Coelho, who is a member of the MDRC Committee wrote an article concerning two reports that was published by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute on April 7, 2025. Coehlo writes:
    Canada legalized Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) in 2016, encompassing both euthanasia and assisted suicide. Initially limited to those nearing their natural death, eligibility expanded in 2021 to individuals with physical disabilities, with eligibility for individuals with mental illness in 2027. Parliamentary recommendations include MAiD for children. A recent federal consultation explored extending MAiD to those who lack capacity via advance directives, an approach Quebec has already adopted, despite its criminal status under federal law.

    Despite its compassionate framing, investigative journalists and government reports reveal troubling patterns where inadequate exploration of reversible suffering – such as lack of access to medical treatments, poverty, loneliness, and feelings of being a burden – have driven Canadians to choose death. As described by our former Disability Inclusion Minister, Canada’s system at times makes it easier to access MAiD than to receive basic care like a wheelchair. With over 60,000 MAiD cases by the end of 2023, the evidence raises grave concerns about Canada’s MAiD regime.

    Coelho writes about the scope of the MDRC reports:

    I am a member of Ontario’s MAiD Death Review Committee (MDRC). Last year, the Chief Coroner released MDRC reports, and a new set of reports has just been published. The first report released by the Office of the Chief Coroner, Waivers of Final Consent, examines how individuals in Track 1 (reasonably foreseeable natural death) can sign waivers to have their lives ended even if they lose the capacity to consent by the scheduled date of MAiD. The second, Navigating Complex Issues within Same Day and Next Day MAiD Provisions, includes cases where MAiD was provided on the same day or the day after it was requested. These reports raise questions about whether proper assessments, thorough exploration of suffering, and informed consent were consistently practised by MAiD clinicians. While MDRC members hold diverse views, here is my take.

    Coelho discusses: Rushing to death, Ignoring Reversible Causes of Suffering:

    In the same-day or next-day MAiD report, Mrs. B, in her 80s, after complications from surgery, opted for palliative care, leading to discharge home. She later requested a MAiD assessment, but her assessor noted she preferred palliative care based on personal and religious values. The next day, her spouse, struggling with caregiver burnout, took her to the emergency department, but she was discharged home. When a request for hospice palliative care was denied, her spouse contacted the provincial MAiD coordination service for an urgent assessment. A new assessor deemed her eligible for MAiD, despite concerns from the first practitioner, who questioned the new assessor on the urgency, the sudden shift in patient perspective, and the influence of caregiver burnout. The initial assessor requested an opportunity for re-evaluation, but this was denied, with the second assessor deeming it urgent. That evening, a third MAiD practitioner was brought in, and Mrs. B underwent MAiD that night.

    The focus should have been on ensuring adequate palliative care and support for Mrs. B and her spouse. Hospice and palliative care teams should have been urgently re-engaged, given the severity of the situation. Additionally, the MAiD provider expedited the process despite the first assessor’s and Mrs. B’s concerns without fully considering the impact of her spouse’s burnout.

    The lack of adequate palliative care and the pressure from the spouse led to Mrs B's euthanasia death. Even though the first assessor indicated that Mrs B wanted palliative care, which reflected her personal values, she not only died by euthanasia, but her death was expedited.

    Coelho assesses other factors.

    The report also has worrying trends suggesting that local medical cultures—rather than patient choice—could be influencing rushed MAiD. Geographic clustering, particularly in Western Ontario, where same-day and next-day MAiD deaths occur most frequently, raises concerns that some MAiD providers may be predisposed to rapidly approve patients for quick death rather than ensuring patients have access to adequate care or exploring if suffering is remediable. This highlights a worrying trend where the speed of the MAiD provision is prioritized over patient-centered care and ethical safeguards.

    Coelho points out how same-day or next-day deaths are more prominent in Western Ontario, she also suggests that the speed of death is being prioritized over the care of the patient.

    Coelho then examines the issue of consent. Euthanasia was sold to Canadians as being for: Competent adults who freely choose and consent to the act. The Waivers of Final Consent report creates concern as to whether people. 

    Coehlo focuses on two stories to outline her concerns about MAiD without Free and Informed Choice

    Consent has been central to Canadians’ acceptance of the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide. However, some cases in these reports point to concerns already raised by clinicians: the lack of thorough capacity assessments and concerns that individuals may not have freely chosen MAiD.

    In the waiver of final consent report, Mr. B, a man with Alzheimer’s, had been approved for MAiD with such a waiver. However, by the scheduled provision date, his spouse reported increased confusion. Upon arrival, the MAiD provider noted that Mr. B no longer recognized them and so chose not to engage him in discussion at all. Without any verbal interaction to determine his current wishes or understanding, Mr. B’s life was ended.

    In the same-day or next-day MAiD report, Mr. C, diagnosed with metastatic cancer, initially expressed interest in MAiD but then experienced cognitive decline and became delirious. He was sedated for pain management. Despite the treating team confirming that capacity was no longer present, a MAiD practitioner arrived and withheld sedation, attempting to rouse him. It was documented that the patient mouthed “yes” and nodded and blinked in response to questions. Based on this interaction, the MAiD provider deemed the patient to have capacity. The MAiD practitioner then facilitated a virtual second assessment, and MAiD was administered.

    Coehlo outlines how these cases do not ensure free choice nor informed consent.

    These individuals were not given genuine opportunities to confirm whether they wished to die. Instead, their past wishes or inquiries were prioritized, raising concerns about ensuring free and informed consent for MAiD.  As early as 2020, the Chief Coroner of Ontario identified cases where patients received MAiD without well-documented capacity assessments, even though their medical records suggested they lacked capacity. Further, when Dr. Leonie Herx, past president of the Canadian Society of Palliative Medicine, testified before Parliament about MAiD frequently occurring without capacity, an MP dismissed her, advising Parliament to be cautious about considering seriously evidence under parliamentary immunities that amounted to malpractice allegations, which should be handled by the appropriate regulatory bodies or police.  These dismissive comments stand in stark contrast with the gravity of assessing financial capacity, and yet the magnitude is greater when ending life. By way of comparison, for my father, an Ontario-approved capacity expert conducted a rigorous evaluation before declaring him incapable of managing his finances. This included a lengthy interview, collateral history, and review of financial documents—yet no such rigorous capacity assessment is mandated for MAiD.

    Coehlo concludes her article by asking - What is Compassion?

    While the federal government has finished its consultation on advance directives for MAiD, experts warn against overlooking the complexities of choosing death based on hypothetical suffering and no lived experience to inform those choices. A substitute decision-maker has to interpret prior wishes, leading to guesswork and ethical dilemmas. These cases highlight how vulnerable individuals, having lost the capacity to consent, may be coerced or unduly influenced to die—whether through financial abuse, caregiver burnout, or other pressures—reminding us that the stakes are high – life and death, no less.

    The fundamental expectation of health care should be to rush to care for the patient, providing support through a system that embraces them—not rush them toward death without efforts to mitigate suffering or ensure free and informed consent. If we truly value dignity, we must invest in comprehensive care to prevent patients from being administered speedy death in their most vulnerable moment, turning their worst day into potentially their last.

    Some previous articles by Dr Ramona Coehlo:
    • Canada Euthanasia – unmasking health care and social failures (Link)
    • Discrimination driven deaths (Link).
    • Heart-wrenching lessons from Canada's euthanasia regime (Link).
    • Canadians with Disabilities are Needlessly dying by euthanasia (Link).

  14. Site: Community in Mission
    2 weeks 4 days ago
    Author: Msgr. Charles Pope

    When I was young and throughout my seminary years, I usually contemplated the crucifix and Jesus’ suffering on the Cross somberly. It was my sin that had put Him there, that had made Him suffer. The Cross was something that compelled a silent reverence in me, and suggested that I meditate deeply on what Jesus had to endure. I would often think of John, Mary, and the other women beneath the Cross, mournfully beholding Jesus’ slow, painful death.

    These were heavy and somber notes, but deeply moving themes.

    In addition, the crucifix made me think about the fact that I would have to carry a cross and go through the Fridays of my life. I needed to learn the meaning of sacrifice.

    Liturgically, I saw the crucifix as a way of restoring greater reverence in the Mass. Through the 1970s and 1980s, most parishes had removed crucifixes, quite often replacing them with “resurrection crosses,” or just an image of Jesus floating in mid-air. I used to call this image “touchdown Jesus” since it so closely resembled a football referee indicating a score. In those years we had moved away from the understanding of the Mass as a sacrifice; we were more into “meal theology.” The removal of the crucifix from the sanctuary was a powerful indicator of this shift. Many priests and liturgists saw the Cross as too somber a theme for their vision of a new and more welcoming Church, upbeat and positive.

    This Cross-less Christianity often led to what I thought was a rather silly, celebratory style of Mass in those years, and I came to see the restoration of the crucifix as necessary to bring back proper balance. I was delighted when, through the mid-1980s and later, the Vatican began insisting in new liturgical norms that a crucifix (not just a cross) be prominent in the sanctuary and visible to all, and further, that the processional cross had to bear the image of the crucified.

    Balance Restored – I was (and still am) very happy about these new norms because they restore the proper balance. The Mass is a making-present of the once-for-all, perfect sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross; it is also a sacred meal, whose power comes from that sacrifice. I also believed that such a move would help restore proper solemnity to the Mass, and to some extent that has occurred.

    All of this background is just to say that I saw the cross — the crucifix — in somber, serious tones. The theme was meant to instill solemnity and encourage meditation on the awful reality of sin and on our need to repent.

    But the Lord wasn’t finished with me yet; He wanted me to see another understanding of the Cross.

    He wanted me to also experience the “good” in Good Friday, for the Cross is also a place of victory and love, of God’s faithfulness and our deliverance. There’s a lot to celebrate at the foot of the Cross.

    It happened one Sunday during Lent of 1994, one of my first in an African-American Catholic parish. It being Lent, I expected the typically celebratory quality of Mass in the parish to be scaled back a bit. Much to my surprise, though, the opening song began with an upbeat, toe-tapping gospel riff. At first I frowned, but then the choir began to sing:

    Down at the Cross where my Savior died,
    Down where for cleansing from sin I cried,

    There to my heart was the blood applied;
    Glory to His name!

    Ah, so this was a Lenten theme! It was odd to me to hear the Cross being sung of so joyfully.

    This was quite new for me. Perhaps it shouldn’t have been, but it was. The Catholicism of the 1970s and 1980s with which I was familiar found it necessary to remove the cross in order to celebrate, but here was celebration with and in the Cross!

    The choir continued,

    I am so wondrously saved from sin,
    Jesus so sweetly abides within;

    There at the Cross where He took me in;
    Glory to His name!

    The congregation and choir were stepping in time and clapping, rejoicing in the Cross, seeing it in the Resurrection light of its saving power and as a glorious reflection of God’s love for us. Up the aisle the procession wound. The last verse was transposed a half-step up to an even brighter key:

    Oh, precious fountain that saves from sin,
    I am so glad I have entered in;

    There Jesus saves me and keeps me clean;
    Glory to His name!

    Yes, indeed, glory to His name! A lot of dots were connected for me that day. The Cross indeed was a place of great pain, but also of great love. There was grief, but there was also glory; there was suffering, but there was also victory.

    Please do not misunderstand my point. There is a place and time for quiet, somber reflection at the foot of the Cross, but one of the glories of the human person is that we can have more than one feeling at a time, even conflicting ones.

    Balance – Some in the Church of the 1970s and 1980s rejected the Cross as too somber a theme, too negative. They wanted to be more upbeat, less focused on sin; and so, out went the Cross. There was no need to do this, and it was an overreaction. At the Cross, the vertical, upward pillar of man’s pride and sin is transected by the horizontal, outstretched arms of God’s love. With strong hand and outstretched arms, the Lord has won the victory for us: there at the Cross where he took me in, glory to his name!

    The balance is both for the individual and for the Church. Some prefer a more somber meditation on the Cross to prevail, while others feel moved by the Spirit to celebrate joyfully at the foot of the Cross. The Church needs both. I suppose we all need some of both experiences. Yes, it is right to weep at the Cross, to behold the awful reality of sin, to remember Christ’s sacrifice; but we should rejoice, too, for the Lord has won the victory for us, right there: Down at the Cross. There’s a lot of good in Good Friday.

    Here is the song I heard that Sunday in 1994, sung in very much the style I remember.

    The post A Different Look at the Cross appeared first on Community in Mission.

  15. Site: southern orders
    2 weeks 4 days ago

     Why put something not needed in front of the altar to clutter it? It’s gimmickry! And an altar in front of an altar. Only one is needed and the hidden one preferred!


  16. Site: Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
    2 weeks 5 days ago

    Alex Schadenberg
    Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

    The Toronto Sun Editorial on Sunday April 6, 2025 concerned the UN Committee on the Rights of People with Disabilities report that urged the Canadian government to repeal Track 2 euthanasia (MAiD), including the planned 2027 expansion to persons whose “sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness,” and reject proposals to expand MAiD to “mature minors” and through advance requests.

    Article: United Nations Committee directs Canada to repeal Track 2 euthanasia deaths (Link).The Toronto Sun Editorial stated:

    Medical Assistance In Dying (MAID) legislation for so-called “Track 2” patients — those people whose condition is not terminal and whose natural death cannot be reasonably seen as occurring in the foreseeable future. Track 2 is aimed mostly at the disabled. It has been criticized as a state-sanctioned escape hatch through which the government can offer MAID to those with disabilities instead of offering them the support they need to participate in society. The UN report suggests they have been failed by health care, housing and social services and are not receiving adequate welfare and mental health supports.

    The Toronto Sun Editorial continues:

    ...When MAID was first introduced in 2016, it was seen as a humane way to help those who are terminally ill exit this world on their own terms, instead of prolonging their pain.

    When “reasonably foreseeable” was taken out of the equation, it opened a can of worms that cannot easily be closed. The committee also proposed that the federal government not expand MAID eligibility, as planned in 2027, to those whose sole underlying condition is mental illness. It also called for a ban on a plan to allow advanced planning for MAID for those suffering from Alzheimer’s disease or dementia.

    The Toronto Sun Editorial questions Track 2 deaths.

    Assisted death is not just a personal issue for the person who has decided to end his or her life. It raises issues for those in the health-care system who provide that service. It asks us to examine what kind of a society we are when we consider disabled people to be inconvenient and disposable rather than provide them with support and care. Mental illness need not be a death sentence. It can be treated.

    The Toronto Sun completed their Editorial by stating that: The next government must proceed with caution as it moves forward with MAID, but I suggest that the next government needs to do a complete review of Canada's euthanasia law.

    A complete review of Canada's euthanasia law has never happened.

     

  17. Site: Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
    2 weeks 5 days ago

    The following article was published by Not Dead Yet on March 24, 2025.

    By Ian McIntosh
    Interim Executive Director

    Out of nearly two thousand entries, 146 films were selected for the 2025 Slamdance Film Festival in Los Angeles. Disposable Humanity captured the Audience Award and received an Honorable Mention for the Slamdance Unstoppable Feature Grand Jury Prize.

    In Disposable Humanity, a profound, unforgettable documentary of historic disability injustice, Cameron Mitchell and his family guide the viewer down corridors of Nazi era eugenical horror into a past that many of us think we know but don’t.

    Tim Stainton, Director of the University of British Columbia’s Institute for Inclusion and Citizenship once called Canada’s eugenical descent into assisted suicide and euthanasia, “the biggest existential threat to disabled people since the Nazi’s program in Germany in the 1930s”.


    For anyone engaged in fighting health disparities and disability discrimination today, it becomes plain by the end of the film that the present-day creep of assisted suicide laws in America has an essential part of its ancestry rooted in the international ideas, language and maps of Aktion T4 – the Euthanasia Program of yesterday.

    In vivid sequence, Disposable Humanity bears witness to the philosophical underpinnings of The Final Solution through a primary disability lens. This moving, living memorial reminds us that without the initial unchallenged idea that disabled lives are lives worth less than others, over 300,000 lives might have been saved, and the Holocaust might have been just an exercise in exile, rather than extermination.

    Disposable Humanity is a production about, by and for people with disabilities and their families and friends and is essential viewing.

  18. Site: LES FEMMES - THE TRUTH
    2 weeks 5 days ago
    Author: noreply@blogger.com (Mary Ann Kreitzer)
  19. Site: southern orders
    2 weeks 5 days ago


    Let me say that I am not opposed to the organic development of the Liturgy. We would not have the 1962 Roman Missal if not for that organic development. 

    As I have written time and time again, Sacrosanctum Concilium gave a very conservative and sober direction to liturgical renewal. The Fathers of Vatican II were not out to destroy the Liturgy but to make the Mass better, without going backwards to the 2nd Century or forward to some unknown century.

    So with that said. I want to rant some more about some abysmal aspects of  state of the Modern Version of the Roman Rite Mass.  

    I've already ranted about the loss of the pre-Lenten season of Septuagesima. What was that worship committee thinking. They weren't!

    I've already ranted about the loss of the mandated propers, especially Entrance Chants, of the Roman Missal, so much so the wearing of Rose vestments on Guadete and Laetare Sundays makes no sense in the parishes that substitute something else in place of the official Introits of those Masses. What was that worship committee thinking? They weren't! 

    Now to cap off my rants about the Modern Mass idiocy (actually that dang worship committee that wasn't thinking) let me write about the 5th Sunday of Lent and the covering of statues. 

    Did your parish cover the crucifix and statues? Does anyone in the Modern Mass know why this is done?

    No they don't know why! The reason for this is that that dang worship committee in Rome, not thinking, changed the Gospel reading for the 5th Sunday of Lent, eliminating the Gospel of the TLM's lectionary altogether in order to provide three others. What was that worship committee thinking? They weren't!

    The TLM's Gospel for each and every 5th Sunday of Lent, known as Passion Sunday and the beginning of Passiontide, is from John 8:46-59. This is the last sentence of that Gospel and reason for covering the crucifix and statues. This says it all, but only a small minority of TLM Catholics heard this Gospel and thus understand why the crucifix and statues are covered. If this Gospel isn't used, it makes no sense to cover anything!!!!!

    "So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple".

     And not reading the TLM's Gospel for Passion Sunday removes the Passiontide designation for the last two weeks of Lent. There is only a remnant of that in the Modern Missal which for daily Mass requires that we begin to use the Passion Prefaces instead of the Lenten ones, but that isn't required on 5th Sunday of Lent in the Modern Mass or for Passion/Palm Sunday. What was that worship committee thinking? They weren't!

    I've already ranted about the elimination of so many private/devotional (but prescribed) prayers of the priest in the modern Missal. Oftentimes, the organic development of the Mass that admitted these now deleted prayers were not just for the priests' own piety, but they were of course, but to allow the liturgy be be celebrated in a way that things happening behind the priest could be carried out in the needed time allowed, especially think about the Suscipe after the Lavabo that gives the servers enough time to incense the congregation and return to the places or the Placeat prior to the final blessing that gives the laity a chance to kneel prior to the blessing. It all fits together, but now gone in the Modern Mass. 

     What was that worship committee thinking? They weren't!

     

  20. Site: PaulCraigRoberts.org
    2 weeks 5 days ago
    Author: pcr3

    TRUMP:  An Assessment After the First Quarter

    Paul Craig Roberts

    It is not a full quarter as his inauguration was 20 days into it, but it is the first quarter of 2025.  How does it look?

    Perhaps I can put it this way:  a lot of good initiatives undertaken in a haphazard way that could limit their effectiveness or even result in failure. I will use a few of Trump’s initiatives to illustrate my concern.  I will begin with Trump’s approach to ending the conflict in Ukraine.  Next I will examine Trump’s use of DOGE’s revelations about waste, fraud, and grift in the federal budget.  Then I will examine Trump’s approach to tariffs.

    President Trump has no stake in the conflict with Russia.  He is on record as stating that the conflict would not have occurred if his 2020 reelection had not been stolen by the Democrats, RINO Republicans such as Mitch McConnell, and the whore American media. Trump’s ability to extract the US from the conflict is greatly helped by the NY Times very long article, in my view written by the CIA as a confession, that from day one the conflict was one initiated by the United States against Russia with Russian defeat as its goal, with Ukrainian military action decided by Washington, including targets, weapons to be used, and targeting guidance of missile and drone attacks.  In other words, the conflict has been Washington’s attack on Russia, not Russia’s attack on Ukraine. The CIA’s confession in the NY Times is a statement that the CIA has admitted a failure and has withdrawn from the conflict.

    This paves the way for Trump to withdraw.  The conflict will end the minute that Trump tells Putin that he hasn’t a dog in the fight and is withdrawing the US from participation.  No more US weapons, money, US targeting information.  Total military and diplomatic withdrawal and removal of all sanctions, as they are conflict related and Washington is responsible for the conflict.

    This will leave the conflict where it belongs, not with Washington and NATO, but with Putin and whoever the Ukrainians elect to the office now in the hands of a person whose term has expired and who has no negotiating authority under the Ukrainian constitution.

    But Trump has not taken advantage this obvious way of ending the conflict. Instead, he has introduced extraneous elements into the negotiations such as Washington’s claim to Ukrainian rare earths as payment for the war aid given by the Biden regime.  Trump has also complicated the negotiations by denouncing Putin, who has kept the agreement, while defending Zelensky who has violated it 12 times according to news reports.  But according to the NY Times, as the war is conducted by Washington and NATO, not by Zelensky, how is Zelensky sending missiles into Russia without US or UK targeting services? Is the Pentagon and NATO carrying on a war that the US president opposes? If so, who is in charge?

    The Kremlin is also an obstacle to ending the conflict.  I have come to the conclusion, perhaps mistakenly, that Putin had no intention of winning the conflict, only of continuing it while expressing willingness to negotiate.  With who?  With the West.  What Putin and the Russian Establishment want is a new Yalta agreement. I learned this some years ago when I was invited to speak at a conference at the Russian Academy of Sciences about a Yalta agreement for our time.  I pointed out that the Zionist neoconservative policy as presented by Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was a policy of American hegemony, which is clearly prohibitive of a new Yalta agreement.  This was unwelcome information to the conference, and I was cut off. The conference monitor protected the Russian Academy of Sciences from reality.  Today as I read it, Russian analysis is largely self-deception.  Russian intellectuals are writing articles  promoting a new Yalta agreement. They are entertaining these hopes despite Britain and Europe preparing for war with Russia.

    DOGE was a great Trump/Musk invention. But its contribution to Trump’s program of American renewal has been largely squandered.  Trump should have held his horses and let DOGE provide more and more detailed evidence of the US budget used to promote ideological agendas and enrichment of insiders and favored people and groups.  With accumulated evidence, Trump should have addressed on national television the House and Senate  and presented the evidence that Democrats and Democrat-sponsored NGOs created fake entities to which grants were given by USAID, National Endowment for Democracy and other federal budgetary entities. The fake foundations then passed on the grants to legitimate foundations such as Rockefeller, Ford, Pew, et. al., and were then passed to the intended receivers, such as “news oganizations” that enforce the official narratives, NGOs that work to overthrow democratically elected governments, and into the personal accounts of Democrats, such as allegedly Chelsea Clinton to the tune of $84 million. 

    In his address Trump should have asked Congress what are we to do about this?  Shall we ignore and perpetuate the exploitation of the American taxpayer and their trust in their government, or shall we cease to use the budget in this way?  

    This would have given Trump the high ground. Instead, his piecemeal attacks have given the high ground to the “victims” of his budget cuts.

    If Trump had proceeded in a thoughtful organized way, the corrupt Democrat judges, not Trump, would be on the defensive.

    Trump’s position on tariffs is problematical for many reasons.  First, let me say that historically tariffs were a legislative issue.  The Morrill Tariff was voted by Congress. The Smith-Hawley Tariff was voted by Congress.  How is it that the executive is imposing tariffs?

    Assuming the president has this authority and assuming that we don’t have tariffs on others but others have tariffs on the US, the way to success is for Trump to sit down with the offenders and explain that the situation is not working for us. How do they propose to rectify the inequality?  This would have given Trump the upper hand.  Instead, he is portrayed as issuing threats not only to China but also to American allies. Retaliation has become the game, and this itself raises another serious consideration.

    With Wall Street predicting a recession caused by Trump’s tariffs, not by the tariffs of other countries, the Federal Reserve has cover to cause the predicted recession, and thereby, to restore Democrat majorities in the House and Senate in the midterm elections and terminate Trump’s renewal of America.

    The first time the American people tried to put Trump into the presidency, the chosen one did not know what he was doing and appointed his enemies to his government.  The second time, his election was stolen. The third time he behaves instinctively without thought and design and undermines his opportunity to succeed.

    Possibly the higher courts will overrule the lower courts which seem to be populated with an assembly of non-Americans recruited by Democrat DEI.   America now has federal district judges who are Japanese, Chinese, Arab, African, Hispanic, and LBGT+.  Once a country becomes a tower of babel, the country is lost.

    Can a lost country really be renewed?  Perhaps, but not by a haphazard approach to the task.

    For the Morrill Tariff see: https://www.timesexaminer.com/mike-scruggs/8856-the-morrill-tariff 

  21. Site: Public Discourse
    2 weeks 5 days ago
    Author: Daniel Ross Goodman

    The recent turmoil at Columbia University offers a stark lesson in the complexities of combating anti-Semitism in academia. On March 7, 2025, the Trump administration froze $400 million in federal grants to the university, citing its failure to curb rampant harassment of Jewish students—a move that underscored a genuine crisis but quickly spiraled into a broader controversy. Columbia’s interim president has since resigned amid backlash over concessions to federal demands, and a 2025 Anti-Defamation League (ADL) report has praised some of the university’s subsequent policy shifts, noting progress in protecting Jewish students. With the restoration of the $400 million appearing imminent, the saga reveals a deeper truth: sledgehammer-style approaches to holding universities accountable for their failures often punish the very communities they aim to protect. As a rabbi, a scholar of Jewish theology, and a former doctoral student who studied at Columbia, I see this moment as a call to rethink how we address anti-Semitism in higher education—not just at Columbia, but across institutions across the country, including Harvard, where a similar $8.7-billion funding probe looms.

    The Columbia Crisis: A Microcosm of a Larger Problem

    Columbia’s struggle with anti-Semitism is undeniable and distressing. Over the past seventeen months, Jewish students have faced harassment, intimidation, and even physical assaults tied to their identity or perceived support for Israel. Reports document incidents of verbal abuse and physical threats during campus protests, often met with tepid responses from university leadership. The ADL’s 2024 report criticized Columbia’s sluggish enforcement of its own anti-harassment policies, a failure that fueled the Trump administration’s drastic action. Yet, as the dust settles, the story has shifted: the 2025 ADL report highlights Columbia’s strides—stricter disciplinary measures, empowered campus security, and a restructured Middle East studies program—suggesting that targeted reforms can yield results. The impending restoration of funds further implies that accountability need not come at the expense of an institution’s academic ecosystem.

    This evolving situation at Columbia is a microcosm of a broader challenge. Universities are not just ideological battlegrounds; they are vital hubs of Jewish intellectual life. Columbia hosts a significant population of Jewish students, graduate instructors, and professors, many of whom rely on federal grants to pursue groundbreaking work in fields from science to the humanities. The Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies, for instance, advances scholarship on Jewish history and culture, while the nearby Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS), where I studied as a doctoral candidate, depends on its partnership with Columbia for research access. When the federal government slashed $400 million in funding from Columbia, it didn’t just target negligent administrators—it threatened the livelihoods of Jewish scholars already navigating a hostile environment. Now, as Harvard faces a parallel possible loss of $8.7 billion in grants, we must ask: why do these blunt interventions so often risk collateral damage to the communities they intend to shield?

    The Perils of the Sledgehammer Approach

    The impulse to wield federal power against universities that fail to protect Jewish students is understandable. Anti-Semitism is a scourge that demands a robust response, particularly in academia, where young minds are shaped and social norms are contested. Columbia’s selective enforcement of its policies—allowing harassment and intimidation to fester—mirrors a troubling pattern seen at other institutions. Harvard, too, has drawn scrutiny for its handling of anti-Semitic incidents, prompting the Trump administration’s task force to escalate its oversight. These failures are indefensible, and the frustration of Jewish students and their advocates is palpable. But broad funding freezes, like those imposed on Columbia or threatened at Harvard, are less a scalpel and more a sledgehammer—indiscriminate tools that can undermine the very Jewish academic life they aim to bolster.

    Consider the Jewish graduate student at Columbia, painstakingly researching medieval Jewish texts, or the professor at Harvard whose grant-supported work counters anti-Semitic narratives through rigorous inquiry. Picture JTS students studying in Columbia’s libraries, as I did for several years, or Harvard’s Jewish studies scholars collaborating across disciplines—only to find their projects stalled by funding cuts triggered by administrative shortcomings beyond their control. This isn’t justice; it’s punishment. Jewish student organizations, often underfunded and overstretched, rely on university resources to create safe spaces amid campus tensions. When funds are slashed en masse, these lifelines weaken, making it harder for Jewish students to thrive in already challenging environments. The irony is stark: policies meant to combat anti-Semitism can inadvertently dim the intellectual lights that Jewish scholars keep burning.

    Precision over Punishment: A Better Path Forward

    The fight against anti-Semitism in academia requires precision, not broad strokes. Universities must be held accountable for enforcing their codes of conduct; harassment, intimidation, or violence targeting Jewish students (or any group) should trigger clear consequences, from suspension to expulsion, scaled to the offense. Columbia’s recent reforms show that targeted accountability works; empowering campus security and tightening disciplinary processes can shift the climate without destabilizing the institution. Yet the initial funding freeze risked derailing this progress, just as Harvard’s probe could disrupt its Jewish studies programs if it follows the same playbook. The lesson is clear: the government’s role is to ensure that universities address actionable conduct—not to police offensive speech or dismantle academic ecosystems.

    The fight against anti-Semitism in academia requires precision, not broad strokes.

    Distinguishing between protected expression and discriminatory behavior is crucial. Protests or classroom rhetoric may veer into inflammatory territory, but universities must tackle what crosses the line into harassment or exclusion, not merely what offends. Federal oversight could tie funding to specific, measurable reforms—stricter policy enforcement, regular campus climate reports, or transparent disciplinary outcomes—without jeopardizing the resources Jewish scholars depend on. Such an approach signals that selective enforcement carries a cost, while preserving the infrastructure of Jewish academic life. Columbia’s turnaround, spurred by pressure but refined through negotiation, suggests this balance is achievable. Harvard could follow suit, avoiding the pitfalls of a blanket cut.

    A Legacy Worth Building

    As someone who has walked Columbia’s halls and relied on its resources during my doctoral studies at JTS, I know the value of these academic ecosystems firsthand. My book, Soloveitchik’s Children, grew from research enabled by Columbia’s libraries and faculty; it represented an endeavor that reflects the broader contributions of Jewish scholars across institutions. Harvard’s Jewish community, too, thrives on similar support, driving scholarship that shapes our understanding of history and identity. When we punish universities with a heavy hand, we risk eroding these contributions, not just for today’s students but for generations to come.

    The Columbia saga—and the looming Harvard probe—should prompt a broader reflection. Sledgehammer approaches fail Jewish students because they conflate accountability with retribution, often leaving the innocent to bear the brunt of the fallout, like blameless bystanders caught in crossfire. Anti-Semitism must be uprooted, not just penalized, and that demands strategies that protect rather than imperil Jewish academic life. A policy that balances targeted reform with sustained support sends a powerful message: discriminatory conduct will not be tolerated, nor will the erosion of the intellectual spaces where Jewish students and scholars flourish. That’s a legacy worth building—one that honors the fight against anti-Semitism without sacrificing the community it seeks to defend.

    Image by worldwidephotoweb and licensed via Adobe Stock.

  22. Site: Edward Feser
    2 weeks 5 days ago

    Pride, as Aquinas defines it in De Malo, is “the inordinate desire for pre-eminence” (Question 8, Article 2). With Augustine and the Christian tradition in general, he teaches that it is “the greatest sin” and indeed “the root and queen of all sins.” Its immediate effect is “vainglory,” which is the vice of habitually seeking to call attention to one’s own imagined excellence. And the daughters of vainglory, Aquinas tells us (Question 9, Article 3), are disobedience, boasting, hypocrisy (by which Aquinas means a tendency to magnify one’s glory by reference to “imaginary deeds”), contention, obstinacy, discord, and what he calls the “audacity for novelties” or predilection for bold actions that will call attention to oneself by bringing “astonishment” to others.

    Hence the marks of a prideful and vainglorious man are an unwillingness to submit himself to any higher authority (which would include prevailing laws and norms); habitual braggadocio and bombastic speech; exaggeration and lying about his achievements; being obnoxiously quarrelsome; stubborn attachment to his own opinions in the face of all evidence and superior counterarguments; and a taste for doing things that are shocking and unexpected.

    It stands to reason that a prideful and vainglorious man is bound to be polarizing. On the one hand, his fundamental motivations are to attain pre-eminence, and to do so by drawing attention to his imagined excellence. If he is good at this, then naturally, he is going to gain a following of some kind. On the other hand, pride and vainglory are objectively ugly character traits, as the daughters of vainglory make evident and as one would expect from the fact that pride is the worst of sins. Hence, people who see through a proud and vainglorious man’s charade are naturally going to be repulsed by him, especially if they have decent instincts. 

    The Christian tradition has, after all, held that pride is the characteristic sin of the devil and of antichrist.  It is also the characteristic sin of the tyrant, who on Plato’s analysis is a consummate narcissist, and who in the political philosophy of Aristotle and Aquinas is defined as the ruler who governs a polity for the sake of his own good rather than for the common good. There are no villains more repulsive than the devil, the antichrist, and tyrants. And yet in all three cases we have figures who draw many to them. “Satan disguises himself as an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14). It is no wonder that lesser malign figures – prideful and vainglorious politicians, business leaders, sports stars, entertainers, public intellectuals, and so on – attract many people even as they repulse others.

    Aquinas also teaches in De Malo that “pride extinguishes all the virtues and weakens all the powers of the soul.” It is not hard to see how this would be so. If a prideful man is by nature insubordinate, he is not likely to subordinate himself to moral restraints. He may exhibit counterfeits of certain virtues, if that would aid in leading others to perceive him as having excellence.  He also may have a certain cleverness or cunning in achieving his ends.  But it will not be true wisdom, because that requires seeing things as they really are, and his narcissism prevents that. He will have allies and sycophants, but is unlikely to have true friends, because he will ultimately sacrifice the good of others for the sake of his own good. He may have a certain boldness, but he will not have true courage, because his boldness does not serve the true and the good, but only himself.  And so on.

    Scripture famously teaches that “pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18). But even apart from scripture, everyone knows this from experience. Or almost everyone, because the prideful man himself does not see it. Nor do those in thrall to him, since they labor under the same delusion about his supposed excellence as he does. It goes without saying that the greater the following a prideful man has, or the larger the community over which he has authority, the greater will be his fall, and theirs.

  23. Site: LES FEMMES - THE TRUTH
    2 weeks 5 days ago
    Author: noreply@blogger.com (Mary Ann Kreitzer)
  24. Site: PaulCraigRoberts.org
    2 weeks 6 days ago
    Author: pcr3

    Will the West’s Paranoia of Russia Destroy the World?

    Paul Craig Roberts 

    Do you remember the James Bond film in which a deranged Soviet General wanted to launch a nuclear war, or Dr. Strangelove, an American deranged general who wanted to do the same?  Well, Dr. Strangelove is still with us, but he is no longer considered insane.

    In today’s Pentagon spreading nuclear weapons among allies who lack them in order to conduct an even larger nuclear war is just good war planning. On April 1, and unfortunately it wasn’t an April Fool’s joke, the nominee as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dan Caine, said that the United States was ready to consider entering into nuclear sharing agreements with more of the country’s NATO allies. “From a military perspective, expanding NATO allies’ participation in the nuclear deterrence mission in some capacity would enhance flexibility, survivability, and military capability. If confirmed, I will work… to evaluate the cost/benefit of such a decision.” https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/next-pentagon-chief-confirms-willingness-provide-more-allies-nuclear-attack 

    The nominee said that another benefit of providing nuclear weapons to NATO members who don’t have them is to prevent nuclear proliferation resulting from acquiring them on their own. If too many of our allies have the weapons, the US would not be able to manage the escalation risk.

    What Caine said makes sense.  We do not want Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, or Poland launching a nuclear war.  

    But what this common sense hides is the absurdity of “managing nuclear war.”

    There is a consensus, or close to one, that nuclear war would be lethal to life on the planet.  It calls to mind the novel, A Canticle for Leibowitz, with the spaceship loading with human, animal, and plant life for a distant planet in a short period of time remaining prior to nuclear armageddon on earth.

    It is, of course, the Pentagon’s job to be prepared for war.  But as the war the Pentagon is preparing for is unwinnable, why not attempt to prepare for peace?  What cause is worth fighting for it if results in the death of planet Earth?

    These thoughts entered the mind of President John F. Kennedy.  JFK had campaigned as a Cold Warrior proclaiming a “missile gap.”  Somehow President Eisenhower, World War II hero and 5-star general had let the Soviets get ahead of us.  Kennedy was rescued from his delusion by the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Bay of Pigs.  He refused the request to allow the US Air Force to support the CIA’s Cuban refugee army’s invasion of Cuba. He refused the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s “Northwoods Project” ( https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf ), which called for the US Air Force to shoot down US passenger airliners, staff boats of refugees from Cuba to Florida, and kill Americans on the streets of Miami and Washington, D.C., and blame Castro as justification for a US invasion of Cuba. He rejected the Joint Chiefs of Staff plan for nuclear attack on the Soviet Union.  All of this information is publicly available, but few are aware of it.

    Kennedy worked behind the scenes with Soviet leader Khrushchev to defuse the dangerous situation.  Instead of recognizing Kennedy’s leadership, the US military/security complex saw Kennedy as “soft on communism,” a traitor-in-the-making to America who had to be removed from office.  As Kennedy was popular, assassination was the solution.

    I agree with James Douglas, Oliver Stone, and all the rest that Kennedy was murdered by the US Security State.  Where I depart from them is over whether it should have been revealed or covered up.  Here facts are not the issue, just judgment, and judgment is not infallible.

    I do not believe that anyone on the Warren Commission believed the report.  The entire purpose of the report was to protect the American public from losing confidence in their own government in the midst of a dangerous Cold War with a nuclear-armed opponent in the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis and Bay of Pigs. With the balance of power in the world at stake, the United States would have been harmed by official admission that the security agencies of the US government had assassinated its own president.

    I agree that today six decades after JFK’s assassination, the truth, long proven by independent investigators, could be officially recognized, and perhaps it will be.

    What I will address instead is how the truth could have presented in 1963 if only the American government were up to the task.

    Once sworn in, Lyndon Johnson could have said something along the following lines:

    “Dear fellow Americans, Our inordinate paranoia, our fear, of the Soviet Union has resulted in our President’s death at the hands of the CIA, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Secret Service, because President Kennedy’s efforts to reduce the tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union that very recently brought the world close to nuclear war were misperceived by our protective agencies as a sign of dangerous and unwarranted trust in our enemy that left us exposed to nuclear attack. President Kennedy was seen as soft on Communism and possibly a traitor. 

    “The fault is not in the CIA and the Joint Chiefs.  The fault is in the Cold War and the deployment of immensely destructive nuclear weapons.  This threat is real, and it must be eliminated.  Our most urgent task is not to prosecute our protective agencies for their misjudgment but to terminate the Cold War and ban the existence of nuclear weapons. Our challenge is to learn how to get along, not how to kill one another.  The tragedy and our grief over our President’s assassination is the fruit of our own paranoia.  Our job is to substitute mutual understaffing and trust for fear and mistrust.  If not, sooner or later the disastrous weapons will be used.”

    Nothing like this could happen, because too many people and interests had a stake in an ongoing conflict.  The assassination of JFK put Johnson in the presidency.  It benefitted the power and budget of the military/security complex by blaming the assassination on Oswald, a Soviet agent.  For the Joint Chiefs and the CIA that was a wonderful outcome.  What did they have to gain from Johnson telling the truth and continuing Kennedy’s efforts to reduce hysteria and threats?  When vision was needed, it wasn’t there.

    Most disasters in history result from people being incapable of making the right decisions.  Today it is Trump and Putin who are being tested.  How much confidence can we have in either?

  25. Site: PaulCraigRoberts.org
    2 weeks 6 days ago
    Author: pcr3

    The Establishment is using Trump’s tariffs to set him up for their recession that will give Democrats control of Congress 

    https://www.rt.com/business/615277-jpmorgan-global-recession-alarm/

  26. Site: PaulCraigRoberts.org
    2 weeks 6 days ago
    Author: pcr3

    Does Supreme Court Justice John Roberts Have a Conflict of Interest?

    If this report is correct, anti-Trump lawfare operative Norm Eisen is a good friend of Justice John Roberts who is presiding over Eisen’s cases designed to block Trump’s renewal of America.  Eisen is substituting his opinions in place of the opinions of voters in a democratic election.  Eisen is Jewish, but Trump remains in the Israel Lobby’s pocket.  Apparently, Zionists think they have so much control over the US that they don’t need Trump.

    https://revolver.news/2025/04/resign-justice-roberts-secret-friendship-with-norm-eisen-has-been-revealed/ 

  27. Site: PaulCraigRoberts.org
    2 weeks 6 days ago
    Author: pcr3

    Russian intellectuals continue to deceive themselves and the Russian government with hopes for a new Yalta agreement

    https://www.rt.com/russia/615248-from-yalta-to-today/

  28. Site: PaulCraigRoberts.org
    2 weeks 6 days ago
    Author: pcr3

    We good democratic Americans have enabled Israel to destroy an entire people

    https://x.com/nada_chehade_/status/1907923803608592595 

  29. Site: PaulCraigRoberts.org
    2 weeks 6 days ago
    Author: pcr3

    In the EU a country’s voting rights depend on how it votes

    https://www.rt.com/news/615280-eu-strip-hungary-voting-rights/

  30. Site: PaulCraigRoberts.org
    2 weeks 6 days ago
    Author: pcr3

    Moldova joins the anti-democratic movement

    The failure of democracy in Europe is almost complete.

    https://www.rt.com/russia/615211-democracy-in-name-only/ 

  31. Site: Vox Cantoris
    2 weeks 6 days ago
    Originally published in 2016.
    Today is the Fifth Sunday of Lent which begins Passiontide. If one attends Mass strictly in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite it is not generally apparent having been done away with as a time within Lent. In the traditional calendar, it is called the First Sunday of the Passion with the colloquial Palm Sunday being the Second Sunday of the Passion. There is a further stripping away of liturgical elements and embellishments which began at Septuagesima, 

    From First Vespers last night until the Paschal Vigil, the Gloria Patri is not said after the Asperges on Passion Sunday or the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, Introit, Lavabo, and Communion Antiphonal Psalms. In the Office, it is eliminated from some of the Verses and Short Responsories. Jesus is losing his earthly glory. The readings and psalm antiphons reflect this in the Mass and Office. Those who hate him are now plentiful, as plentiful now, as when he walked. Those who seek his death are now coming to the fore. Those who seek the death of His Church are coming to the fore and are also within Her. Lent now takes a change in focus; -- while our penance continues, we now shift towards the passion of Our Blessed Lord and his saving work of redemption.

    Abbot Gueranger writes:
    "During the preceding four weeks, we have noticed how the malice of Jesus' enemies has been gradually increasing. His very presence irritates them; and it is evident that any little circumstance will suffice to bring the deep and long-nurtured hatred to a head." His passion then has begun. His glory, as at Mount Tabor, is no longer apparent.

    There is one element that remains in the modernist liturgy depending on the parish's own tradition. While it was once obligatory it is now optional and that is the veiling of the Crucifix and statues, though not Stations of the Cross or the imagery in windows. 

    Veiling of ImagesBut why? From whence does this tradition come? 

    It is thought to have begun around the 9th century in Germany. When Lent began (which in most languages is a derivative of Quadregesimae, the Latin for forty days), a cloth called a hungertuch, or hunger cloth, was used to cover the altar. It was removed on the Tuesday of Holy Week during the reading of the Passion according to St. Mark when “The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.” The Gospels in the three-year cycle in the New Lectionary do not reflect the symbolism and beauty of Passiontide and the veiling. They are all from St. John’s Gospel and are in sequence – “I am the Resurrection and the Life;” … “If a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it bears much fruit;” and, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”

    The change from the one-year Lectionary, in place from St. Gregory the Great, was a grievous error. The desires of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council could have been achieved without the assault on the whole Church tradition of readings. A Lesson could have been added to the Sunday liturgy. Weekdays could have had their own Mass texts whilst still acknowledging the Sanctoral cycle. Interestingly, the Advent readings in the new Lectionary are beautiful and are the one thing that perhaps, one day, be inserted into the old Lectionary.  could have had its own lectionary as in Lent in the traditional rite. The three-year Lectionary remains a problem. Mass is not a bible study and what is lost in the reading below is quite profound, as you will soon comprehend.

    For the Mass on the Fifth Sunday of Lent according to the ancient use Roman Missal, the Gospel for no less than 1600 years until 1969 has been the following and it explains the veiling and why they killed Him.

    GOSPEL ¤ John 8. 46-59 † A continuation of the holy Gospel according to St. John. At that time Jesus said to the multitudes of the Jews: Which of you shall convince Me of sin? If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe Me? He that is of God heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God. The Jews therefore answered and said to Him: Do not we say well, that Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? Jesus answered: I have not a devil: but I honor My Father, and you have dishonored Me. But I seek not My own glory: there is One that seeketh and judgeth. Amen, amen, I say to you: If any man keep My word, he shall not see death for ever. The Jews therefore said: Now we know that Thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the Prophets: and Thou sayest: If any man keep My word, he shall not taste death for ever. Art Thou greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? and the prophets are dead. Whom dost Thou make Thyself? Jesus answered: If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing: it is My Father that glorifieth Me, of whom you say that He is your God, and you have not known Him: but I know Him: and if I shall say that I know Him not, I shall be like to you, a liar. But I do know Him, and do keep His word. Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see My day: he saw it and was glad. The Jews therefore said to Him: Thou art not yet fifty years old: and hast Thou seen Abraham? Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am. They took up stones therefore to cast at Him: but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple.

    “But Jesus hid Himself.”

    St. Augustine said that at this moment by virtue of His divine nature, Jesus became literally invisible.
    “He hides not himself in a corner of the temple as if afraid or running into a cottage or turning aside behind a wall or column; but by His Divine Power making Himself invisible he passed through their midst.”

    In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we read the following:
    205 God calls Moses from the midst of a bush that burns without being consumed: "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob."9 God is the God of the fathers, the One who had called and guided the patriarchs in their wanderings. He is the faithful and compassionate God who remembers them and his promises; he comes to free their descendants from slavery. He is the God who, from beyond space and time, can do this and wills to do it, the God who will put his almighty power to work for this plan.
    "I Am who Am"
    Moses said to God, "If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you', and they ask me, 'What is his name?' what shall I say to them?" God said to Moses, "I AM WHO AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you'. . . this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations."
    Moses and the Burning Bush DBouts.jpg

    CCC 206 In revealing his mysterious name, YHWH ("I AM HE WHO IS", "I AM WHO AM" or "I AM WHO I AM"), God says who he is and by what name he is to be called. This divine name is mysterious just as God is mystery. It is at once a name revealed and something like the refusal of a name, and hence it better expresses God as what he is - infinitely above everything that we can understand or say: he is the "hidden God", his name is ineffable, and he is the God who makes himself close to men. CCC 207 By revealing his name God at the same time reveals his faithfulness which is from everlasting to everlasting, valid for the past ("I am the God of your father"), as for the future ("I will be with you").12 God, who reveals his name as "I AM", reveals himself as the God who is always there, present to his people in order to save them. CCC 208 Faced with God's fascinating and mysterious presence, man discovers his own insignificance. Before the burning bush, Moses takes off his sandals and veils his face in the presence of God's holiness.13 Before the glory of the thrice-holy God, Isaiah cries out: "Woe is me! I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips."14 Before the divine signs wrought by Jesus, Peter exclaims: "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord."15 But because God is holy, he can forgive the man who realizes that he is a sinner before him: "I will not execute my fierce anger. . . for I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst."16 The apostle John says likewise: "We shall. . . reassure our hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything."

    Jesus revealed to the Temple authorities, the leadership of Israel, who He was. He knew Abraham and did so in such a way that they would know with absolute clarity who He was. He had done it before, seven times.

    1. I Am the Bread of Life: (John 6). 

    2. I Am the Light of the World: (John 8). 

    3. I Am the Gate of the Sheepfold: (John 10). 

    4. I Am the Good Shepherd: (John 10). 

    5. I Am the Resurrection and the Life: (John 11). 

    6. I Am the Way, Truth, and Life: (John 14). 

    7. I Am the True Vine: (John 15).

    Note that Jesus, when the Jews questioned his age and Abraham, he did not say, "Before Abraham was made, I was made." Had he said this, they would have just thought him delusional. Rather, He said, "Before Abraham was made, I AM." They knew exactly what He meant. 

    Now, he is hidden in our churches and chapels only to be unveiled when we recall His Crucifixion -- "Ecce lignum Crucis," -- "Behold the wood of the Cross on which hung the Saviour of the world, come let us adore him." If we hide Him we cannot abide the glory of His saints, therefore, they are also hidden. Christ is shamed. He is humiliated by those whom he came to save. The Jewish "deep state" betrayed Him, and we continue to betray Him today.

    He declared Himself before all Israel to be the I AM of the Burning Bush; and for this, they would kill Him. They knew what He said, they knew what He meant. He confessed to them that he was the very Son of God, the very God Himself come to earth.

    In the sermon below from 1846, we find an incredible dissertation on Jesus hiding Himself.  It is a sermon by an Anglican, but one would be hard-pressed to find a better sermon or homily said today on the subject from a typical Catholic pulpit. This was a period that led Saint John-Henry Newman home.

    Would that we could hear preaching like this today.

    Vox.

    + + +

    SERMONS FOR SUNDAYS AND OTHER LITURGICAL OCCASIONS

    CONTRIBUTED BY
    BISHOPS AND OTHER CLERGY OF THE CHURCH.
    EDITED BY THE REV. ALEXANDER WATSON, M.A., 
    CURATE OF ST. JOHN'S, CHELTENHAM.
    Second Series.  VOL. I.
    OXFORD: J. H. PARKER. CAMBRIDGE: T. GREEN.
    MDCCCXLVI. (1846)

    Then took they up stones to cast at Him."

    Thus are we brought down from the whole Gospel for the day to that portion of it which will engage our chief attention during the brief remainder of this morning's service. "But Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the Temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by."

    1. Jesus "hid Himself," as man, in prudence: according to the will of His Heavenly Father. As He had been born in "the fullness of time," so it was at an appointed hour that He was to die. But "His hour was not yet come ": and He therefore avoided whatever might unduly quicken the course of events, or put forward the grand horologe of time. And this He did in obedience to the Will of His Heavenly Father. This obedience was the mainspring of His conduct throughout His earthly sojourn. "Lo I come to do Thy will, O God," was His motto from first to last; and never was it more fully translated into action than in all He did with regard to His final suffering and departure.

    When that hour of mingled humiliation and glory, which compressed eternal interests within the compass of a few passing minutes; when that everlasting hour arrived, the holy and obedient Jesus yielded Himself at once into the power of His enemies. Thus, when Satan had entered into Judas Iscariot, Jesus said to the traitor, "What thou doest, do quickly." When Judas came to Him in the garden with men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, "Jesus, knowing all things that should come upon Him, went forth and said unto them, Whom seek ye? They answered Him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus said unto them, I am He." And when the impetuous Peter—the first to defend, the first to deny his Master—drew his sword and cut oft" the right ear of Malchus, the High Priest's servant, "then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He shall presently give Me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?" When Pilate would fain have released Him, and sought for some pretext for so doing in the replies of Jesus to his interrogatories, "Jesus gave him no answer." And at the last, when He saw that all was "finished,"—prophecy fulfilled, types realised, the preparations for His sacrificial Death complete, His Father's will wrought out,—He bowed His head, and gave up the ghost."

    But until the arrival of that hour, His conduct was marked throughout by unexampled prudence. While He wrought His miracles before the multitude, and taught openly in the Temple, and in secret did nothing; while He boldly confuted and reproved the Pharisee, the Sadducee, and the Herodian, regardless of the enmity He thereby incurred; He carefully shunned the precipitation of His end. He had a mission of vast pregnancy and moment to discharge; and until this was done, He would not lay down that life which the Father had put into His power. Whenever danger became imminent, He withdrew Himself from the presence of those who sought to lay hands on Him and destroy Him. Thus, on the occasion immediately before us, when the infuriated Jews took up stones to cast at Him, "Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the Temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by." 

    On a previous occasion, when the Pharisees held a council how they might destroy Him, Jesus “withdrew Himself from thence." On a subsequent occasion, similar to that of the text, when the Jews again sought to take Him, "he escaped out of their hand, and went away again beyond Jordan." When the Sanhedrim, after the official prophecy of the unconscious Caiaphas, took counsel together to put Him to death, "Jesus walked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with His disciples." Thus, throughout His whole earthly career, our Blessed Lord exercised a prudence of the highest order; enforcing by His own example the precepts He gave to His first disciples: "Be ye wise as serpents, and harmless as doves ;"—" When they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another ." And these precepts, supported by this supreme example, and adapted to the exigencies of Christians at the present day, apply also to us. "As men may not be too tenacious, so neither may they be too profuse and lavish of life and the comforts of it," says Dean Stanhope; "lest, besides their present hardships, they find at last an indiscreet zeal returned, with a 'Who hath required these things at your hands?' Love indeed is apt and desirous to give over-measure, where it can: but still this must not be the effect of passion alone. Prudence should temper and direct it." 

    "It is an office of prudence," says Bishop Taylor, "to serve God So that we may at the same time preserve our lives and our estates, our interest and reputation, for ourselves and our relations, so far as they can consist together. For Christian religion, carrying us to heaven, does it by the ways of a man; and by the body it serves the soul, as by the soul it serves God; and therefore it endeavours to secure the body and its interest, that it may continue the opportunities of a crown, and prolong the stage in which we are to run for the mighty prize of our salvation; and this is that part of prudence which is the defensative and guard of a Christian in the time of persecution: and it hath in it much of duty."

    Thus far we have endeavoured to consider the conduct of our Blessed Lord, on the occasion under review, on its human side; as an exhibition of prudence and discretion. But it has a sublimer aspect than this; to which we now with reverence will turn.

    Jesus “hid Himself," as God, in majesty; the majesty of displeasure. "He did not hide Himself," says St. Augustine, "in a corner of the Temple, as if He were afraid; or take refuge in a house, or run behind a wall, or a pillar; but, by His heavenly power making Himself invisible to His enemies, He went through the midst of them." Just before, He had said, "Before Abraham was I Am"; with evident reference to the Name revealed by the Lord to Moses, as recorded in the First Lesson for this morning's service; when He appeared to him in the burning but unconsumed bush, as he was keeping the flock of Jethro, the Priest of Midian, near the base of Mount Horeb. On that occasion, when Moses would have drawn nigh to see that great sight, the Lord forbad his nearer approach, and commanded him to unsandal his feet, because they were standing on holy ground. He, who required this reverence towards an inferior manifestation of Himself, would not permit the rude hand of violence to invade His incarnate glory. He "hid Himself" in the secret depths of His invisible Godhead.

    There is, doubtless, a mystery in this; and we cannot fully understand why He, who submitted on so many occasions to endure the contradiction of sinners against Himself, refused on other occasions to undergo the indignities that wicked hands would have put upon Him. But a like mystery invested the whole of His earthly career. The darkest shades of humiliation were never permitted altogether to obscure His glory; while yet, that glory was so far hidden, that men despised Him and esteemed Him not. Great, however, as was the mystery of His commingling of glory and shame, the mystery of the manifestation of His glory alone was greater. He might have flashed forth devouring lightnings from the dark and surcharged cloud. He might have kindled into supernatural and overwhelming brightness the splendours of His Divine and resistless Presence. But He did none of these things. He manifested forth His glory by hiding Himself. When the Lord, in the days of old, would preserve righteous Lot and His prophet Elisha from the hand of violence, He smote their enemies with blindness; and so He might have done on this occasion: but, as the threatened indignity was greater, so was the punishment wherewith He visited it. "He hid Himself."

    Awful are the exhibitions of Divine glory, when the Lord is raised up out of His holy habitation, and comes forth from His unseen depths to punish the ungodly. But these are as nothing when compared with the hidings of His face. When the Lord would denounce the severest judgments against Israel of old, He said to Moses, "Mine anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?" And when, on the other hand, He would confer upon His repentant people the greatest possible blessing, He said by the mouth of Ezekiel, "Neither will I hide My face from them any more: for I have poured out My Spirit upon the house of Israel."

    The hidings of Jesus, in the days of His flesh, were yet more majestic and awful. He came into the world for the express purpose, among others, of manifesting the glory and the grace of God: so that to hide Himself was, as it were, to revoke His mission with regard to those from whom He thus withdrew. He abandoned them to the evil of their own hardened and unbelieving hearts, and left them to be filled with their own ways.

    It is impossible to conceive anything more dreadful than the condition of the man from whom Jesus has hid Himself. Such a man sinks at once into a state of moral stupidity: he sins on without aim or purpose. Until Jesus hid Himself, the unbelieving Jews had an object against which to direct their malignant attacks; but when He could be no longer seen, their malice, though as virulent as ever, became wholly impotent and senseless. And so, when Jesus hides Himself from sinners of the present day,—who insult His majesty because it is concealed to the-eye of sense or mere reason (though not to the eye of faith), beneath mean and simple accidents,—He leaves them to perish as brute beasts. The force of argument and moral suasion having been tried upon them in vain, together with all other manifestations of the true and holy Jesus, He will no longer expose Himself to the rash temerity and blinded insolence of their invasions, but hides Himself, going through the midst of them, and so passes by.

    The abstract contemplation of such a subject is too awful for man to dwell upon at any length; and we will therefore now consider it, (so hastening to a conclusion,) under its practical aspects and bearings.

    But is it possible, men may ask, for persons at the present day to commit acts of insult and injury towards the Divine Jesus, akin to that of the blaspheming Jews when they took up stones to cast at Him? Alas, it is but too possible. "Certainly we cannot commit such open blasphemy; but it is another matter whether we cannot commit as great. For, often sins are greater, which are less startling; insults more bitter, which are not so loud; and evils deeper, which are more subtle." Although Christ is no longer on earth in bodily presence, He is here by His Spirit: and it is quite possible for men to repeat the offence of the blaspheming Jews by casting stones, so to speak, against either the Church, which is His Body; or the Sacraments, which are His Presence; or the Poor, who are His Brethren.

    The Church is the Body of Christ, "the fullness of Him That filleth all in all:" and they who resist or blaspheme or persecute Her, do in effect resist and blaspheme and persecute Him. And such are not only, nor even chiefly, the openly wicked and profane; whose offences are of a different description: but those who deny the Divine authority of the Church, rejecting her principles for the opinions of men and the maxims of the world; those who deny her Apostolicity, treating her as a merely human and secular institution; those who invade her constitution, legislating for her on grounds of political expediency, and not according to the laws of Christ. "Verily, I say unto you, they have their reward." They refuse to acknowledge the Body of Christ in His corporate members; and He hides it from them. They are no longer permitted to behold the tokens of her presence. She becomes to them what they would have her be. In their eyes she has no form nor comeliness, although she is all-glorious within. But with these hidings of her beauty and this withdrawal of her presence, there comes not only an apparent abdication of her authority; leaving men to live as they list, according to the broad measures of the world, instead of the straight and narrow lines of eternity: but also the utter loss of her intercession and benediction. She no longer stands between the living and the dead. A silent curse spreads over the land she has abandoned to itself. The rulers have forsaken Christ, and Christ has forsaken them. The people would have it so, and their house is left unto them desolate.

    "Be wise now, therefore, O ye kings:
    Be learned, ye that judges of the earth.
    Kiss the Son, lest He be angry,
    And so ye perish from the right way,
    If His wrath be kindled, yea but a little.
    Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him."

    Again, the Sacraments are the Presence of Christ. In the Sacrament of Holy Baptism, He is present by His Spirit, Who, in answer to the prayers of the congregation, is given by our Heavenly Father to infants, when baptized, that they may be born again and be made heirs of everlasting salvation. In the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, He is really and spiritually present, being taken and received by the faithful as their heavenly food and divine life. 

    Whoever, therefore, despises the Sacraments, despises Christ. Whoever denies their saving power, denies the Presence of the Saviour in them. Whoever in effect casts stones at these, as by cavils or contumely or neglect, does in reality thus cast stones at Christ. And then does the Son of God hide Himself from them in the majesty of displeasure; and Sacraments become to these persons what, in their rationalistic unbelief, they would have them be. 

    Baptism, when administered by schismatics and pretenders to Holy Orders, fails to regenerate; and their own theory, that Baptism admits only to an outward union with a nominal church, is, in their own case, verified. The Communion is reduced to a formal commemoration of an absent Saviour. In both cases, as regards their own mere outward show of Sacraments, they are right. They have taken up stones to cast at the spiritually-present Jesus; and He has hidden Himself, going through the midst of them, and so passing by.

    Lastly: the Poor are the Brethren of Jesus. They are so even in respect of their mere poverty; although it must not be concealed that the poor man who is a wilful sinner is severed from this communion and fellowship. But he, who is at once poor in this world and poor in spirit, is united by the closest bonds to the lowly Son of Mary. This is strikingly shown in the parable of the Sheep and the Goats, wherein the Judge declares that whatsoever is done unto the least of the Hungry, the Thirsty, the Stranger, the Naked, the Sick, the Imprisoned,—being "the poor of this world," but " rich in faith and heirs of the Kingdom," —is done unto Himself. Now, we all know how apt men are to "despise the poor." "There are kinds of distress founded on the passions, which, if not applauded, are at least admired in their excess, as implying a peculiar refinement of sensibility in the mind of the sufferer. 

    Embellished by taste, and wrought by the magic of genius into innumerable forms, they turn grief into a luxury, and draw from the eyes of millions delicious tears. But no muse ever ventured to adorn the distresses of poverty or the sorrows of hunger. Disgusting taste and delicacy, and presenting nothing pleasing to the imagination, they are mere misery in all its nakedness and deformity." And therefore the many "despise the Poor." But in so doing, they despise Christ; and what is their punishment in consequence? Jesus might rend aside the veil of His humanity, and reveal Himself as God. He might put off the sordid dress of poverty, and clothe Himself with light as with a garment. But He inflicts a severer punishment than this—He hides Himself. The Poor no longer visibly bear upon them "the marks of the Lord Jesus "; and secular legislation, at once blind and self-confident, sets itself to relieve their distress by increasing their degradation. It brands the Poor Man as a Pauper, and consigns him to contempt and shame. Jesus has hidden Himself in majestic displeasure: and men of the world little dream that He will reveal Himself again at the Last Day, and avenge the cause of the poor and the oppressed!

    "Oh, how much are they to be pitied, in whatever sphere they move, who live to themselves, unmindful of the coming of their Lord. When He shall come, and shall not keep silence; when a fire shall devour before Him, and it shall be very tempestuous round about Him; every thing, it is true, will combine to fill them with consternation: yet, methinks, neither the voice of the Archangel, nor the trump of God, nor the dissolution of the elements, nor the face of the Judge itself, from which the heavens will flee away, will be so dismaying and terrible to these men as the sight of the poor members of Christ; whom, having spurned and neglected in the days of their humiliation, they will then behold with amazement united to their Lord, covered with His glory, and seated on His throne! How will they be astonished to see them surrounded with so much majesty! How will they cast down their eyes in their presence! How will they curse that gold, which will then eat their flesh as with fire, and that avarice, that indolence, that voluptuousness, which will entitle them to so much misery! You will then learn that the imitation of Christ is the only wisdom: you will then be convinced it is better to be endeared to the cottage than admired in the palace; when to have wiped the tears of the afflicted, and inherited the prayers of the widow and the fatherless, shall be found a richer patrimony than the favour of princes."

    H. H.

  32. Site: Novus Ordo Watch
    2 weeks 6 days ago
    Author: admin

    Novus Ordo Watch on ‘akaCatholic Podcast’…

    The Pope and the Breviary: Response to Dr. Peter Kwasniewski (Video)

    Host Louie Verrecchio and guest Mario Derksen dismantled a recent article by Dr. Peter Kwasniewski

    On Mar. 26, 2025, Dr. Peter Kwasniewski published an article on the New Liturgical Movement site entitled, “Do Priests or Religious Need Special Permission to Pray a Pre-55 Breviary?”.

    In it, the author, who is a popular and prolific advocate of recognize-and-resist traditionalism, attempts to answer the question whether clerics who are required by canon law to pray daily the Roman Breviary (aka Divine Office, Liturgy of the Hours) may fulfill their obligation by using the Breviary edition from before 1955, that is, before Pope Pius XII simplified the rubrics for the Sacred Liturgy with the decree Cum Nostra Hac Aetate of the Sacred Congregation of Rites (Mar.… READ MORE

  33. Site: Novus Ordo Wire – Novus Ordo Watch
    2 weeks 6 days ago
    Author: admin

    Novus Ordo Watch on ‘akaCatholic Podcast’…

    The Pope and the Breviary: Response to Dr. Peter Kwasniewski (Video)

    Host Louie Verrecchio and guest Mario Derksen dismantled a recent article by Dr. Peter Kwasniewski

    On Mar. 26, 2025, Dr. Peter Kwasniewski published an article on the New Liturgical Movement site entitled, “Do Priests or Religious Need Special Permission to Pray a Pre-55 Breviary?”.

    In it, the author, who is a popular and prolific advocate of recognize-and-resist traditionalism, attempts to answer the question whether clerics who are required by canon law to pray daily the Roman Breviary (aka Divine Office, Liturgy of the Hours) may fulfill their obligation by using the Breviary edition from before 1955, that is, before Pope Pius XII simplified the rubrics for the Sacred Liturgy with the decree Cum Nostra Hac Aetate of the Sacred Congregation of Rites (Mar.… READ MORE

  34. Site: LES FEMMES - THE TRUTH
    3 weeks 1 hour ago
    Author: noreply@blogger.com (Mary Ann Kreitzer)
  35. Site: LES FEMMES - THE TRUTH
    3 weeks 3 hours ago
    Author: noreply@blogger.com (Mary Ann Kreitzer)
  36. Site: Steyn Online
    3 weeks 3 hours ago
    Welcome to the conclusion of our springtime Tale for Our Time: The Girl on the Boat by P G Wodehouse...
  37. Site: Real Jew News
    3 weeks 17 hours ago
    Author: Brother Nathanael

    Episode 76: Wrap Of The Week/font>
    April 4 2025

    ___________________________________
    More Vids!
    +BN Vids Archive! HERE!
    ___________________________________
    Support The Brother Nathanael Foundation!
    Br Nathanael Fnd Is Tax Exempt/EIN 27-2983459

    Secure Donation Form

    Or Send Your Contribution To:
    The Brother Nathanael Foundation, POB 547, Priest River, ID 83856
    E-mail: brothernathanaelfoundation([at])yahoo[dot]com
    Scroll Down For Comments

  38. Site: Restore-DC-Catholicism
    3 weeks 18 hours ago
    Author: noreply@blogger.com (Restore-DC-Catholicism)
  39. Site: Ron Paul Institute for Peace And Prosperity
    3 weeks 19 hours ago
    Author: Adam Dick

    Many actions associated with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have been met with support from advocates of reducing the size and power of the United States government. Spending has been halted, and US government employment rolls have been reduced. But, is this all leading to a real government reduction or, instead, are the American people being set up for a grand switcheroo?

    Notably, DOGE actions are not being codified via legislation to ensure they stick, even as these actions are challenged in court and judges strike them down. Rather, Congress has, with President Donald Trump’s strong support, kept spending on autopilot based on the course established in the previous presidential administration.

    The future looks, unfortunately for advocates of reduced government, like it will entail spending continuing at ever higher amounts, just overseen in significant part by replacement employees and contractors of the Trump administration’s choosing. In the mix there will be some winners and losers as policy alters, but the trajectory of US government size and power will continue upward and onward.

    An important question for advocates of reducing the size and power of the US government to ask at the end of each year of Trump’s presidency is if total real spending has decreased from during the preceding Joe Biden presidency. If the answer is “no,” then, while the US government may have become different, it would be hard to argue it has become smaller and less powerful.

    And watch out if government efficiency actually increases. As the old saying wisely advises, just be glad you’re not getting all the government you’re paying for.

  40. Site: Edward Feser
    3 weeks 19 hours ago

    Many are familiar with arguments to the effect that an infinite regress of causes is impossible, as Aquinas holds in several of his Five Ways of proving God’s existence.  Fewer correctly understand how the reasoning of such arguments is actually supposed to work in Scholastic writers like Aquinas.  Fewer still are aware that the basic structure of this sort of reasoning has parallels in other Scholastic regress arguments concerning the nature of mind, of knowledge, and of action.  Comparing these sorts of arguments can be illuminating.

    Causality

    In Aquinas’s First Way, he famously argues that it is impossible for there to be an infinite series of movers or changers, so that a regress of changers must terminate in a first unchanging changer.  As I’ve discussed in many places (such as at pp. 69-73 of my book Aquinas), Aquinas is not claiming here that no causal series of any kind can regress infinitely.  Rather, he has in mind a specific sort of causal series, which commentators sometimes call “essentially ordered series” and sometimes “hierarchical series.”

    He illustrates the idea with a stone which is moved by a stick which is in turn moved by a hand.  The stick moves the stone, but not by its own power.  By itself the stick would simply lay on the ground inertly.  It can move the stone only because the hand imparts to it the power to move it.  The hand too, of course, would be unable to move the stick (so that the stick in turn would be unable to move the stone) unless the person whose hand it is deliberately uses the hand to move it. 

    The technical way of putting the point is that the stick is a secondary cause in that it has causal efficacy only insofar as it derives or borrows it from something else.  By contrast, the person who uses the stick is a primary cause insofar as his causal efficacy is built-in rather than being derivative or borrowed.  The stick is a moved mover insofar as it moves other things only because it is itself being moved in the process.  The person is an unmoved mover insofar as he can move the stick (and, through it, the stone) without something else having to move him in the process.

    Aquinas gives other arguments against an infinite regress in such cases, but this is the one I want to focus on here.  The basic idea is that there cannot be secondary causes without a primary cause, because you cannot have borrowed or derivative causal power without something to borrow it from.  This would be true no matter how long the regress is, and it is important to note that infinity as such is not really what is doing the work here.  Even if we allowed for the sake of argument that the stone in our example was pushed by an infinitely long stick, there would still need to be something outside the stick to impart causal power to it.  For a stick is just not the sort of thing that could, all by itself, move anything else, no matter how long it is. 

    Nor, for that matter, would it help if the causal series in this case went around in a circle rather than regressing to infinity – the stone moved by the stick which was moved by another stick which was moved by the stone, say.  For sticks and stones just aren’t the sorts of things that could move anything by themselves, even around in a circle.  There would have to be something outside this circle of movers that introduced motion into it.

    Meaning

    Now consider a second and at first glance very different sort of argument, which is associated with John of St. Thomas (John Poinsot) and was defended in the twentieth century by Francis Parker and Henry Veatch in their book Logic as a Human Instrument.  It appeals to a distinction between instrumental signs and formal signs.  An instrumental sign is a sign that is also something other than a sign.  Consider, for example, a string of words written in pen on a piece of paper.  It is a sign of the concept or proposition being expressed, but it is also something else, namely a collection of ink splotches.  Now, there is nothing intrinsic to it qua collection of ink splotches that makes it a sign.  By itself, a string of splotches that looks like “The cat is on the mat” is no more meaningful than a string of marks such as “FhjQns jkek$9 (quyea&b.” 

    Suppose we say that the string of splotches that looks like “The cat is on the mat” has the meaning it has because of its relations to other strings of splotches, such as the ones we see in a dictionary when we look up the words “cat,” “mat,” etc.  That can hardly give us a complete explanation of how the first set of ink splotches get their meaning, because these new sets of splotches are, considered just by themselves, as meaningless as the first set.  They too have no intrinsic meaning, but have to derive it from something else.

    Notice that we have a kind of regress here.  And what the argument says is that this regress must terminate in signs that do not get their meaning from their relations to other signs, but have it intrinsically.  This is what formal signs are.  And unlike instrumental signs, they must be signs that are not also something else – that is to say, they must be signs that are nothing but signs.  With a sign that is also something other than a sign (a set of ink splotches, or sounds, or pictures, or whatever), the meaning and this additional feature can come apart, which opens the door to the question of how the meaning and the additional feature get together.  But a sign that is nothing more than a sign just is its meaning.  Because it just is its meaning, it needn’t derive or borrow its meaning from something else.

    The argument goes on to say that these formal signs are to be identified with our concepts and thoughts, which are the source of the meanings that words and sentences have.  This in turn provides the basis for an argument for the mind’s immateriality, as I discuss in Immortal Souls.  The point I want to emphasize for the moment, though, is that we have here an argument that holds that a regress of items having a certain feature in only a derivative way can exist only if there is something having that feature in a built-in or non-derivative way – which is, at a very general level, analogous to the reasoning Aquinas deploys in the First Way.

    (As a side note, I’ll point out that John Haldane, in Atheism and Theism, develops a line of reasoning which might be seen as an amalgam of these two arguments.  A person’s potential for concept formation, he says, presupposes fellow members of a linguistic community who actualize this potential by virtue of already possessing concepts themselves.  But their potential to form these concepts requires the preexistence of yet other members of the linguistic community.  This regress can end only in a first member of the series, whose possession of concepts need not depend on actualization by previous members.  This “Prime Thinker” he identifies with God.)

    Knowledge

    A third line of argument, once again very different at first glance but ultimately similar in structure, concerns epistemic justification.  Consider the “problem of the criterion,” of which Michel de Montaigne gave a famous statement.  In order rationally to justify some knowledge claim, we will need to appeal to some criterion.  But that criterion will in turn have to be justified by reference to some further criterion, and that further criterion by reference to yet some other criterion, and so on ad infinitum.  It seems, then, that no judgment can ever be justified.

    As the Neo-Scholastic philosopher Peter Coffey points out in his Epistemology or The Theory of Knowledge, the fallacy in this sort of argument lies in assuming that the justification for a judgment must in every case lie in something extrinsic to the judgment itself.  The skeptical argument fails if there are judgments whose criterion of justification is intrinsic to them. 

    Now, suppose it can be established that we cannot fail to have at least some genuine knowledge.  One might argue, for example, that even the skeptic himself cannot coherently raise skeptical doubts without making certain presuppositions (such as the reliability of the rules of inference he deploys in arguing for skepticism).  Then we would have a basis for an argument like the following: We do at least have some knowledge; we could have no knowledge unless there were at least some judgments whose criterion of justification is intrinsic to them; therefore, there must be at least some judgments whose criterion of justification is intrinsic to them.

    The point is not to expound or defend this sort of argument here.  The point is rather that such an argument would be a further instance of the general pattern we’ve seen in the other arguments.  In particular, it would be another case in which it is argued that there can be a regress of things having some feature in only a derivative way (in this case, epistemic justification) only if there is something having it in an intrinsic way.

    Action

    One last example, which concerns action.  Aristotle, and Scholastic writers like Aquinas following him, hold that every action is carried out for a certain good, and that good is often pursued only for the sake of some further good to which it is a means, which is itself pursued for the sake of yet some other good.  The regress this generates can terminate only in some end that is pursued for its own sake, as good in itself.  Naturally, there is a lot more than that to the analysis of action and the good, but the point is to emphasize that once more we see an instance of an argument fitting the same general pattern we’ve seen in other cases.  A regress of items having a certain feature only derivatively (in this case, goodness or desirability as an end) can terminate only in something that has that feature intrinsically.

    Here are some features common to such arguments.  First, and to repeat, the basic general pattern is to argue that the existence of items having a certain feature in a borrowed or derivative way presupposes something having that feature in an intrinsic way.  In one case the feature in question is causal power, in another it is meaning, in another it is epistemic justification, and in yet another it is goodness or desirability.  But despite this significant difference in subject matter, the basic structure of the inference is the same.

    Second, although the arguments are set up by way of a description of a regress of some kind, the length of the regress is not actually what is doing the key work in the arguments.  In particular, the arguments, on close inspection, are not primarily concerned to rule out infinities.  Rather, they are concerned to make the point that what is derivative ultimately presupposes what is intrinsic or non-derivative.  This would remain the case even if some sort of infinite sequence was allowed for the sake of argument.  For example, even an infinite series of causes having only derivative causal power would presuppose something outside the series which had intrinsic causal power; even an infinite sequence of instrumental signs would presuppose something outside the sequence that was a formal rather than merely instrumental sign; and so on.

    Third, the arguments all essentially purport to identify something that must be true of metaphysical necessity.  They are not merely probabilistic in character, or arguments to the best explanation.  The claim is that there could not even in principle be secondary causes without primary causes, instrumental signs without formal signs, and so forth.  The arguments intend to identity the necessary preconditions of there being such a thing as causality, meaning, knowledge, or action. 

    Hence, whether one accepts such an argument or not, the claims of empirical science are not going to settle the matter, because the arguments are conducted at a level deeper than empirical science.  The very practice of empirical science presupposes causality, meaning, knowledge, and action.  The arguments in question, since they are about the necessary preconditions of those things, are also about the necessary preconditions of science.  They are paradigmatically philosophical in nature.

  41. Site: Rorate Caeli
    3 weeks 22 hours ago
    Former Cardinal and Archbishop of Washington Ted McCarrick, serial abuser, and a man who was the very embodiment of the Vatican II hierarchy, died today. He was a major influence in the election of Francis (for which he worked from the outside), until he was unmasked. The entire liberal hierarchy of the United States today is directly related to him. His influence is present in the Vatican New Catholichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04118576661605931910noreply@blogger.com
  42. Site: Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
    3 weeks 23 hours ago

    Alex Schadenberg
    Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

    Laia Galiá reported for the Spanish ARA news on April 3, 2025 that a second challenge to a euthanasia approval will be heard by a Spanish Court.

    On March 17, 2025 I reported that a Spanish court rejected an appeal by a father to prevent the euthanasia death of his 24-year-old paraplegic daughter. The article reported that the woman, known as Noelia, who was injured in a suicide attempt, was scheduled to die by euthanasia in August 2024 when her father achieved a court injunction to prevent the death. The March 17 decision stated that the woman met the conditions for euthanasia.

    Galiá reported that the first decision (Noelia) has been appealed by the Prosecutor's Office and her father. The case has been referred to the High Court of Justice (TSJC)

    In the second case (Francisco case) the Judge has determined that the family has the right to challenge the euthanasia approval. Galiá reported:

    The High Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC) has issued its first ruling in the legal debate that in recent months has called into question the right to assisted dying. In the opinion of Catalonia's highest court, a patient's family may be entitled to bring a euthanasia procedure to court even if the applicant already has the approval of the committee of experts charged with studying and validating or rejecting these requests.Unlike the first case, in the Francisco case it has only been determined that the father can challenge the euthanasia approval whereas in Noelia's case, a judge already decided that she met the requirements of the law. Galiá reported:
    In contrast, in Francisco's case, the judge has so far only assessed the father's legitimacy to intercede, and the High Court of Justice (TSJC) is ordering her to assess all the evidence. In fact, the judges point out that their ruling does not imply that the family's requests must be accepted. They only rule, they say, on the parents' legitimacy to intervene judicially to request a halt to a euthanasia procedure.

    The Spanish euthanasia law is similar to the Canadian euthanasia law since it only requires that a person has "a serious chronic and disabling illness."

    Spain's euthanasia law should be challenged based on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

  43. Site: Mundabor's blog
    3 weeks 1 day ago
    Author: Mundabor
    Imagine four years of endless babbling, at the end of which no document is produced. This is what just happened in Italy with their “Synod” of holy Francisblabla. Two things are known: there was a total deluge of amendments to the first draft, and it was maintained that the draft “did not reflect” the blabla […]
  44. Site: Steyn Online
    3 weeks 1 day ago
    An update to Michael E. Mann's lawfare...
  45. Site: Steyn Online
    3 weeks 1 day ago
    Steyn on Adolescence, the Montreal massacre, and the lies we tell ourselves...
  46. Site: Steyn Online
    3 weeks 1 day ago
    In tonight's penultimate episode of The Girl on the Boat, Smith is thrilled to see the household assemble for the final showdown...
  47. Site: Rorate Caeli
    3 weeks 1 day ago
    In face of the decrease in the number of priests and the free fall in the number of seminarians.Archbishop Héctor AgüerEmeritus of La Plata, ArgentinaBuenos Aires, April 2, 2025 Courtyard of the Metropolitan Seminary of the Immaculate ConceptionBuenos Aires, Argentina (Villa Devoto)        On numerous occasions I have referred to a crucial issue for the Church: the New Catholichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04118576661605931910noreply@blogger.com
  48. Site: Novus Ordo Watch
    3 weeks 1 day ago
    Author: admin

    Vatican’s doctrine chief gives lecture…

    Fernandez Clarifies Vatican Stance on Transgender Surgeries: OK in Exceptional, Severe Cases

    ‘Tucho’ Fernandez on Sep. 30, 2023 (image credit: Maria Grazia Picciarella/Alamy Live News)

    On July 1, 2023, the Vatican’s resident mystical porn author and notorious kissing expert, Victor Manuel Fernandez (b. 1962), was promoted by Jorge Bergoglio (‘Pope Francis’) to become the head of the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine Destruction of the Faith. We warned about him from the get-go, saying he would be Francis’ doctrinal undertaker in his new role, and indeed he has not failed to deliver.… READ MORE

  49. Site: Novus Ordo Wire – Novus Ordo Watch
    3 weeks 1 day ago
    Author: admin

    Vatican’s doctrine chief gives lecture…

    Fernandez Clarifies Vatican Stance on Transgender Surgeries: OK in Exceptional, Severe Cases

    ‘Tucho’ Fernandez on Sep. 30, 2023 (image credit: Maria Grazia Picciarella/Alamy Live News)

    On July 1, 2023, the Vatican’s resident mystical porn author and notorious kissing expert, Victor Manuel Fernandez (b. 1962), was promoted by Jorge Bergoglio (‘Pope Francis’) to become the head of the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine Destruction of the Faith. We warned about him from the get-go, saying he would be Francis’ doctrinal undertaker in his new role, and indeed he has not failed to deliver.… READ MORE

  50. Site: Public Discourse
    3 weeks 1 day ago
    Author: Matthew X. Wilson

    Movement progressivism has arrived at a critical juncture. “Latinx” is out, pronouns are being removed from social media accounts, and dissent from what was once an untouchable progressive dogma—the full and equal participation of transgender-identifying athletes in women’s sports—is on the rise. Progressive leaders who championed (or at least appeared open to) ultraliberal immigration policies just a few years ago—including moratoriums on deportations, the abolition of immigration enforcement, and the decriminalization of unauthorized entry into the United States—now agree that illegal immigrants with criminal records should be deported, and quibble only with the far-reaching extent of the Trump Administration’s mass deportation efforts. Similar attempts from within American progressivism to rebrand have occurred on a variety of other cultural issues: from crime and policing to wokeness and cancel culture. High-minded moralizing is out; plaid shirts, profanities, and direct-to-camera explainers are in.

    Certainly, political reality is motivating many of these shifts. Questioning the extent to which any supposed self-critical reflection is the result of an authentic crisis of conscience—or simply a calculated adjustment in the quest for electoral success—is completely legitimate. Still, if now does truly constitute a moment of reckoning for progressivism (at least for some), it’s important—both for our republic’s continued well-being and for the health of our cultural climate—that political actors make good use of this opportunity.

    Here, I want to draw on some insights from contemporary liberal political philosophy to illustrate for progressives where the political rhetoric and cultural developments they championed over the past several years have fallen short of what a democratic society’s public discourse requires. Specifically, I will argue that two key principles found in modern liberal philosophy—public justification and mutual respect—mean that movement progressives owe their fellow citizens much more in the way of non-dogmatic public reasons, and of substantive (i.e., non-superficial) respect, than they have given in recent years. 

    Public Justification and Political Argument

    Modern theories of political morality take almost for granted that, for political action to be morally legitimate, it must be publicly justifiable—that is, articulable with reasons that all citizens can be reasonably expected to understand, even if some of those citizens might disagree with the precise action being taken. Of course, the normative content that makes political action and political arguments publicly justifiable is a subject of perennial debate. The magisterial liberal philosopher John Rawls, for example, maintains that publicly justifiable reasons for political action—public reasons—must not be derived from sectarian and incommensurable comprehensive doctrines that all reasonable citizens cannot be expected to endorse. (Such doctrines might include Islam, Marxism, Catholicism, utilitarianism, or even an ideologically normative liberalism—i.e., a liberalism that is derived from a comprehensive account of human goods and flourishing.) Given the empirical fact of reasonable pluralism that persists in contemporary democratic societies, Rawls argues that political actors have a moral duty to ensure that their arguments and activities be articulable in a currency of basic principles of justice and basic political values—which themselves are meant to transcend the incommensurable components of (at least a plurality of) comprehensive doctrines. 

    Skeptics (myself included) would be quick to point out that the constitutions and orderings of political values and principles of justice that Rawls undertakes throughout his work are impermissibly normatively infused—and that, in any case, some kind of normative infusion seems inescapable when applying his theory of political morality to concrete situations and specific political issues. But the many problematic aspects of his methodology and his conclusions aside, the man who “looms over contemporary political thought, particularly on the left, in a way rivaled by no other scholar” was right that participation in the norms, strictures, and requirements of public justification, as well as the giving of public reasons—even if the specific parameters of such reasons are disputed—constitute crucial moral responsibilities of political actors. Publicly unjustifiable political action is immoral to undertake, and unjustified political arguments are insufficient for the public square, particularly in a democratic society in which citizens of fundamentally incommensurable commitments must live and work alongside one another. 

    Rawls’s liberal critics—both those of more traditional perfectionist schools of political morality, and those who wish to push his theory’s bounds further—agree on the moral imperative of public justification. Jonathan Quong, a prominent proponent of an expansive anti-perfectionist theory of political morality, writes that “the general aim of public justification” provides “no good grounds to resist the view that the requirements of public reason must regulate all our political decisions.” Bruce Ackerman says public justification is “the organizing principle of liberal thought.” These liberal philosophers—whose theories aim to provide the moral-philosophical basis for much of modern progressivism—agree: The public justification of political arguments demands, and the legitimacy of political action requires, the giving of universally accessible reasons for action. 

    Movement progressives should recover this understanding of public justification, and ground future efforts to advocate their social and cultural agenda in an acknowledgment that citizens must be allowed to freely and sincerely weigh progressive positions—and not be coerced or manipulated into accepting reasonably contestable views. Political actors—from legislators and government officials to outside advocates and interest groups—need to be able to provide substantive reasons, arguments, and evidence for their positions; they must not simply demand that skeptics fall in line or else be punished (whether through moralizing opprobrium, social ostracism, or more insidious means, such as politically motivated persecution). Non-justified—or unjustifiable—political action will provoke a reaction: the political pendulum will swing back when enough citizens have finally had enough of their due’s being denied to them. If public justification is, as the liberal theorist Stephen Macedo puts it, “the moral lodestar of liberalism,” progressives have a crucial moral duty not to shirk the responsibilities of public justification in order to realize a fleeting political high by immoral or morally questionable methods.  

    The Importance of Mutual Respect

    For liberal theorists, the duty of public justification is often intertwined with a duty of mutual respect between citizens of differing commitments and beliefs. For Rawls, a constitutive element of his framework of public reason is a “readiness to honor the (moral) duty of civility, which as [a virtue] of citizenship help[s] to make possible reasoned public discussion of political questions.” He writes the following in Political Liberalism:

    [S]ince the exercise of political power itself must be legitimate, the ideal of citizenship imposes a moral, not a legal, duty—the duty of civility—to be able to explain to one another on those fundamental questions how the principles and policies they advocate and vote for can be supported by the political values of public reason. This duty also involves a willingness to listen to others and a fairmindedness in deciding when accommodations to their views should reasonably be made.

    To be sure, the political non-liberal finds much to object to in Rawls’s full account—most prominently, his effort to integrate acceptance of anti-perfectionist moral norms with his conception of reasonable citizenship and mutual respect. Nevertheless, some of his broader observations about mutual respect and civility are valuable—and are especially important for contemporary progressives to remember. 

    Because democracy implies “an equal share in the coercive political power that citizens exercise over one another by voting and in other ways,” Rawls writes, “understanding how to conduct oneself as a democratic citizen includes understanding an ideal of public reason.” Other political liberals—Charles Larmore, for instance—acknowledge that mutual respect (as manifested through civility, a commitment to reasonable disagreement, and respecting persons by acknowledging their equal moral worth) constitutes “the moral core of liberal thought,” whose “validity must be understood as antecedent to the democratic will.” In other words: No political agenda, no deeply desired policy preference, and no other end—even one favored by the popular majority—may override the first-order moral requirements of mutual respect. 

    When progressives have transgressed the moral limits that mutual respect and the duty of civility establish, they have in a very real sense failed in their duties to their fellow citizens vis-à-vis the rights and duties that equal citizenship confers.

    As Larmore puts it, liberal political theory “owes a lot to Kant’s views about respect and treating persons as ends, never as merely means.” Some might regard that statement as inapplicable philosophizing. But if political liberalism requires as a rule that persons never be instrumentalized—indeed, if it requires respecting your fellow citizens and providing them with their due (e.g., publicly justifiable arguments, and continued respect even if they disagree with you) prior to any political considerations—then there are plentiful practices of modern progressives that need to be reevaluated. For one, many illiberal means of realizing policy victories are ruled out. The contemporary trend in movement progressivism of substituting, for arguments and evidence, insults and attempts to demonize or delegitimize one’s fellow citizens—for example, dismissing those who offer reason-based criticisms of progressive doctrines as bigots, sexists, transphobes, or racists—constitutes a profound violation of the moral norms that exist prior to political participation and democratic deliberation. So too does the use of allegations of “hate speech” to censor and deplatform the opposition. And so too does the ideological weaponization of the judiciary to curtail ongoing debate about controversial and reasonably contestable questions. 

    When movement progressives have transgressed the moral limits that mutual respect and the duty of civility establish, they have in a very real sense failed in their duties to their fellow citizens vis-à-vis the rights and duties that equal citizenship confers. Attempts to justify such behavior that are rooted in, for example, identity status or in-group membership are insufficient under the politically liberal framework. The demands of mutual respect set a higher standard for the public square—one that, again, subsists antecedent to any political considerations, and cannot legitimately be put on hold or cast aside. 

    Why? Because citizens with commitments and beliefs that are incommensurable with movement progressivism’s comprehensive commitments—even about fundamental questions of ethics, anthropology, identity, and the good life—share in the same political equality that citizenship confers on their progressive neighbors. Political liberalism recognizes this. For liberals, one must engage citizens whose deeply held commitments and beliefs challenge one’s own by using reasons—and even if certain political arguments or commitments are, in the eyes of some liberals, supposedly “unreasonable,” the citizens who hold them are nevertheless owed respect. 

    Political actors of all stripes fail to honor this principle when they try to shame, bully, or force their opponents out of the public square. Movement progressives ought to remember this, and ensure that their political activities uphold norms of mutual respect—even for those whose views they might find profoundly objectionable or immoral.

    Now is a unique moment for movement progressivism. It is not often that a socio-political movement finds itself with the opportunity to undertake a relatively consequence-free examination of conscience (given that progressives are presently shut out of political power at the federal level and, according to some surveys, their institutions command historically low levels of popular support). As movement progressives reflect on their rapid and dramatic fall from power after what had seemed—just a few years ago—to be a pinnacle of progressive social, cultural, and political dominance, they would be well served to reexamine and recover these concepts that sit at the core of modern liberal political philosophy.

    Image by Ashley and licensed via Adobe Stock.

Pages

Subscribe to Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds