Tomorrow I head out for Denver to speak at the Living the Catholic Faith Conference about Making Senses Out of Scripture. The conference will be March 2-3. Hope to see you there!

Then, after a brief respite at home, I’m off to the March 8 Women of St. Ignatius Conference, Ft. Leavenworth, KS. Topic: This is My Body.

Just FYI in case blogging gets sparse!

Clever ethicists write clever apologetics for the cold-blooded murder of babies.

I sometimes despair of the value of argument. There are moments–and this is one, I fear–where a civilized society would take St. Louis’ advice, take such people, and “stick a sword through them as far as it will go”. When the intellect itself is so corrupt as to deploy all its artillery in the defense of cold-blooded baby slaughter, it becomes extremely difficult to engage it. It reminds me of the demon-possessed Weston in Perelandra, by turns clever (angels are, recall, superior intellects) and idiotic (Weston: “Ransom. Ransom. Ransom” Ransom: “WHAT?” Weston: “Nothing.”), utterly committed to the denial of life and God. What appalling evil. It requires exorcism, not argument. It must be expelled.

And yet, in a world where fools are not yet committed to such evil, but prone to become so when the devil’s minions make clever arguments, I suppose it must be argued with. But how in hell do you argue in such a way as to supply fundamental moral intuitions to blithering moral idiots? If a person can’t see that slitting an infant’s throat is a Bad Thing, what possible method of moral suasion can be used to make a moral imbecile–and particularly a highly educated moral imbecile–capable of the sense God gave a goose? I sometimes begin to suspect that the violence of the Old Testament was sometimes the only language fallen man could understand and that treatises on ethics for cretins who hurled babies into the flames were not as educational as the siege, famine, slaughter and exile God in fact permitted in his providence.

Don’t take that as a thought. Just as a cry of pain. We are a civilization facing an awful reckoning. Be glad I’m not God.

One person writes:

Obviously, Fr. Z took a dirty trick from Santorum’s playbook and got Baptists, Lutherans, and (gasp) Unitarians to vote for him!

This has vote fraud written all over it!!1!!1!!

While another writes:

I tried to vote again today and the form told me i already had – but I hadn’t – i’m not sure why that would be

If you can’t trust the unsubstantiated rumor of a random comboxer, what can you trust? Clearly Fr. Z is drawing support from *non*-Catholics who, while technically *allowed* to vote and who have every *legal* (though not moral) “right” to do so, are nonetheless in clear violation of Real Catholic[TM] political thought by daring to consider themselves free citizens and not chattel of the Church Militant who are only allowed to live in our country on our sufferance. As Michael Voris explains with the lucidity of a latter-day Aquinas:

I, for one, am shocked. It had never occurred to me that Fr. Z would be drawing votes from riff-raff and not (as I do) from the smaller *purer* Church of Real Catholics. So I propose a new system of ‘value weighting’ for each vote. The votes I have received should count for a “full person” since each one of my votes come from informed, holy, deeply spiritual Real Catholics[TM], while the human debris voting for Fr. Zuhlsdorf? Who even *knows* who these people are? Are they even Catholic? My reader certainly alleges they aren’t. And what an unknown person in a combox alleges is, in my book, unquestioned fact. Unless you want to call my reader a liar. Well, in *my* America, a random comboxer is innocent till *proven* guilty, and I am not going to stand here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America! So in the interest of fairness, I think it’s only right that Fr. Z’s votes count for 1/10 of a Real Catholic. This would mean that I am currently leading him at 7% to 6.1%.

Also, I can’t help but notice that at least one person has reported some rather shady shenanigans with the voting, which can only be due to malice and conspiracy and not some conveeeeeeeenient “glitch” or technical ineptitude. When I am crowned king of the About.com blogosphere, I promise that, not only will all you handsome, beautiful and unbribable people all be given a pony (not as a reward for voting for me, but just because I like the cut of your jib), but also all evil conspiracies will be outlawed and technical difficulties will be dealt with by swift and draconian bursts of irrational rage, like this:

Short-term, ill-planned bursts of cathartic temper that feel good while sucking us into a maelstrom of unforeseen consequences are what I call effective leadership that gets things done without a lot of red tape. If it worked for the Iraq War, it will work for me too.

Anyway, based on these two irrefutable random combox remarks and my unanswerable logic in interpreting them, I believe the only wise short term response is to a) post another Pat Boone video…

… and b) to warn the People of Earth that more of these are coming until my demands for fairness are met. After that, I will have no further territorial claims on the Internet.

and the seven deadly sins.

Catechesis for the Cartoon Network generation.

Bruce Springsteen.

A reader writes:

I’m writing a paper on the doctrine of lying for one of my graduate courses. I came across your blog post from February 2011, and under point 17 you say that there is confusion surrounding deception and lying: one being permissible, while the other is never so. Would you be kind enough to point me to some sources that give evidence to deception being sometimes ok? I greatly appreciate your help!

Thank you for your time, and peace be with you!

Here is what the Catechism has to say about lying:

2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.

2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.

2486 Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision. It contains the seed of discord and all consequent evils. Lying is destructive of society; it undermines trust among men and tears apart the fabric of social relationships.

So it is lying to seek you out in order to present myself to you under a false identity, purpose and occupation. It matters not what good end I am attempting to achieve. I’m still lying.

However, it is not lying to not supply information to which somebody has no right. As the Catechism says:

2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.283

So in the classic scenario, when the Gestapo comes to the door looking for the Jews you are hiding, you have no obligation to tell them where they are. That’s not lying. It’s withholding information. The trick to saving your Jews is not to lie well, but to hide your Jews well. Then you invite the Gestapo in, give them a firm “Sieg heil!”, offer them tea and cookies, and make cheery conversation. None of that is lying, but it is allowing them to believe that you have fully cooperated with them, which is up to them. Deception of the art of allowing your enemy to fool himself without your lying to him.

continues its transition into the party of lunacy. Here’s the mysteriously popular Rick Santorum denouncing Obama’s evil desire for American to get a college education:

It’s this kind of insanity that makes me wonder how anybody in his five wits can trumpet this guy as Mr. Catholic.

Yeah, I’m aware of the dangers of the academy. So what? Grow up and learn how to think. This moronic notion Santorum puts forward that Obama is the President of All Colleges and is engaged in a some sort of conspiracy to oversee the indoctrination of Your Precious Child into his image and likeness via the university system is pure atavist red meat.

Yes, of *course* there is honorable work to be found without a college degree and of *course* those who do not have a college education are of equal dignity with those who have one. But Santorum makes it sound like it is despicable and disgusting for the Prez to desire a college education for as many people as possible. He comes off sounding like a champion for ignorance–because he *is* championing ignorance and playing to the very worst atavist instincts of, yes, class envy and resentment in his audience.

Time was when Catholics (who, you know, *invented* the university) worked and saved and struggled so that their kids could get through college. Now you have guys like Santorum talking like dimestore Protestant preachers denouncing them fancy pants college boys with their degrees and championing the glories of Know Nothingism as a moral virtue.

Being learned and proud is a grave spiritual danger, as the Pharisees show. But the cure for it is not to be ignorant and proud, and that is what Santorum is encouraging. And for what? To truckle to his audience’s burning sense of resentment in order to grab for power.

No thanks. Obama is a lousy president. But it does not follow that “If Obama’s for it, I’m agin it.” A President who advocates an educated population is just doing what any normal President does. A demagogue who declares education to be evil just to whip up the mob is, alas, also doing what any normal demagogue does.

What an embarrassment this guy is. But, as ever, he will get, not merely a pass for this–as for his endorsement of cold-blooded murder, pre-emptive war, and torture–because “conservative” Catholics have embraced the false soteriology that opposition to abortion taketh away the sins of the world. Indeed, the rot now goes so deep that Santorum can even *support* abortion (in the form of forcing you to pay for abortifacients) and we *still* have to give him a pass (and even enthusiastic support) because he’s Mr. Catholic.

And, of course, such is the tribal nature of our politics that I can bet somebody will read what I write here as an endorsement of Obama, merely because I don’t think saying any damn fool thing in opposition to him, no matter how idiotic, is legitimated by the fact that it is in opposition to him.

This political system can’t self-destruct fast enough. What a grotesque set of choices before us.

Speak, God. There is no hope in our human leaders.

I will continue to post one Pat Boone cover tune each day until you carry me to my inevitable triumph over Fr. Z in the About.com poll!

He’s only leading me 61% to 7%, so he’s already running scared due to my awesomeness.

Come now. Nobody wants to hear Pat Boone sing a Guns ‘n Roses tune. Be reasonable and nobody else gets hurt.

Reader Francisco Fernandez writes:

Your blog is one of my favorite online destinations and it seems to have a large readership.

Would you consider helping me promote small to mid-sized, Latino businesses in the Chicago area? I’ve started a blog with a view to covering and promoting the immigrant economy of Chicago as I am hoping (full disclosure) to break into business journalism.

While this isn’t an explicitly Catholic project, it does promote the values of solidarity and subsidiarity.

Thanks for considering my request!

Hey Chicago! Check it out and help grow the Latino community and economy in the Windy City!

…for the simple reason that I am constitutionally incapable of seeing things like this…

…and saying, “Well, *that* was lucky!”

O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is thy name in all the earth!
Thou whose glory above the heavens is chanted
by the mouth of babes and infants,
thou hast founded a bulwark because of thy foes,
to still the enemy and the avenger.
When I look at thy heavens,
the work of thy fingers,
the moon and the stars which thou hast established;
what is man that thou art mindful of him,
and the son of man that thou dost care for him?
Yet thou hast made him little less than God,
and dost crown him with glory and honor.
Thou hast given him dominion over the works of thy hands;
thou hast put all things under his feet,
all sheep and oxen,
and also the beasts of the field,
the birds of the air,
and the fish of the sea,
whatever passes along the paths of the sea.
O LORD, our Lord,
how majestic is thy name in all the earth!

the following:

I suspect that, should you take the time to read this post of mine, you will either love it or hate it. Or you will love and hate it. It is about a black woman who decided to support her local community on the West Side of Chicago by only shopping at black owned businesses for a year. I know the conservative devil on your shoulder will tell you that it is reverse racist of her to do so. But the Catholic angel on your other shoulder — the one you should listen to — will insist that her decision is about community, not skin color and that it is, in fact, altogether in keeping with distributist ideals.

Anyway, I thought I’d share.

I’m not sure why Innocent supposes I would hate his post (though it is curiously telling that he assumes I would accuse the woman of racism–based on nothing whatsoever in anything I have ever written as far as I can tell).

In fact, as a Chestertonian who is all in favor of people forming whatever local associations they like and patronizing local and community businesses rather than multinational Gigantocorps bent on destroying small business and local communities, I think what Maggie Anderson is doing is the bee’s knees. Send us thousands more like her.

A reader writes:

I have to confess, I’m sometimes annoyed by the long prayer requests in you blog, although I usually take a moment to send up a quick prayer as I glance over them. Now, however, my family is in great need of prayer and I would be very grateful if you could add my request. My wife was just admitted to the hospital due to a complete psychotic break. She is completely out of touch with reality, is violent, and the doctors don’t have any idea what is causing this. Please ask your readers to pray for her. I have been seeking the intercession of St. Dymphna, patroness of mental illness.

Father, we ask that you would come swiftly to her aid and heal her in body, mind, and spirit. Empower her guardian angel to fight for her and give her caregivers wisdom, compassion and skill. Grant your peace, consolation, and strength to her husband. Mother Mary and St. Dymphna, pray for her and all who love her.