Justice served Cold

I'm certainly not the first to moan about Justice, certainly not the last. Our American form of Justice is encoded through a unique combination of inalienable rights and Christian morality.

Now, in the moribund 200+ years since our Constitution was set in motion.. some elements of our Government and the few, lonely depraved challengers are cleaning the house of Christian morality. Fair viewpoint.

On the other hand, perhaps it's simply a growing non-Christain group which obligates us to include and modify our laws to accomidate them. Also a valid argument and viewpoint.

But, just like in any complicated design, if you start changing base elements of the design - then you have to add "hacks". A hack meaning a clever though hastily designed solution that "makes it work" - at least for the time being. Duct tape, bailing wire, and Microsoft all come time mind.

The problem is, that our Code of law is being hacked.. and the Design document (Constitution and Bill of Rights) is still the same. The old software addage, "it's a feature not a bug" comes to mind as you read the code of law. We aren't writting good code, and sooner or later it will fail to execute correctly in some unknown edge case.

Example: I'm truly mortified at the outcome of the Schindler-Schiavo case ending in the soon-inevitable death, but I am not surprised. The Florida legislative bill which allowed the death by dehydration and starvation was introduced at the proding of the same lawyer which argued for her death - George Felos.

American justice and due process has, in actuality, occured. The evidence was admitted, a judge allowed or disallowed evidence, a series of motions were made, and a judgement according to the evidence before the court was executed. Even the Supreme court has said, indeed Justice is served. Hot or cold, fair or unfair.

We've been warned time and time again. Outspoken critics lambast our changing system of Justice on a daily, hourly basis. A TV sitcom makes a funny show about it and we all feel vindicated that it's really not THAT SERIOUS. It's just a stupid law, and it'll never apply to me anyway. The chorus of voices is just chatter.

TAKE A LOOK AROUND YOU.

• How many of your friends and relatives end up in Divorce Court?
• How many people do you know who got busted for Drugs?
• How much does it cost to get real Justice, and how much more to people pay to subvert it?
• Why does money matter in Justice, as only the Truth is the actual currency of Justice?
• What percentage of our population must go to Jail before we recognize that we have no true Justice?
• How many of you have dealt with the Death of a loved one - especially in a hospital?
  

Go ahead, count em up. Count up how many of those people end up in ruins. How if affects the parents, siblings, children, and loved ones around them.

Justice is not the servant of Logic. Truth is not the servant of Logic. In order to have True justice, there must be Truth, which is Logical. Why is Truth logical? Because it is the very nature of Logic that it is based on Truth. Otherwise it makes no sense.

No brainer for the vast majority of common sense humanity. But when the aim of Justice becomes the substitute for God, the punishment becomes harsh. Because, Logically, a crime or sin deserves Death - Truth demands it. Only through God can we obtain penance and forgiveness - not a penitentiary. Because True Justice has no mercy.

Proof: An auto mechanic Bob does a shody $50 repair job which results in the death of Mary. Should Bob pay the family of Mary $50 - or should he be put to death in exchange for her death? Shouldn't we kill Bob then?

How many of us are culpable for the death or misery of our neighbors? We buy shoes made by political prisoners or children. Our neighbor lost their job at the Shoe factory because they can't match slave labor wages?

How much injustice can a single American perform in a single day just by eating, shopping, and going to sleep? Some of you agree - even some Athiest - that a great injustice is occuring here. Just because we're ignorant of the misery and death resulting from our choices in shopping doesn't exempt us from Justice. And if Justice it to be metted out in equal portions - then don't we all deserve death?

Therefore, all of Mankind that perpitrates injustice through his own hands or actions, either from ignorance or malveolance is subject to the equal punishmment of Justice.

I submit that the true cost of throwing out God from our Code of Law, is the death of Man. Because without the weight of God through Mercy tipping the scale in Justice, we all do deserve the equitable punishment.

Pressing Issues

I have resisted writing about this.. but I am somehow duty-bound to write it anyway: The Schiavo conflict.

Wait wait, don't run - because I'm not going to convince you using rhetoric. Nor logic. Nope, I'm just going to quote the press... ready?

Schiavo recovery impossible, experts agree
Choice quotes:
"Terri Schiavo, at the center of an emotional and political storm over whether she should be allowed to die"

“Survival beyond 10 years is unusual. The chance for survival of greater than 15 years is approximately 1 in 15,000 to 1 in 75,000,” (Ed. Note: Terri Schiavo collapsed in 1990)

"Dr. Ronald Cranford, a neurologist and bioethicist at the University of Minnesota Medical School, said reflexes can fool non-specialists."

This is because in such patients, the cerebral cortex has been destroyed, said Dr. Lawrence Schneiderman, a physician and bioethicist at the University of California, San Diego.

“The rest of your brain, particularly the brain stem, can survive for fifteen or twenty minutes without oxygen,” added Schneiderman, who signed a friend of the court brief in July of last year supporting Michael Schiavo.

Ok, fair enough. Those two people are the only Doctors mentioned in the article. So, two experts agree. A quick google for "Dr Lawrence Schneidermann Euthanasia" on google reveals...

1. Dr. Ronald Cranford was a member of the board of the former Euthanasia Society of America, which eventually merged with Partnership for Caring
2. Dr. Ronald Cranford, the euthanasia advocate who hopes to help Pete Busalacchi
   take care of Christine when she is brought to Minnesota
3. Cranford calls himself, "Dr. Humane Death."

Ok.. well, maybe Dr. Schneiderman is the balance of the story? Hrm.. firing up google...

1. Dr. Lawrence Schneiderman of UC San Diego at La Jolla writes that one of the "unexpected yet undeniable" consequences of Oregon's assisted-dying law is that state's leadership in excellent and compassionate palliative care.
2. "Medical Futility" (video)

So there you have it.. two experts make it unanimous among the medical profession. Obviously, Reuters is doing a fine, fine job in balanced Journalism. Make your own decisions.

That old time Tradition

Thinking about anonymous tipster tonight. I can't really fault what he/she said.. but it kindof ties into what went wrong after the Second Vatican Council.

Notice I did not say what is wrong with it. I happen to like the council - otherwise I wouldn't have become a Catholic.

See, if the Holy Church has not changed.. then why arn't we still watching the backs of Priests. Why is there stadium seating at some churches, and alter rails at others?

It's tradition! Time to think about Fiddler on the Roof here. Remember, each of his daughters broke the tradition. Quite offended old Dad.

Turns out, if you ask someone about their religion.. the thing that sinks in the deepest and which we identify the most with is tradition. They think Easter flowers, processions, and all kinds of little acts that we perform in reverence.

Along came this Second Vatican Council. Now we've got this in the Catechism:

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium. (Catechism 83)

Pretty easy to spot what happened here. People suddenly realized that their idea of "local tradition" didn't quite line up with what everyone else thought of. Suddenly there was this giant revolution where everyone suddenly thought the church had changed.

Not so, only the window dressing so to speak.

But don't confuse tradition with essential elements of the Mass, and Tenents of the Church. Don't tell the first communion kids that group confession is valid, or that reverence is just pride. If you're not going to believe in the transubstantiaion - then follow your heart and go Protestant or something. If you want to be a married priest, then go Eastern Rite man!!

To me it seems very clear what is necessary to have a valid Mass. Why even go to church if it's not valid, anyway? Why, if you don't believe in the true Tenants of the Church - do you still call yourself Catholic? As if it's like being a New Yorker or something?

Funny, eh? Ohh well, maybe it's just me. Just let me keep our old-timey mass. You can do the liturgical dance and I'd like to kneel. Isn't that all ok?

In the famous words of a friend of ours: "Isn't it great that the Church is so diverse?" We'd just told her we were going to a Latin Mass.. at the time I thought she was being sarcastic. May be, but her words do ring true. The church is diverse, and that's a Good Thing.

Books...

So it's getting close to Christmas.. and I want to fill my 7 year old daughter's book list for a couple of days, LOL. So far she's enjoyed Naria, Tolkein, Brothers Grimm, Stevenson, Nancy Drew.. looking for (LONG) enjoyable books that will cultivate, any ideas? I say long because she tends to read a couple of hundred pages an hour.

I'm looking at maybe:
The Railway Children, E. Nesbit
A Child's Christmas in Wales, Dylan Thomas

Any ideas here? I read science journals for fun.

Speed Nihilists

Absolutely more blabbering for You, oh dearest of readers.


Reading more of the late Ivan Illich today. My Grandmother and Uncle both introduced him to his work.

Apparently the fixation with speed is apparently quite modern. I have had countless arguments with people over time, and the history of timeliness. That's for the next blog though... ( Thank you Bishop of Carthage )

Back to Falcons, Cranes, and Parmesians... and ohh yeah, belly dancers Here's the link. [PDF]

SPEEEEED!

What intrigues me is that people knew that speed was not a successful tactic. The advent of the machine changed that. Now, modern culture desires to imitate the machine! Just look at the movies of late.. The Matrix (In the machine), AI (Kuberik) (Perfected Machine), Bourne Supremacy(Perfected Mankind), and the list goes on. It's like humanity is falling on a sword for a "highly styled and engineered" lump of metal and silicone.

My favorite quote:
"The suggestion of speed meant up-to-date, and high speed seemed as alluring as the latest body fashions. What you now propose goes much furthur: you can assume that everything is drenched in speed, the speed you want to control. This cannot but confirm the omnipresence and omnipotence of an addictive fix."

Admit it.. we are not immune either. I buy speed.. or perhaps speedy enough. Who wouldn't want to "save time!" Heavens, we must add that between the horned freckly frog and whales. So it goes...



Just a last note.. biologically, our brains are not speedy. They're actually very slow. What makes us seem fast is the specialization and parallelization of the brain. One would think ( speaking of fractals ) that humans would be more productive in parallel, rather than through individual speed. Just a thought.

Convivial Dingo

Dark night of the Soul

These souls whom God is beginning to lead through these solitary places of the wilderness are like to the children of Israel, to whom in the wilderness God began to give food from Heaven, containing within itself all sweetness, and, as is there said, it turned to the savour which each one of them desired. But withal the children of Israel felt the lack of the pleasures and delights of the flesh and the onions which they had eaten aforetime in Egypt, the more so because their palate was accustomed to these and took delight in them, rather than in the delicate sweetness of the angelic manna; and they wept and sighed for the fleshpots even in the midst of the food of Heaven. To such depths does the vileness of our desires descend that it makes us to long for our own wretched food and to be nauseated by the indescribable blessings of Heaven.

[...] God is now taking this soul from its swaddling clothes, setting it down from His arms, making it to walk upon its feet, and likewise taking from it the milk of the breast and the soft and sweet food proper to children, and making it to eat bread with crust, and to begin to enjoy the food of robust persons.

-Saint John of the Cross

Please take some time and read his work. Lacking and unprepared. Pathetic and abysmal. Don't be like me!

What about.. Schism?

I've been reading much about schism. The big schism of after the Counsil of Chalcedon, to be exact.

Funny thing about this schism was it all centered on one man, Eutyches. Eutyches had said the Jesus was of "one nature", but only after the Incarnation (If I'm reading this correctly). Of course, this contradicted Cyril and all heck broke loose.

Pope Leo wrote to Flavian, then Bishop of Constantinople:

When you cross-examined Eutyches and he replied, "I confess that our Lord was of two natures before the union, but I confess one nature after the union", I am amazed that such an absurd and corrupt declaration of faith was not very severely censured by the judges; and that an extremely foolish statement was disregarded, as if nothing whatever offensive had been heard. It is just as wicked to say that the only-begotten Son of God was of two natures before the incarnation as it is abominable to claim that there was a single nature in him after the Word was made flesh. Eutyches must not suppose that what he said was either correct or tolerable just because no clear statement of yours refuted it. So we remind you, dearest brother, of your charity's responsibility to see to it that if through God's merciful inspiration the case is ever settled, the rash and ignorant fellow is also purged of what is blighting his mind.

I'm actually startled at the amount of charity given to this one guy. The pope sounds genuinely angry. The proceedings of the council, seemed to only expand the Eutyches stupidity which ultimately led to the schism of the current oriental orthodox churches.

Wow is all I can say.

One really great thing to come out of this, however, is the preservation of Tradition (yes, THE tradition) of these churches. Wheras the Latin church seems to have evolved/progressed (not in a bad way) the Oriental churches have largely remained true to their traditions and rites. The Liturgy (called Badarak in Armenian) is very beautiful. The most startling difference, especially for us Roman Catholics, is the complete lack of the Rosary. Check out Catechism 2678 for the reason.

The Armenian church in particular is of interest, as they were the first country to convert to Christianity (before the Romans) in the year 301.

More recently, an interesting event happened at the Vatican in 1996, something along the lines of
"Ohh jeez, you mean it was the dictionary he was using?"

Anyway, it would be interesting to visit.