But since the devil's bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she's wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil's greatest whore.
The original German is "Vernunft ... ist die höchste Hur, die der Teufel hat".

Martin Luther's Last Sermon in Wittenberg ... Second Sunday in Epiphany, 17 January 1546. Dr. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe. (Weimar: Herman Boehlaus Nachfolger, 1914), Band 51:126, Line 7ff
Martin Luther (1483-1546). The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

I have vanished for two months and what confounds me is that this is a paid account. I need to think of a vision for my livejournal and just blogging in general. Can anybody offer some suggestions?

I took my National Security Law final. As I could've guessed, the sole question (a law school essay exam) was about N. Korea and its loopiness. I got a set of mass media accounts which gave me facts and background and was told to give an intelligence gathering option and a military option.

I argued for espionage (finding agents within N. Korea as sources of info) and a military buildup in preparation for any destabilization in the region. This was based on an Fox News interview with former Secretary of State Eagleburger. In it Secretary Eagleburger argues that the military is the predominant force in N. Korean gov't. He bases his analysis on the increased acts of belligerence from the North.

I like the older RPG games and I've recently been playing through the Phantasy Star series. I've beaten IV and am working through II. I am playing these on my Xbox360: they came in the Sega Genesis Collection. The third Phantasy Star poses somewhat of a continuity issue because it does not clearly relate to the other three. After dredging my memory and reviewing clips on Youtube the in-text store of Phantasy Star IV indicates the events of P-Star 4 happened a thousand years after P-Star 2 and ergo two thousand years after P-Star 1. This is interesting for story reasons: is Dark Force still alive? Is the Profound Darkness still around? We need a Phantasy Star 5 to clear this all up.

I've begun reading through some of the Apostolic Fathers, as least those in the Penguin compendium.

I'm a bit of a traditionalist and most of the battles I have with others is not really about opinion but trying to keep people to clear Apostolic doctrines. What can I say? I'm type-a, melanchlic-choleric, firstborn: i like rigid obedience to tradition, rules, and law.

As such I am attracted to what the Fathers and the Doctors have to say, hence I am reading through the Church Fathers. I'm on the First Epistle of Clement. Here's a great quotation from paragraph 45:

"By all means be pugnacious and hot-headed, my brothers, but about things that will lead to salvation."

I also like how St. Clement and the Church Fathers make continual reference to the Apostles which in my view validates our own reliance upon the Apostles for doctrine. And I don't mean in the way we refer to the Scriptures, I mean direct appeals to the Apostls b/c these Apostolic Fathers knew the blessed apostles.

I've been trying to teach myself greater culinary skills. So today I wanted to make potato cakes. I added way too much flour. Aside from that, it seems fine to me. I partnered it with some green beans lightly dowsed in franks hot sauce.

The Life of Coriolanus:

It was evening, and many met him, but no man knew him. He proceeded, therefore, to the house of Tullus, and slipping in unawares, took his seat at the hearth23 in silence, covered his head, and remained there motionless. The people of the house were amazed, and did not venture to raise him up, for his mien and his silence gave him a certain dignity; but they told Tullus, who was at supper, what a strange thing had happened. 2 Tullus rose from table and came to him, and asked him who he was, and why he was come. At this, then, Marcius uncovered his head, and after a slight pause, said: "If thou doest not yet recognize me, Tullus, but disbelievest thine eyes, I must be my own accuser. I am Caius Marcius, he who has wrought thee and the Volscians most harm, and the surname of Coriolanus which I bear permits no denial of this. 3 I have won no other prize for all the toils and perils which I have undergone than the name which is a badge of my enmity to your people. This, indeed, cannot be taken away from me; but of everything else I have been stripped, through the envy and insolence of the Roman people, and the cowardly treachery of the magistrates and those of my own order. I have been driven into exile, too, and am become a suppliant at thy hearth, not for the sake of security and safety, for why should I come hither if I were afraid of death? — but with a desire to take vengeance on those who have driven me forth, which I take at once when I put myself in thy power. 4 If, then, thou art eager to assail thine enemies, come, good Sir, take advantage of my calamities, and make my individual misfortune the good fortune of all the Volscians; I shall fight better for you than I have against you, in just so far as those who know the secrets of their enemies fight better than those who do not. But if thou hast given up hope, neither do I wish to live, nor is it for thine advantage to spare one who has long been an enemy and a foe, and now is unprofitable and useless."

Even though society may dismiss the idea of fatherhood as optional, we know that fatherhood is important for each father shares in some unique way with the Fatherhood of the Lord.

Our Father...hallowed be thy name.

Just a few thoughts.

1. I am not so certain that what is going on is the best for Iran. I believe that the gov't should act according to the law and should not try to fabricate votes but rioting and mob action should not be the response. I'm a Burkean conservative and I loathe any type of revolution or overthrow of the gov't but for the gravest reasons. The effect of the collapse of the gov't could be disastrous.

2. Liberal democracy. You know I've got to admit, If i were a man living in a religious nation and I saw the type of things that go on in the United States, I don't know if I'd be so eager to adopt it's style of governance. To any average Muslim the US may seem like a great sodom and gomorroh, I know many Christians who feel that way.

3. Does the Ayutallah have a point? What if there really is a silent majority? Would the Guardian Council be so stupid as to fabricate eleven million votes? Did they really not expect anybody to see? Maybe a few thousand to tip it over the edge, but eleven million? They've had elections for years, what's the deal? All i hear from the liberals is vague charges, and as I know just from being a law student you just can't wave around vague charges w/o evidence. (Can anybody point to a website where they give concrete evidence?)

4. I am a little relieved actually. Maybe Ahaminejad isn't as much of a threat. For example, he backpeddled on his description of the mob, coincidently right when the Ayuhtallah took a concilator stance. It suggests to me that he is on a short leash right into the hands of the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council.

I'm on the Atkins diet.

And rightfully so.

This issue is clearly non-justiciable and best left to the political branches.

"Don't ask, don't tell" policy objectively is discrimination in that it singles out homosexuals as opposed to heterosexuals. In my view the operative question is whether it is unjust.

In my view an unjust discrimination is one where the criteria for making the discrimination is irrational. For example I reject House A b/c House A has a hole in the roof as opposed to Houses B & C b/c they do not. "Holes in the roof" are a rational criterion for determining what is a good house and thus in that sense it wouldn't be unjust.

When most people attack the "Don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) policy they do so on the basis of its discriminatory nature, implicit in their argument is that it is unjust. I believe they are erroneous b/c two reasons: first, I believe they misapply the criteria to the wrong category and two, I reject their definition of unjust.

First, most people believe that the DADT policy goes to whether or not a person is a good soldier or is able to perform his duties effectively. In their minds, this is how I think they apply the criteria. A is a homosexual whereas B is not. A cannot be a good soldier because he is a homosexual therefore, DADT policy. But in reality, that isn't the question. In my view, the issue isn't whether A is a homosexual or not, but a balancing act in which the interests of the homosexual are weighed against the interests of the military.

What possible interests would a homosexual-sodomite have in professing his homosexual nature in the military setting? His homosexuality is irrelevant to the function of the military or to his ability as a soldier. A notion he strenuously asserts. His interest is very slight. The military, I think, has a stronger interest in the balance of things. Aside from the classic military administration and function theory, I have what I believe to be a more important matter: the politicization of the military. The military has traditionally in our court systems been given wide latitude in terms of military discipline. The reason being that the military is not a political forum nor a tool for a political debate. Because it is subject to the executive branch and incidently to the legislature, the proper forum to vent policy about the military is through those branches. It is ominous in my estimation to turn the military into a political forum and dangerous to the Republic. Since the only apparent reason for homosexuals to profess their homosexuality is for some vague "feel good" reason, I simply cannot see why the DADT policy imposes a substantial hardship upon them that is unreasonable. And that leads me to my second reason.

Most people define injustice as "hardship" irrationally imposed one group in distinction to another. For example blacks having to use different toilet facilities than whites imposes an irrational hardship. But I think the opponents of DADT erroneously believe that "hardship" is the sole component of injustice. True it "emotionally" appealing but hardship is but a single factor in injustice. For example if a homosexual ethics teacher was expelled from say a religious school a hardship is imposed b/c he loses his job but certainly it isn't irrational. His objectively disordered lifestyle impairs his ability to fully instruct the students in the proper morality. Or even more poignant, homosexual preclusion from the priesthood, b/c their disordered nature will not allow them to serve optimally as priests. There is a hardship, perhaps, in the sense of subjective pain and dislike of being rejected but I doubt an astute Catholic would reject it as irrational.

Ultimately I define "unjust" narrowly and restrictively because I believe a broad sweep would be irrational and would make something which is proper into something unjust.

If I may comment personally, I am sickened by the ridiculous eagerness of "learned" Catholics to adopt the language and methodology of the world and to imbibe wholesale the sloppy and hackneyed ideas of modern US society. I find this trend disturbing and it casts a dark shadow over the American Church.

Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."


The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
---Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2357,58

Intrinsically disordered, by their very nature and inherently. Why anybody would want to proclaim that is beyond me. Needlessly, there can be no unjust discrimination. Emphasis must be taken on the particular adjective.

It is my sincere hope that in all of my discussions of Catholic Doctrine that I never come up with a new idea.

Eat less, hungry less.Eat more, hungry more.

"No! Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try."

I have loved some ladies
and I have loved Jim Bean,
and they both tried to kill me
in 1973.

When that doctor asked me
"Son, how'd you get in this condition"
"...just carryin' on an old family tradition."

-----------------

"I'd play Sally Goodin all day
if could
but the Lord and my wife
wouldn't take it real good.
So I fiddle when I can
work when I should.

I've also found it ironic that I like techno music and sci-fi, and yet am a Luddite.

I'm on the verge of using carrier pigeons.

"[F]or it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs."

--Bk. I, Aristotle's, De Ethica

Anybody have quotations they love to resort to? I always bring this one up in some way.

Here's a quotation of myself: "You are the man you want to be."