Elsewhere in the epistle, Francis implicitly condemns Vice President JD Vance, a Catholic, for misunderstanding the Church’s teaching on ordo amoris—the order of love. Vance, a convert who was catechized by two of the most intelligent Dominican priests in America (I introduced him personally to his first teacher), had defended the administration’s tough migration policy by referring to St. Thomas Aquinas’ teaching that the order of love requires us to love those closest to us first—not exclusively, but primarily, as God has given us the duty to care for them.
It turns out that JD Vance really is more Catholic than the pope. The Catechism teaches that the moral duty towards foreign refugees must be balanced by duties to the common good of the people within one’s own country. Yes, wealthy countries do have a moral responsibility to be generous in welcoming distressed foreigners, but they have the right to set limits on migration, and to refuse it when they judge that it harms the common good. The official Catholic teaching balances charity with common sense.
JD Vance understands that; Pope Francis does not. The pope, in his teaching, has sanctified open borders—even, as in Europe, when those ungated frontiers allow the migration into the Christian lands of Europe of millions of Muslims who at minimum do not share the ancestral faith of Europeans, and no small number of whom are militantly hostile to it. If Francis had lived in the time of Pius V, Europe would be Islamic today.
Author: Bill Vallicella
The Worldling
The worldling has no time for eternity.
Trump’s Incendiary Common Sense
The method to Trump's apparent madness is well-explained here:
In his recent successful presidential campaign and in his first month in office, President Donald Trump has used a remarkably effective rhetorical device that may best be described as "incendiary common sense."
The clearest example from the race, and where it became most clear, was the infamous allegation Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating cats and dogs. There was a three-step process in play.
First, liberals went absolutely crazy, calling Trump a racist for even suggesting it could be happening. Having gone to Springfield, the truth of the claim remains inconclusive to me, but that didn’t matter, because Step 2 was actual reporting about what was precisely happening in Springfield.
Finally, Step 3 came when the American people asked themselves, "Well, why did we think dumping 20,000 Haitian migrants in a town of 50,000 was a good idea?"
Obviously, it was a horrible idea, as I learned from the residents there who never asked for it.
By the time the fires of outrage were extinguished, and the smoke cleared, Trump was sitting on the high ground of common sense. Suddenly, Democrats had to try to defend something indefensible.
The author goes on to explain how the tactic works with respect to DOGE, and with respect to the repeated references to Canada as the 51st state with Justin Trudeau as its governor. There is obviously no way in hell that Canadians will give up their national sovereignty, and what's more, it make no bloody sense for Trump, a defender of national sovereignty in general to demand that the Canadians give up theirs.
But it is not clear, is it? Maybe "America First!" really does mean in Trump's mind that America should dominate the rest of the world and "take it over" as he said he wants to "take over" the Gaza Strip; perhaps it is not merely a special case of "Nation First!" One is left wondering. This sparks even more controversy and forces willy-nilly more attention on the genuine issues that Trump is concerned with.
Our boy is once again outsmarting the dumb Dems and handing them their collective ass on a platter. Or maybe he really is a dictator with all his edicts (EOs), a dictator in perpetuity who never ever will leave as Rachel Maddow and her ilk fear. Keep 'em guessing and obsessing.
Trump is a media master who knows how to gin up frenzy among his political enemies so as to bring attention to serious matters about illegal immigration, trade imbalances, and whatnot, thereby delighting his base and forcing the leftist clowns to defend the indefensible.
Addendum (2/17)
And the swamp critters began to sweat:
Kash Patel will soon be confirmed as director of the FBI. It can’t come quickly enough. Patel’s pending confirmation may be why the searches for “witness protection,” “erase iPhone,” and “paper shredder” have skyrocketed in D.C. since Jan. 20th.
The Beltway bandits are on the run.
Saturday Night at the Oldies: Ordinals and Cardinal >10
I did zero to ten a few years back. What songs can you think of that feature ordinals or cardinals greater than tenth or ten? Well, racking wracking my brains there's
Connie Stevens, Sixteen Reasons. With footage from David Lynch, "Mulholland Drive."
Simon and Garfunkel, 59th Street Bridge Song. What a great song! Slow down you hyperkinetic hustlers, you're moving too fast!
Cannibal and the Head Hunters, Land of 1000 Dances. This one goes out to Tom Coleman who probably danced to this at the El Monte Legion Stadium circa '65. "Be there or be square!" Can you pony like Bony Maroni?
Question Mark and the Mysterians, 96 Tears. Is that a Farfisa organ making that cheesy sound? This one goes out to Colin McGinn.
Bobby Darin, 18 Yellow Roses
Cannonball Adderley, 74 Miles Away
Chicago, 25 or 6 to 4
Frank Zappa, Twenty Small Cigars
Tom Waits, Ol '55
Paul Simon, 50 Ways to Leave Your Lover
Billy Ward and the Dominoes, Sixty Minute Man
Ike Turner, Rocket 88
Beatles, When I'm 64
Dave Alvin, Highway 61 Revisited. So who is Dylan? A folksinger, a rock & roller? Or the bard of Deep Americana?
A Design Argument from the Cognitive Reliability of Our Senses: A Proof of Classical Theism?
Substack latest.
I present an argument that many will take as supporting classical theism. But I point out that, so taken, the argument is not rationally inescapable or philosophically dispositive since it may also be construed along Nagelian lines to support an inherent immanent teleology in nature.
Topics include rationality, intentionality, both intrinsic and derivative, and the fascinating structural similarity of dispositionality to (conscious) intentionality.
A Coordinated Assault on All Fronts in a Fight to the Death
I don't pretend to understand Trump's battle plan, but it may be that this guy does:
The Trump Team fooled everybody, including me. As last week’s various lawsuits sprouted restraining orders like early buds emerging all over the willow trees in springtime, most commenters expected Trump to take a necessary pause for defensive retrenchment. Surely, we all thought, it would take Trump’s anti-bureaucrats some time to clear the judicial logjam. But all of us were wrong.
A brief pause to clear past the TROs wasn’t Trump’s strategy at all. No pauses! Instead, yesterday Trump tripled down, jamming the battle tank’s accelerator into overdrive and smashing ahead in a whole different direction. His new battlefield banner unfurled yesterday afternoon in the form of one executive order plus three separate press conferences, which together sent a just-relaxing Deep State enemy racing for the bunkers with its trousers still half off.
And don't fool yourselves, muchachos: this is a fight to the death:
Some people will regard my title as hyperbole.It is not.Trump, I believe, understands he is in a fight to the death.The American establishment tried to discredit and ruin him, to imprison him, to assassinate him.They stole his 2020 reelection from him. They tried to steal his NY properties. It is not possible for Trump to have illusions about what he is up against. He is up against evil.
Trump knows that the fight is not just about him. It is about America. For decades a corrupt American establishment has been running the government for their benefit at the expense of the American people. Trump says he intends to take government out of the corrupt establishment’s hands and put it back in the hands of the people.That is the last place the establishment wants it.For them the struggle Trump began in 2015 is existential. If Trump loses, America loses, and the establishment wins. Civil liberties will disappear, especially for “racist” white people and for people who think there are only two genders. Censorship and false narratives will prevail, and we will live in a belief system constructed for us by the establishment and the whore media for whom government is a profit center.
I don’t know how many of Trump’s appointees understand that they are in a fight to the death. How strong are they?If Trump doesn’t win, their careers are over. The establishment will see to that. If the Establishment proves to be stronger, will Trump’s appointees change sides and abandon the fight?
I don’t know how many MAGA Americans understand the stakes. How many of them think that the fight ended with the election victory and now President Trump will put everything right? If this delusion prevails, the emergency extra-legal steps Trump must take if he is to prevail will lack support among his followers.The whore media will paint a picture of Trump as a tyrant.
Addendum (2/14)
Report Card on Trump's First '100' Days. He promised to hit the ground running, and he did. His accomplishments so far have been astonishing. If his propensity for hubris doesn't do him in, he's headed for Mount Rushmore. His interregnum did him a world of good. His getting nixed* in 2020 redounded to his benefit. His cabinet choices were outstanding and all have been or will be confirmed. A truly diverse and inclusive bunch in the proper senses of these terms, and no 'equity' in sight. 'Equity' is unjust and can get you killed. Individual MERIT rules as it must and by right: fight, Fight, FIGHT! that it be restored. The obstructionist crapweasel Dementocrats haven't learned their lesson yet, but they will in the end. They had better, or they are done for. They way they are going, 2025 may be their last year.
As I have recently opined, however, we do need an opposition party to insure checks and balances all up and down the line. The Dems would do just fine if they could thoroughly reform themselves by purging the hard-Left scum and getting back to basic sanity and moral decency. But that's a big 'if.'
If you've been around a while, you know that the Dems weren't always full of Schiff and his ilk: this used to be the party of JFK, a resolute commie-fighter who stood tall against Nikita "Shoebanger" Krushchev, and was a lifelong member of the NRA. I shudder to think what would have happened in October of '62 had Clinton, Obama, or Biden been president.
_________
*An allusion to the outcome of the Kennedy-Nixon contest of 1960.
From the Mail Bag: Old-Time Reader Swims the Tiber
This just in from Russell B.:
Long time no talk.
I hope you’re doing well. I have been thinking about your work on existence over the past 3-4 years very seriously. So seriously, in fact, that it has made me swim the Tiber (well, I was born and raised Catholic so did I actually leave?). But I had to leave Protestantism; there was nothing left for me there. However, my biggest problem was divine simplicity. Long story short: I think your view (and Barry Miller’s view) is more or less the proper way to think about existence which in turn helps make DDS easier to swallow. And, if I might add, while the view is philosophically rich, I find the mystical and religious implications much richer. I have been obsessed with the mystics and in particular Teresa of Avila and Juan de la Cruz. I am unsure if you have felt similar ways in which their ideas deeply coincide with a God that just is Being itself. I don’t really know if I have words to describe how other than it just 'appears' to me that way.Another way in which you helped me religiously was helping me decide between between Eastern Orthodoxy and Rome. They are essentially the same religion but I remember you saying that we need to approach truth from four different angles: philosophically, morally, religiously, and mystically. Well, I would say that Catholicism uses all four of these approaches while Orthodoxy ignores the first. This was huge for me. Now I know you have problems with the amount of dogma the Catholic Church has. This was also a stumbling block for me but I have tried to approach the matter like the parable where Jesus says only a child will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. It has been humbling to say the least.
Very good to hear from you, Russell. Here are a couple of questions and some comments that will interest you and perhaps others.
1) What were your reasons for becoming a Protestant in the first place and then leaving Protestantism, apart from acceptance of DDS? And what sect did you leave?
2) You ask whether I think mysticism, particularly that of the two great Spanish mystics you mention, coheres with the notion of a God who is ipsum esse subsistens. I do indeed. I am sure you are aware of Exodus 2:14: Ego sum qui sum . . . dic illis: QUI EST misit me ad vos. On Mount Sinai God reveals himself to Moses, and communicates to him the following message to be relayed to those at the foot of the mountain, a message presumably not couched in the words of any human language: "I am who am . . . say this, 'He Who Is sent me to you.' "
To my mind, this passage from Exodus expresses the identity of the God of the Bible with the God of the philosophers. The God of the Bible, a being, reveals himself to man as Being itself. The two upward paths, that of religion and that of philosophy, come together as one at the apex of the ascent in the divine simplicity. The ascent to the Absolute is thus onto-theological. And so, the two paths, neither of which in itself is a mystical path, culminate in a mystical unity, that of the simple God. It is a mystical unity in that it defies discursive grasp. We ineluctably think in opposites and naturally balk at talk of a thing identical to its attributes, its attributes identical to one another, its essence identical to its existence, and so on.
You can come to understand how a God worth his salt must be ontologically simple without being able to understand how he could be ontologically simple. You can reason your way up to the simple God, but not into him or his life. There will be no syllogizing in the Beatific Vision. Discursivity must be dropped as it must also be dropped in the transition from ordinary, discursive prayer to the Prayer of Quiet, the first stage of infused contemplation, with several more beyond it. These stages are well-described in Teresa's Interior Castle, and in all the manuals of mystical theology. Poulain, about whom I say something over at Substack, is particularly good.
Mystics properly so called, such as Teresa de Avila and Juan de la Cruz, are able to jump immediately to the apex by mystical intuition. And so there are three upward paths, although the mystical way is perhaps not well-described as a path inasmuch as it can be trod in an instant without any preparatory ascesis if one receives an infusion of divine grace. (Grace is gratuitous and so cannot be brought about by any technique.) The philosopher plods along, discursively, step by step. The religionist proceeds tediously with rites and rituals, petitions and penances and processions, fasting and almsgiving, kneeling and standing. Mystics, properly so-called, do these things as well, but not as well and not as much. You may have noticed, Russell, that St. Teresa is a pretty sharp thinker who works out a criteriology for the evaluation of mystical experiences in The Interior Castle, a late work of hers, and the one I would recommend to people above her others. It is short and easy to read.
As for Thomas Aquinas, the main exponent of DDS, he too is a mystic, a minor mystic if you will, not at the level of Teresa and Juan, not to mention Meister Eckhart, et al. I believe the only experience of Thomas's we are aware of is the one at the end of his life which prompted him to give up writing. See my Substack article, Why Did Thomas Aquinas Leave his Summa Theologiae Unfinished? Aquinas is all three: philosopher, religionist, mystic. Or it might be better to say he wears four hats: philosopher, religionist, theologian, mystic.
This response is beginning to get lengthy, so I'll leave two more comments I have until later. The Comments are enabled.
Judicial Terminology: Lustration
Here:
Lustration is the removal of public officials and judges who are associated with a tainted political regime. It has been used as a tool of transitional justice in newly independent and postconflict countries. Lustrating begins with vetting—a review of conduct and competency. Individuals associated with the discredited government, and credibly accused of corruption or human rights violations, are dismissed. Officials appointed on the basis of political connections may be removed or reassigned to lower-level positions. Lustration also can be implemented indirectly, as with lowering the mandatory retirement age for judges.
The federal bureaucracy is clearly an obstacle to the president’s agenda. But Trump has a plan this time around. Already, the administration has fired prosecutors involved in former President Joe Biden’s Jan. 6 witch hunt. It has also fired eight high-level FBI officials and is reportedly considering firing many thousands more. Additionally, Elon Musk has claimed that Trump agreed to “shut down” the U.S. Agency for International Development, which would put 10,000 civil servants out of job. And then we have the 30,000 or so federal employees who accepted Trump’s brilliant buyout offer.
But given that the federal government employs more than 2 million people, much work remains to be done. Thankfully, Trump signed an executive order on day one that not only reinstated his Schedule F executive order from 2020 but also expanded its scope. According to the National Treasury Employee Union, Trump’s executive order would affect far more federal employees than the 100,000 previously anticipated. It turns out he wasn’t kidding about draining the swamp.
No More Lip Service
Dealing with the bureaucracy isn’t the only policy field in which the second Trump term is superior to the first. Across the board — DEI, immigration, trans nonsense, foreign policy, you name it — this administration has proven its commitment to implementing a holistic platform that addresses the existential issues of our time. Long gone are the days of elected Republicans paying mere lip service to conservative ideals. Thanks to Trump, the new GOP knows the score — and it’s playing to win.
William Kilpatrick’s Turning Point Project
The Turning Point Project is dedicated to educating Catholics and other Americans about the threat from Islam by arming them with the information and analysis necessary to meet the challenge.
As I have argued many times, Islam and Leftism, especially in synergy, pose a major threat to us.
This from December 2017:
The Leftist-Islamist Axis of Evil and Divine Sovereignty
James S. writes,
Your point about the twin threats coming from the Left and from Islam reminded me of an email I received from Fr. Schall some months ago when I shared a draft of the Syllabus with him. He made the same point, as both the Left and Islam are voluntarist systems where will is exalted over reason. He called the parallel between them the main issue of our time. Many of the points in the Syllabus were paraphrases of an earlier Schall essay on voluntarism.
Fr. Schall is right. But the issue may be a bit more complicated than the good father appreciates. As I say in Pope Benedict's Regensburg Speech and Muslim Insensitivity:
Benedict is not denigrating Islam or its prophet but setting forth a theological problem, one that arises within Christianity itself, namely, the problem of the tension between the intellectualism of Augustine and Aquinas and the voluntarism of Duns Scotus. "Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?" Roughly, does the transcendence of God — which both Christianity and Islam affirm though in different ways — imply that God is beyond our categories, including that of rationality?
Perhaps a better way to put the question would be in terms of divine sovereignty. Is God absolutely sovereign and thus unlimited in knowledge and power? Or are there logical and non-logical limits on his knowledge and power? For example, is a law of logic such as Non-Contradiction within God's power? In his 2012 Creation and the Sovereignty of God, Hugh McCann argues that God is not only sovereign over the natural order, but also over the moral order, the conceptual/abstract order, and the divine nature itself. That seems to give the palm to voluntarism, does it not?
I consider McCann's view to be highly problematic as I argue in my long discussion article, "Hugh McCann on the Implications of Divine Sovereignty," American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 88, no. 1 (Winter 2014), pp. 149-161.
Related: Muslim Atrocities Against Christians and their Churches
Trump’s Gaza Proposal
Donald Trump seems incapable of qualifying his statements, a fault that may be connected with his tendency to exaggerate. And so he needlessly inflames his enemies, who, given their biases, naturally took him to be advocating ethnic cleansing with his talk of "taking over" Gaza. Anthony Flood here skillfully rebuts the suggestion.
I believe Tony is right, having carefully listened to the joint Trump-Netanyahu speech and the context-providing interview last night by Mark Levin of the Israeli Prime Minister. In the speech with Trump, Netanyahu hung back, not sure what Trump was proposing with his "take over Gaza" remark. But in the interview he put a positive spin on it.
It is not quite clear whether Trump's provocation is intentional, a sort of 'blue-baiting' if you will, or simply due to a lack of political skill.
In any case, the interregnum did him a world of good. Our boy is learning the ropes, and if he plays his cards right and does not succumb to hubris he may end up on Mt Rushmore.
Dingbat Pelosi has proposed the benighted Joe Biden for that high honor, thereby underscoring her preternatural asininity and her unfitness both for high office and political commentary.
Trump's propensity for hubris does, however, worry me. Merriam-Webster:
Hubris Comes From Ancient Greece
English picked up both the concept of hubris and the term for that particular brand of cockiness from the ancient Greeks, who considered hubris a dangerous character flaw capable of provoking the wrath of the gods. In classical Greek tragedy, hubris was often a fatal shortcoming that brought about the fall of the tragic hero. Typically, overconfidence led the hero to attempt to overstep the boundaries of human limitations and assume a godlike status, and the gods inevitably humbled the offender with a sharp reminder of their his mortality.
It is an index of the extreme polarization of our time that there are those who are quite sure that Trump enjoys divine protection. They speak, irresponsibly, of the 'miracle' of his escaping death by assassination at Butler, PA. But how could anyone know, and confidently claim, that God intervened to save his life? I am not saying that God did not intervene in this instance, or that divine intervention in nature is impossible; I am saying that you are guilty of epistemic pretense if you pretend to know what cannot be known, but can only, at most, be reasonably believed.
Hubris or providential protection? You are free to believe what you like, but in a case like this, the wise man suspends judgment.
The ever-helpful Dave Lull informs me that our friend Edward Feser has weighed in on the Gaza matter with an article in National Catholic Register, Trump's Gaza Proposal is Gravely Immoral.
Catholic opinion on Trump is divided, to put it mildly. See Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano's Letter to American Catholics.
Addendum (2/13)
Trump’s Executive Order re: 2A
I had been toying with the idea of heading to the range tomorrow morning; this 2A news just in, I am now going for sure to celebrate the Executive Order with a bang. One hundred rounds worth.
The Bill of Rights is just so much 18th century parchment unless and until backed up with Pb. 2A codifies the Pb. 2A does not grant a right to self-defense; it protects a right logically antecedent to governments, a right to defend not only your life and liberty, but also your property, including the property instrumental to the defense of the first two items of the Lockean triad.
Read the EO carefully. Do see where 'impinge' ought to have been 'infringe'? Call me a pedant if you like, but you young people will never fathom the beauty, richness, and versatility of the English language if you don't read good old books, but restrict yourself to social media dreck and the latest printed offerings.
Stupor Bowl LIX
Two reasons to watch: Trump will be there; DOGE will run commercials. For twelve reasons not to watch see here.
You may enjoy a thoughtful rant of mine from 2016, Stupor Bowl or Super Bore?
Elon Musk on DOGE.
Saturday Night at the Oldies: Some Good Tunes from the ’70s
The '60s rule, of course, since no decade in Anglospheric popular music was richer or more creative. I say Anglospheric because great stuff came out of the U. K., Canada, and Australia. I don't know about New Zealand. But let's not ignore the cream of the '70s. Full enjoyment of course requires proper synaptic lubrication. I'm having me a Jack and Coke this Saturday night. Just one. A generous shot of whisky is good; ten shots is not ten times better.
Jackson Browne, The Pretender. This great song goes out to Darci M who introduced me to Jackson Browne. Darci was Lithuanian, and it's a good bet she still is. Her mother told her, "Never bring an Italian home." So I never did meet the old lady. I encountered no anti-Italian prejudice on the West coast whence I hail; the East is a different story. The closer to Europe, the closer to Old World prejudice.
Running on Empty. A great road song. There's nothing like the open road of the American West. Big sky, lambent light, broad vistas, buttes and mesas, railroads running, truckers trucking, ballin' the jack one more time to the End of the Line. Get out there and see it before it's gone or you are too old, one.
Gerry Rafferty, Right Down the Line
Baker Street. This was a big hit in the summer of '78. This one goes out to Charaine H and our road trip that summer.
Dave Mason, Only You Know and I Know
All Along the Watchtower (2013)
Roy Buchanan, Sweet Dreams
Patsy Cline, Sweet Dreams (1963)
Written by Don Gibson
Orleans, Dance with Me
Abba, Fernando. I first heard this in Ben's Gasthaus, Zaehringen, Freiburg im Breisgau ,' 76-'77. This one goes out to Rudolf, Helmut, Martin, Hans, und Herrmann, working class Germans who loved to drink the Ami under the table.
Last Days, Last Things
What better way to spend one's last days than by deep inquiry into the Last Things?
Would that not be a better use of time than gambling and fox hunting, and the other examples of Pascalian divertissement?
You will soon be embarking nolens volens for a permanent stay in a foreign destination, departure date unknown. Are your affairs in order?
For a good old introduction to the traditional Roman Catholic doctrine on death, the intermediate state, resurrection, judgment, and eternity, see Romano Guardini, The Last Things.
Could Kamala Explain the Difference between True and Magnetic North?
I doubt it. She thinks 'the cloud' in cyberspeak refers to a physical object in the sky. Remember that howler?
Why are the Dems so dumb? They lack both a message and messenger. The think they failed to 'get their message across.' But they had no message to get across, and no one to get it across. Did you see the unedited Sixty Minutes video? Kamala the Joyous could not explain why she wanted to be president. She is perhaps fit to be a kindergarten teacher, but not POTUS. Is that not blindingly evident? And are you not an emotion-driven fool if you let your TDS impel you to embrace the Joyous One? I'll leave Tampon Tim and his page-turner of a wife out of this rant.
Part of what make the Dems dumb is their inability to learn from experience, as witness their continuing to play the race and Hitler cards. Do they have a death wish? And what does it say about the nearly half of the voters who cast their ballots for that intersectional dumbass?
Collateral observation. The voters are not the electorate. Two reasons. First, the voters include those who vote illegally; the electorate, used normatively, as I am using the term, does not. Second, the electorate include those who do not vote in a given election. The electorate comprise those who are legally entitled to vote. You are legally so entitled only if you are a citizen who has not disqualified himself by, say, committing a felony. Bernie Sanders thinks that felons should have the right to vote. I make an invective-free case against this foolish and indeed asinine view at Substack, sine ira et studio.
By the way, it appears that magnetic north has shifted position.