OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
No bio...
User ID: 359
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2yr ago
I think the problem is inherent in the blockers. They do what exactly what it says on the tin - halt puberty. The problem with that is they are being used for the purpose of allowing a person to mature and a brain to develop enough to make an adult decision. But they halt puberty, the process that changes a kid brain into an adult brain.
I don't think this has been sufficiently studied. If it ever gets studied either:
-
I'm wrong. Teen brains still mature as normal on puberty blockers. Despite this, nigh 100% of kids who go on puberty blockers to treat dysphoria go on to hormone replacement. In this case why bother with blockers at all? Seems like medication and risk without a purpose. Better to come up with a new protocol that focuses on preserving sexual health and end appearance.
-
I'm right, in which case puberty blockers are not actually giving kids time to mature and make adult decisions. We still have kid brains making the final decision to go on HRT, it's just a 16 year old kid brain instead of a 12 year old kid brain. We still have immature kids making adult decisions. It is possible that normal puberty is the thing that causes desistance and acceptance of sex assigned at birth.
So I'm against blockers on principle and I don't see a way to get me to change my mind.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
26d ago
But then there's no more American people. Who will our elected leaders serve? "The people currently standing on the territory formally known as the USA?" Whose long-term interests do they protect?
Our leaders should have a referent "American people" and put the interests of these "American people" first. I assure you that leaders of other countries understand who "their people" are and serve their interests to the detriment of our own. If we do not have leaders who look out for our interest, then we will taken advantage of at every turn.
Who are the American people? Citizens, their children, and those they adopt in. Adoption isn't an uncaring, unnoticed act. It's always personal and usually planned for. The adoptee needs to want to join the family and take on the family's customs.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
As a woman, it's hard to figure out who his "incest, cannibalism and John 3:16" blub is attracting. Finn looks pretty average, kind of douchy.
My advice in general would be for guys to take photos from below, girls take photos from above, maybe seek a professional photographer if it's that important.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
to me the overall thrust makes it pretty obvious that Rome is in the wrong.
Politically or theologically?
I would say desecrating the Eucharist in 1054 and killing/expelling/enslaving all Italian Catholics in 1182 are both examples of Constantinople being in the wrong politically first.
I can't say for certain if the Papal Legates were on their best behavior or not in Constantinople. It seems like there are many sources and sides to the story, all of them undoubtedly biased.
Fortunately, what I can say is none of that matters as far as whether one should be Catholic or Orthodox. The question of if I should be Catholic or Orthodox is a theological question. Is there theological basis for Roman Primacy? I believe the answer is "Yes." I believe that the answer has been yes, and was demonstrably so even before the Synod of Chalcedon.
I would love for us to heal the schism. From Rome's perspective I don't think there's anything we'd require the other side to change, just reconfirmation of Rome's primacy. We already have many Eastern Catholic Churches that have a multiplicity of different views and practices. We see the Orthodox as having valid Holy Orders and sacraments.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
4mo ago
Yes, this is exactly my point. This executive order shifts power from the conservative to the-- as you call it-- "dynamic" aspect of the government. And conservatives are happy about this? What?
Yes, I am happy with more accountability in government. I'd be happier with the Legislature passing actual laws instead of delegating regulations to the Executive. The Legislature should never give an executive department (department implementing laws) the authority to make regulations that they are unwilling to have change every presidency.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1yr ago
Consider also in Camp: this is terrible:
Trump did not do anything that was technically illegal. There is nothing illegal about paying someone to sign an NDA. A former chairman of the FEC is on the record as saying this expenditure does not count as a campaign expenditure. Smith also commented:
Suppose Trump had used campaign funds to pay off these women. Does anyone much doubt that many of the same people now after Trump for using corporate funds, and not reporting them as campaign expenditures, would then be claiming that Trump had illegally diverted campaign funds to “personal use”? Or that federal prosecutors would not have sought a guilty plea from Cohen on that count?
There is, at the least, reasonable doubt that this action was illegal, and the standard for convicting someone of a felony is beyond a reasonable doubt.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1yr ago
Trying to nail you down here, if someone followed the law perfectly absent Jesus' death on the cross, however impossible that in itself might be, would that person have made it to Heaven?
If so, I think I understand Protestant's objections to Catholic's veneration of Mary better. Catholics believe Jesus' death on the cross redeems us because Jesus is God. But do Protestants believe His death redeems us because He was sinless (and His divinity was required for Him to be sinless, but it was the sinlessness itself that made redemption possible?)
Just to check—you don't think that Abraham was justified solely by faith, right?
I think James was pretty clear:
"Was not Abraham our father justified by his actions, when he offered up Isaac, his son, on the sacrificial altar? You see that his faith worked with his actions and through his actions his faith was made a thing complete, and so the scripture was fulfilled which says: Abraham believed God, and it was counted as righteousness in him, and he was called the friend of God. You see that a person is justified by his acts and not by faith alone."
But the binding of Isaac happened well after Abraham's circumcision, after Abraham's faith was counted to him as righteousness. I think you are incorrect about Abraham becoming justified instantaneously by faith, whatever tenses you might find in Paul.
Yes, Paul seems to disagree with James, and Clement with Clement. But we know that all must go together. Somehow these quotes and concepts didn't seem contradictory to the early Church. No Catholic today would claim that we are justified of ourselves or that we are justified absent an act of divine condescension.
I see three possible ways to reconcile James with Paul and Clement with Clement: (and I'm borrowing from Matthew J. Thomas here)
-
One proposal is that the difference is a matter of timing: while Paul is speaking about the initial reception of justifying grace apart from works, James is talking about the verdict of final justification at the last day, for which works as evidence of faith are essential.
-
Another possibility is that the difference is the kind of works under discussion: while Paul denies that the Torah’s observances can be made a requirement for justification, it is less clear that the good works prescribed by James are also a target of Paul’s objections
-
A third possibility focuses on the nature of faith, which may be more notional in James (a faith such as the demons can have, cf. Jas 2:19), while Paul’s use of the term is more relational and entails fidelity as well (cf. ‘the obedience of faith’ in Rom 1:5, 16:26).
I think all three possibilities are compatible with the Catholic view. Which of these would be compatible with your view? If none, what is your view?
children raised by two same-sex parents have equal or better life outcomes to straight parents
What evidence have you seen that makes this a matter of "fact" to you? From my understanding, the studies that show this are about as high a quality as studies on trans-youth medicine, relying on parental-reports of well-being and slanted samples.
Meanwhile, studies on heterosexual couples show that mothers and fathers parent differently and children living with unrelated adults suffer from increased stress measured by cortisol levels.
Children living with nonrelatives, stepfathers and half-siblings (stepfather has children by the stepchild’s mother), or single parents without kin support had higher average levels of cortisol than children living with both parents, single mothers with kin support, or grandparents. A further test of this hypothesis is provided by comparison of step- and genetic children residing in the same households. Stepchildren had higher average cortisol levels than their half-siblings residing in the same household who were genetic offspring of both parents (Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, page 565.)
Parents and Stepparents even abuse and murder children in different ways:
Stepparents commit filicide at higher rates than do genetic parents. According to M. Daly and M. I. Wilson (1994), motivational differences generate differences in the methods by which stepparents and genetic parents kill a child. Using Canadian and British national-level databases, Daly and Wilson (1994) found that stepfathers were more likely than genetic fathers to commit filicide by beating and bludgeoning, arguably revealing step-parental feelings of bitterness and resentment not present to the same degree in genetic fathers. Genetic fathers, in contrast, were more likely than stepfathers to commit filicide by shooting or asphyxiation, methods which often produce a relatively quick and painless death. We sought to replicate and extend these findings using a United States national-level database of over 400,000 homicides. Results replicate those of Daly and Wilson(1994) for genetic fathers and stepfathers. In addition, we identified similar differences in the methods by which stepmothers and genetic mothers committed filicide.
Given this, my prior would be that a kid raised in a Same Sex household, where they are by default unrelated to at least one parent, would have poorer outcomes than kids raised by straight parents (where a larger percentage are raised by two related parents.) What have you seen that makes you confident otherwise?
Primarily, I would be teaching my daughters their bodies and give them tools/trackers just for the educational value. There is so much more value to being aware of your cycle. It can tell a woman when she will be the most motivated, when she'll be more likely to make bad decisions, etc. Teenagers taught to monitor their bodies have reported things like, "Now I know when I'm angry at a certain time of the month, to just wait it out and not make any big decisions." Teenage girls in correctional facilities were astonished to see that their misbehavior typically fell in the same time of the month. Etc. I don't think I need to defend to this sub the value of self-knowledge.
The ideal would be that they don't have sex. But if they do, they will know exactly when and why they got pregnant.
I have a huge issue with lumping together "Symptoms-based fertility awareness ex. symptothermal and calendar-based methods". There are five different methods I can name off the top of my head that meet that criteria, which vary in effectiveness from 75% to 99.8% with perfect use. Complicating this is that a lot of people use a condom during fertile time instead of abstaining, which just makes the effectiveness on par with a condom.
Calendar-based method: Terrible effectiveness rate. I've heard of one that was just, "Have sex every 10 days" and it had an effectiveness rate of like 90%, which is funny but isn't super in-tune with the body.
Then there's the Marquette Method, which is starting to get into more measurable, technological solutions. You pee on a stick every morning, it gives you a reading you chart, the chart tells you whether or not you should have sex that day if you want to be pregnant or not.
There were forty-two unintended pregnancies which provided a typical use unintended pregnancy rate of 6.7 per 100 women over twelve months of use. Eleven of the forty-two unintended pregnancies were associated with correct use of the method. The total unintended pregnancy rate over twelve months of use was 2.8 per 100 for women with regular cycles, 8.0 per 100 women for the postpartum and breastfeeding women, and 4.3 per 100 for women with irregular menstrual cycles.
Typical use effectiveness of 93.3% is not bad at all - very comparable to the pill.
The version I use and will teach my daughters is the Sympto-Thermal method with a Doeringer rule - like the Sensiplan. I would give them special thermometers to wear at night which only need to be synced about once a week (unless you really want sex, in which case they get synced every morning.) For the Sensiplan Method:
After 13 cycles, 1.8 per 100 women of the cohort experienced an unintended pregnancy; 9.2 per 100 women dropped out because of dissatisfaction with the method; the pregnancy rate was 0.6 per 100 women and per 13 cycles when there was no unprotected intercourse in the fertile time.
This is comparable to an IUD.
Trust me, I have done the research on this. It is literally impossible to get pregnant on phase III (three days after ovulation to the start of menses), if your phase I is longer than 6 days. I've had to rely on this knowledge many a time and it doesn't fail. If I have sex anywhere near a fertile window, I get pregnant immediately (I have learned.)
Edit to add an article on the "teach teenagers to be aware of their cycle" thing: https://naturalwomanhood.org/cycle-mindfulness-what-happens-when-you-teach-fertility-awareness-to-teen-girls/
Here is what she found out: for 90% of the girls in the program who had ended up in jail, it happened during the premenstrual phase of her cycle...
One of the documented outcomes of Teen STAR’s work is the much lower likelihood for these girls to engage in premature sexual activities. The program was evaluated by ChildTrends, a leading U.S. nonprofit research organization, which reported “that this program is effective in reducing the rate of pregnancy, delaying the onset of sexual activity, decreasing sexual activity in sexually-active youth, and improving attitudes towards abstinence, compared with students in the no-treatment groups.”
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
I am specifically a Catholic, so great.
I would recommend reading Brian Davies "The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil" for a study on this topic. Catholics do not believe saying "God is Good" is tantamount to saying "God is well-behaved."
Satan is not good, his nature is to be an angelic messenger in constant adoration of God and serving humanity. He is not living up to his nature at all. He is a very bad example of an Angel.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
8mo ago
If the reason I am so sure is that I have video evidence of fraud, I would post that to the world as well with the same MSM reaction.
I mean, there was a video of a precinct pulling out a box of ballots that had been covered by a table cloth after sending away all observers. A month later, a reporter reviewed the video footage and insists that the box was legitimate and that there is "no evidence of any wrongdoing."
I think even with the official story there is obvious wrong doing - particularly sending away all observers and then deciding to continue counting without waiting for the observers to return. But is that wrong doing significant enough to sway the election? Probably not this specific instance. But how many specific instances are needed before it might sway the election?
Of course, no one was so kind as to leave a genuine smoking gun, a video confession in the midst of the act. There were a great number of times poll workers violated local election rules, and these instances are as proven as it can be outside a court of law. But without being able to investigate these, it is impossible to know if these actually turned the election.
And if the statistical anomaly is strong enough by itself, I'd do a fireside chat that is amounts to a powerpoint presentation on "here is statistical evidence of fraud", and if it really is strong enough, then the MSM will either be forced to report on its strength, or their contortions trying to debunk it will be obvious to everyone, winning the public to your side.
Your assumption that the "public" would rally around any given evidence of fraud is laughable. This is a close election. Everyone either voted for the other guy or didn't vote at all. Everyone is either motivated against accepting evidence their guy actually lost, or politically disengaged.
I'm assuming you voted for Biden? Imagine if you saw a video of someone "cleaning up unclear ballots" to favor Biden. Instances where neither candidate was selected or both candidates were selected by accident, and every time the poll worker filled in the Biden bubble and erased the Trump bubble. Do you think that the average Biden voter, upon seeing this, would say, "That's F'd up! I'm going to share this with everyone I know and protest that Trump should be the rightful president?"
Of course not! They would justify it to themselves as just a lone wolf that couldn't affect much, or that "they voted for a Democrat for senator, of course they meant to vote Biden!" They certainly wouldn't amplify the video.
What about those who don't have a horse in the game? Well, they were too focused on whatever it is that people who don't vote focus on. Imagine not caring about politics. Crazy stuff.
Trump voters really were convinced by the videos and accounts going around, so much so that upwards of 70% of Republicans still believe the election was stolen. Having this group of the public on his side did pretty much nothing for Trump besides get him into even more trouble once they decided to try a riot for themselves.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1yr ago
Since you invited a debate, here it goes:
There is a distinction in Catholicism between an infallible statement in a fallible church document. What I mean by this is a Council is only speaking infallibly when it states something in a particular formula. Usually it goes like, "We affirm, with our magisterial authority, that all inside the universal Church are bound to X." That kind of statement, and only that statement, is considered infallible. The surrounding logic or justification is not infallible. The entire document is not infallible. Things the author has said about what they meant when they stated it is not infallible. Catholic doctrine is Textualist, not Originalist.
The infallible statement in the Council of Florence is:
It firmly believes. professes and preaches, that none who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can partake of eternal life,but they will go into eternal fire… unless before the end of life they will have been joined to [the Church] and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body has such force that only for those who remain in it are the sacraments of the Church profitable for salvation; and fastings, alms, and other works of piety and exercises of the Christian soldiery bring forth eternal rewards [only] for them. ‘No one, howsoever much almsgiving he has done, even if he sheds his blood for Christ, can be saved, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.’”
Sounds pretty clear-cut? Only card-carrying Catholics in Heaven? Aright, now square this statement with the more ancient belief in the Harrowing of Hell. For this statement to be infallibly professed, it also needs to be in accordance with prior infallible statements that Abraham, Elijah, and others that predated Christ are in Heaven.
Did no one see that contradiction? Actually, there has been a long history of including people inside the Church who would be very surprised to learn they were in the Catholic Church, being saved by participation in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church this whole time!
Second Clement 14:2 (c. 150 AD): “The books of the prophets and the apostles [say] that the Church is not [only] now, but from the beginning. She was spiritual, like also our Jesus. She was manifested in the last days to save us.”
St. Justin Martyr, Apology 1:46 (c. 150 AD): “Christ is the Logos of whom the whole race of men partake. Those who lived according to Logos are Christians, even if they were considered atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus.”
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:22:2 (c. 140-202 AD): “Christ came not only for those who believed from the time of Tiberius Caesar, nor did the Father provide only for those who are now, but for absolutely all men from the beginning, who, according to their ability, feared and loved God and lived justly… and desired to see Christ and to hear His voice.”
Pope St. Gregory the Great, Homilies on Ezekiel, 2:3 (540-604 AD): “The passion of the Church began already with Abel, and there is one Church of the elect, of those who precede, and of those who follow… They were, then, outside, but yet not divided from the holy Church, because in mind, in work, in preaching, they already held the sacraments of faith, and saw that loftiness of Holy Church.”
When it comes to salvation for people not visibly Catholic, Vatican II didn't say anything unusual or novel. Invincible ignorance has predated Vatican 2 also and was supported by some popes you'd be surprised by. All Vatican 2 did was reaffirm it.
Pope Pius IX wrote in his encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moeroe, predating Vatican II:
"There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff..."
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2yr ago
Last night I watched a spooky video interview with a UK mortician who claims he has been pulling out larger than normal blood clots that don't look like normal blood clots during embalming. There are a couple of other morticians and a pathologist around the world who are saying the same thing.
The way the morticians are describing this phenomenon seems alarming. Is this some sort of congealing happening after death or is this something that might have contributed to the cause of death? Is this something caused by Covid, by any of the vaccines, or all of the above? Is it affecting a large part of the population, is anyone looking into treatment? Is it even happening at all or is it a hoax? So many good questions to ask.
When I checked the Internet the only question I saw people asking was if it was caused by the vaccine or not. And most of the time they weren't even asking. One side is absolutely certain it is the vaccine, the other side is absolutely certain it is caused by Covid and vaccines can't have contributed at all. No discussion on detection or if it's treatable or anything that I would consider a higher priority than finger pointing. Do people care more about culture warring than survival?
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
7d ago
For secular people, it is largely driven by a dislike of pharmaceuticals. Hormonal contraception can have wacky side effects physically and mentally. IUDs can really hurt during placement and after. Copper IUDs have side effects too, even thought they're technically not hormonal.
People who fall in this bucket might not mind a condom or other barrier-based birth control from time to time, but people seem to like having the option to go au natural. Fertility awareness gives them this option.
Charting also can help diagnose and treat issues with the female reproductive system, if you can find a doctor who is trained to use it (often has the keyword Napro "natural procreation".) Common issues that can be identified and treated through bio-matching hormones that are administered at key phases of the cycle are polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), endometriosis, premenstrual syndrome (PMS), premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD), and other hormonal issues.
From a Catholic perspective (because let's face it, it's pretty much Catholics who see it this way), they look at it deontologically/virtuously versus consequence. If it's a matter of consequences, and Catholics are children-maximizers, the 100% assured way to avoid having kids (abstinence) would be immoral, but it's actually supererogatory.
So a Catholic looks at the actions themselves involved with Fertilty Awareness methods and doesn't see anything wrong with any of them.
Action 1: Know your cycle and communicate it with your husband - I don't see anything contrary to morals here. Self-knowledge is generally considered good, communicating with spouses is good.
Action 2: Have (married) sex on a day you know you are likely to have a kid - Believe it or not, a lot of people use Fertility awareness to increase the likelihood of children. Nothing immoral with that either.
Action 3: Not have sex on a day you know you are likely to have a kid - While there are some activities that are required or else a sin of omission is committed, it is not expected for a couple to have sex every day. Knowing that it is a fertile day doesn't change that. In fact, if someone is life-or-death-should-not-get-pregnant, then the TradCath (prior to Fertility Awareness) recommendation would be to avoid sex entirely.
Action 4: Have sex on a day you know you are unlikely to make a new life - Seems unlikely this action would be bad too. Otherwise there would also be warnings against having sex while pregnant or post-menupause, and there aren't.
I think it's more difficult to explain why hormonal birth control is immoral than it is to explain why Fertility Awareness is moral. But if I had to try to explain it, I would probably point to the reasons why some secular people avoid hormonal birth control - the action itself is purposely damaging the reproductive system, and Catholics are more strict on how much damage you can do to yourself before it becomes immoral.
As far as why barrier methods or pulling out is immoral, it changes the nature of the act, so that an actual act of sexual intercourse isn't happening - instead it's something like mutual masturbation. In Fertility Awareness, an actual act of sexual intercourse is happening.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
4mo ago
The president doesn't have to enforce laws he doesn't want to
While there is some discretion, I would not go that far. I actually really hate it when a president deliberately refuses to enforce a law. There is a problem of enforcement - the president cannot dedicate 100% of resources to enforce 100% of laws 100% of the time. But a president explicitly setting a policy where they refuse to enforce a law should be an impeachable offense.
independence of independent agencies
What is an Independent Agency? What does the word Independent mean? Does it mean something like, "Not accountable to civilian-appointed leaders?" If so, what makes it desirable? People use the word "independent" like it should have positive connotations, instead of horrific ones.
The justification is typically that Independent means non-partisan, but that is naivete. Everyone who makes policy has a side they prefer, a side that gives them more power or makes policies that align more with their own preferences.
There are Judicial Agencies. There are Legislative Agencies. These exist with direct oversight of the bodies that control them. If Congress wants to make another Legislative Agency, that's fine to do so. If Congress wanted to put the rule-making portion of the FCC's scope under themselves, assign a committee to do so and make laws that way, they are free to do so. I would welcome it. As they refuse, we are instead left with a dysfunctional and unbalanced government.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
11mo ago
If baby-killing is based on whether it can be kept alive outside the mother using current technology, does this imply that the invention of full artificial wombs would turn disposal of embryos by IVF clinics into baby-killing?
Yes
For that matter, would it turn the death of sperm or eggs into baby-killing, since theoretically each sperm can survive if you can stick it into an artificial womb with an egg and have it become a child?
No. No living organisms of the species homo sapiens were harmed
Is it baby-killing to shed skin cells if the latest technology can turn them into embryos and then develop them outside a human body?
No. No living organisms of the species homo sapiens were harmed
You are conflating ignoring the potential to create a new organism with the harming of existing organisms.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2yr ago
Slime Mold Time Mold has released the results of their Potassium Supplementation study, and I'm pretty disappointed in them. They are boasting an average of 1lb of weight loss over a month, with about a quarter not losing weight and another quarter gaining weight. A few very fat people lost multiple lbs (person with BMI over 60 lost over 10 lbs.) Some of the people writing to them stated that they were intentionally cutting calories. For example, one testimonial:
(23881640) I started a quick calorie-restricted diet before the holidays (got to fit into those festive pants!), and I’m combining counting macros, counting calories, AND adding 1 tsp of potassium chloride a day to my water, and the weight is coming off. It’s making the calorie restriction much more bearable.
That sounds like the potassium was a magic feather, not to mention the effect of joining a trial and focusing on weight for a month straight.
Despite my assessment that this study is inconclusive at best, the SMTM team is crowing about statistically significant P values and how this shows some sort of effect. They say it couldn't possibly be cutting calories, because the people eating the most calories lost the most weight. Never mind that they aren't tracking calorie deficit, and as mentioned above the biggest losers were at very high BMIs, so we'd expect them to eat the most calories and still be at the biggest calorie deficits.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
Here is what I have heard:
Theologically Conservative Frontrunner: Cardinal Peter Erdo, Archbishop of Budapest, Hungary. Primate of Hungary.
Theologically Centrist Frontrunner: Cardinal Pierbatista Pizzaballa, Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem.
Theologically Liberal Frontrunner: Cardinal Tagle, ex-Archbishop of Manilla, Philippines. Currently head of Vatican Evangelization.
There will not be any top-down changes to the Spirit of Vatican II, because the Spirit of Vatican II had nothing to do with the actual documents of Vatican II, which are all fairly benign. The Spirit of Vatican II is going to be demolished over the next twenty years by the rise of young conservative priests.
Going to start following https://x.com/pope_predictor
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
5mo ago
They can't get entrenched on this specific battle. They took a casualty, gotta move on, keep the objectives in mind. The objective is not "give this 20 something a job," the objective is "Zero Base Budget (ZBB) the federal government, remove the welfare of the elites." They are at war.
If this person is crucial to the fight it is one thing. If they are just starting a new fight that's another.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
8mo ago
RE: the worker stealing money analogy:
For me the analogy breaks down at the beginning. Republicans have always accused Democrats of fraud. Florida has a few counties that are notorious for it. Chicago is notorious for it. https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud
Let's say a CEO knows that employees sometimes waste time on their phones or talking about non-work topics, and that this cuts into their bottom line. Sometimes the company has bad quarters, and some grumbling is given to the employees getting paid to chatter. A few of the more egregious examples get written up but not much happens.
Then the company has a year where everyone works from home. There are many more reports of employees doing errands during normal business hours, more reports of overtime than usual, time card irregularities. The business has a horrible year and ends Q4 with a loss.
Is it reasonable for the boss to think he's being taken for a sucker?
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1yr ago
Paul seems to think that, given that we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God
I think you are referencing Romans 5:1 for this. "Justified therefore through faith, let us keep peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have got by faith access to that grace in which we stand, and let us exult in the hope of the glory of God."
It seems to be saying, with our initial justification caused by faith (in opposite to circumcision) let us act properly and keep peace with God through the grace Jesus has gained for us.
But looking around, it looks like the "Let us" translation is based on some Greek manuscripts, while other Greek manuscripts do not have it as an exhortations. The Vulgate has "iustificati igitur ex fide pacem habeamus ad Deum per Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum," which sounds more like an exhortation. Could this be the root of our confusion? The subjunctive seems to be attested to earlier in manuscripts, but both are widespread in the early Church. The official Roman translation used Let Us, and that undoubtedly influenced theology for millennia.
In the absence of knowing what Paul actually wrote here, may I suggest that we both avoid using Romans 5:1 to argue for or against our positions?
But I do think that Abraham must have been justified instantaneously by faith:
Are you still referring specifically to Romans 4:2? Is the Aorist in 4:2 or 4:3? Because Romans 4:2 says, "If Abraham was justified because of his actions, he has reason for glorying; but not before God, since what does the scripture say?" Paul is saying that Abraham was Not justified because he had some innate awesomeness. It doesn't really matter what tense was used when Paul is ironically saying that something Didn't happen that way.
I disagree that the language Paul uses makes the claim that Abraham was justified in a single instant, and this seems to be the basis of your arguments against the Faith/Works explanations that I hold.
Short of us both being ancient Greek scholars I don't know how much more productive our conversation can become. We can both start to appeal to authority, but I think our fundamental difference lies in the specificity of a language that I don't speak (and I'm not sure but I don't think you do either.) Which is disappointing, because I usually mock those who think that the Bible is impossible to understand because it's been a game of telephone/translated too many times.
It probably seems confusing to outsiders, but the question, "Maybe there is some sort of blessing we can give to a same sex couple who asks for one?" is not the same thing as, "A same sex couple can contract a sacramental marriage." A blessing is not the same thing as a sacrament.
I think this line is the most significant in the response to the dubia: "For when a blessing is requested, one is expressing a request for help from God, a plea for a better life, a trust in a Father who can help us to live better." The emphasis on a gay couple asking God to help them "live better" does not bring to mind Rainbow flags and Pride. If anything, reading this makes me think the Pope will encourage some sort of "help us live chastely" blessing for any gay couples asking for their relationship to be blessed.
Edit: I'm wondering if people know what I'm saying here, based on the responses. A couple definitions and elaborations:
Blessing: happens all the time, in private. Happens during the mass as well. Throats are blessed during flu season. Water, salt, and candles are blessed to take home. Mothers are blessed on Mother's day, sick people are blessed, anxious people are blessed, anyone can be blessed for pretty much any reason.
Taking the response as a whole, it sounds like the Pope is saying, if a couple comes up to a priest after mass and asks for a blessing to live chastely because it is something they are really struggling with, they can get a blessing to help them live a less sinful life.
Chaste: Only having sex or any other sort of sexual activity in the context of a marriage between a man and a woman, where all sexual activity is open to creating life. Gay sex is by definition not chaste in a Catholic context.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
26d ago
down on the farm, labor costs are typically less than 20% or for specialty crops close to 40% of total operating costs, and the price from the farm is about one-third the price on the shelf...
Quadrupling those wages might cost the typical family $300 in a year.
From Oren Cass' "Jobs Americans Would Do" https://americancompass.org/jobs-americans-would-do/
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1yr ago
He pleaded to it as part of a deal to avoid being prosecuted for other things. Read my link, it is directly related to that question.
I've mentioned on here a few times that our family has an Au Pair and I work from home most days. This happy arrangement is going to come to an end and I'm of mixed feelings.
First, for those who don't know, there is a program in the State Department that is designed to connect families with young women across the world who would be interested in taking care of children in exchange for living in America for a year. The host family has to provide a separate room and pay a weekly stipend. It's a "cultural program." As part of it they are supposed to take a couple college courses every year. There is a lot of abuse, but I pay my Au Pair more than the minimum, don't ask her to do more than just keep the kids alive, and buy her whatever she asks for that seems reasonable.
When interviewing Au Pairs (it's a lot like an online dating service, with profile pages and matches) I always asked, "What are you hoping to get out of becoming an Au Pair? What benefit are you looking for?" The answer was almost always, "More experience speaking English." This seems reasonable, as a good American accent probably gives people a huge advantage in business.
Anyways, the State Department is reviewing the Au Pair program, and has proposed a series of rules that will break it for most families. I don't want to count every toothbrush I buy her, or make sure that she only eats $10.88 worth of food every day. Regardless of what is financially feasible, I'm not going to do it. There's just no way to live with someone in your house, monitor them to this extent, and then still trust them with your kids.
But then the question turns to, "Who is going to watch my kids?" I have four kids, ranging from 10 months to 6 years. There is a preschool we send one child to for 1/2 day socialization, and she likes it well enough. I could send the others to their Summer Camp. But the 10 month old would be too young, and daycare for a 1 year old is already booked up for a year.
Then there's the reality that I'm not giving my kids the attention I want to. Work takes over too much. I might technically be off work at 4:30, but someone puts a meeting on my calendar at 5, or I really need to finish these
threefive emails, and before I know it it's Dinner Time. I have all these worksheets I want to do with my two oldest and practice penmanship (which they really struggle with.) I want to take my kids outside to play. I want to go for walks. But I also want to be held in esteem at work. As long as work is there, I will put off my kids because kids can wait but work can't. But that is a LIE. Kids grow up, and toil is forever.I don't want to send them off to a church preschool from 7 to 5, and then pick them up, feed them dinner, do homework, and kiss them good night. That's not how I was raised. That's not what I want for my family.
So I will likely become a stay at home Mom, once my Au Pair's contract ends. I'm looking forward to taking my kids to parks, splash pads, libraries, festivals, and other public areas around my city. My city is actually really family friendly. I know it is hard work. I took half a year off work when I had my second child. I know it can be isolating. But I have the example of my mother, who make lots of mom friends and seemed to have a blast when my siblings and I were young. Thinking about making this change fills me with excitement and hope.
The two downsides - and they are huge - is money and the Future. Money is easy enough to explain - we will have less of it. My husband makes enough for us to live on, if we had no debt we would have a good amount left over after all the mandatory bills (food, mortgage, utilities, etc.) Unfortunately, we have debt. There are some student loans that are almost paid off and we are in a payment plan with the children's hospital after three of my children were hospitalized for a cumulative of 27 days, 10 of which were in the ICU. With this debt, we are still able to make due, and live a good quality of life, but we would need to be careful to limit things like how much meat we buy, how many clothes we get the kids, etc. Once the debt is paid off in a couple years, it's all fine. But we will have to live frugally for a couple years, or risk falling into more debt.
The Future one is harder to explain, but I can't stay home with the kids forever. By the time the youngest is 10, if not sooner, I need to go back into the labor force. I think that is where my mother messed up. She put her foot down on her identity as a homemaker, ended up not doing much during the school day, driving us around to sports in the afternoon (until I was able to drive, and then she had even less to do.) The cognitive decline you see retirees experience, she seemed to get when she was 50. She kept the public areas of the house clean, cooked dinner (badly), and otherwise watched Masterpiece Theater. Shortly after I graduated college, my parents divorced. Now she is a real estate agent with no sales and sometimes manages to convince her friends to pay above market rates to clean their house.
I see a few possibilities. I have a Master's degree, and can probably get a certification and find work as a school teacher once the children are in school. I don't have any particular interest in this. I think of schools as enemy territory, so to speak. It would be nice if I could instead home school my kids (I'm not going to leap straight into that, but it's a possibility now.) Maybe I could teach at a Catholic School. The benefit of being a school teacher is obvious, I would be off work most of the same days that my children would be.
The other idea I'm entertaining is to start my own business. I've been thinking up a small catalog of things I could crochet. Things that could only be done by hand, look unique, and would take me less than two hours a piece. I could buy a stamping kit for 1k and sell personalized jewelry. I could lean into the Mommy space, and sell "calming jars" and other kid trinkets.
The idea would be to do something for a few hours a week, just enough to keep a storefront and a tax ID. If I actually turn a small profit I can use to buy a zoo membership or something, that would be a bonus. As the kids get bigger, I can spend more time on it, eventually either actually making it a full time job, or pivoting back into being a wage worker. It seems like it will be easier for me to get hired if I can say I started a small business, rather than I took time off work to care for small kids.
I'm open to any and all suggestions.
More options
Context Copy link