Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in particular let them agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice.

The contention, then, that the civil government should at its option intrude into and exercise intimate control over the family and the household is a great and pernicious error.

Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal.

The great mistake made in regard to the matter now under consideration is to take up with the notion that class is naturally hostile to class, and that the wealthy and the working men are intended by nature to live in mutual conflict. So irrational and so false is this view that the direct contrary is the truth. Just as the symmetry of the human frame is the result of the suitable arrangement of the different parts of the body, so in a State is it ordained by nature that these two classes should dwell in harmony and agreement, so as to maintain the balance of the body politic. Each needs the other: capital cannot do without labor, nor labor without capital.

The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property.

Christians need to return to proclaiming the Faith, not to using it as a convenience for the building up of their favorite party. The same, of course, is true of liberals who routinely do the Kerry/Pelosi thing of wearing the ashes, citing Augustine in favor of their abortion politics, or prattling on ignorantly about Pius XXIII and "the Vatican II". But one doesn't expect jackasses to speak to Baalam. One expects self-described "committed orthodox Christians" to have some clue about what "seek first the Kingdom" means. Catholic Christians who claim to be pro-life while heaping contempt on inconvenient Church teaching about war crimes and torture or who use abortion as a sort of lead-in to their *real* agenda of a fight over tax laws or squabbles about the bailout should heed the warning of our Lord that those to whom much is given, much will be required. It's fine to have strong views about all these secular and temporal issues. But turning the Faith into a mere feeder system to steer people into being good little Movement Conservatives is just another kind of idolatry--and arguably a more culpable sin.

EDIT: They are doing a formal assessment again to determine if Vivian is brain dead at 2:00. Please unite everyone in prayer at this time. I will post as soon as we know anything.

As part of an ongoing tornado research project, by means of the Site Assessment of Tornado Threat (SATT) 3.0 software, and based on National Weather Service data from 1950 through 2006, the VorTek staff have determined the most tornado-prone point in Louisiana, originally identified in February 2007, remains at latitude 32o 30’ N, longitude 93o 33’ W, which corresponds to a point inside Barksdale AFB, 0.48 mile south of East Gate Road, 0.96 mile west of the East Fence of Barksdale AFB. During the 57-year period noted, 95 tornado track segments have touched down or passed within 20 miles of this point. This includes five F0 tornadoes, forty-nine F1, sixteen F2, nineteen F3, and six F4. If the total land area disturbed by these tornadoes is divided by the land area within the 20-mile circle, on an annual basis the average fraction of land disturbed (or Annual Coverage Fraction) equals 9.1671 x 10-4 or 0.091671%, which is the largest value for any point within Louisiana.

It's no mistake that the story of Abraham and Issac was the OT reading for the Sunday following his surgery.
It's no mistake that the mysteries of the rosary the night before his surgery were the sorrowful mysteries (essentially His Passion).
It's no mistake that the mysteries of the rosary the day AFTER his surgery were the joyful mysteries (focusing on the birth of Christ, his childhood and family life).
It's no mistake that we entered the hospital on some of the coldest days of winter in Louisiana and left in the full swing of spring.
It's no mistake that this past lent is one that gave me the deepest understanding of sacrifice that I have ever had the blessing to know.

`Let us remember for a moment the thousands and thousands who have gone forth thither;` and raising his finger above his shoulder, he pointed behind him towards the gate which led to the cemetery of San Gregorio, the whole of which was then, we might say, one immense grave: `let us cast an eye around upon the thousands and thousands who are still left here, uncertain, alas! by which way they will go forth; let us look at ourselves, so few in number, who are about to go forth restored. Blessed be the Lord! Blessed be He in His justice, blessed in His mercy! blessed in death, and blessed in life! blessed in the choice He has been pleased to make of us! Oh! why has He so pleased, my brethren, if not to preserve to Himself a little remnant, corrected by affliction, and warmed with gratitude? if not in order that, feeling more vividly than ever how life is His gift, we may esteem it as a gift from His hands deserves, and employ it in such works as we may dare to offer Him? if not in order that the remembrance of our own sufferings may make us compassionate towards others, and ever ready to relieve them? In the mean while, let those in whose company we have suffered, hoped, and feared; among whom we are leaving friends and relatives, and who are all, besides, our brethren; let those among them who will see us pass through the midst of them, not only derive some relief from the thought that others are going out hence in health, but also be edified by our behaviour. God forbid that they should behold in us a clamorous festivity, a carnal joy, at having escaped that death against which they are still struggling. Let them see that we depart in thanksgivings for ourselves and prayers for them; and let them be able to say, "Even beyond these walls they will not forget us, they will continue to pray for us poor creatures!: Let us begin from this time, from the first steps we are about to take, a life wholly made up of love. Let those who have regained their former vigour lend a brotherly arm to the feeble; young men, sustain the aged; you who are left without children, look around you how many children are left without parents! be such to them! And this charity, covering the multitude of sins, will also alleviate your own sorrows.`

These are the acts which, in the Church's moral tradition, have been termed "intrinsically evil" (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that "there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object".131 The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: "Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator"

Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.(source)

The heavy lifting on this subject has been done by Mark Shea, Zippy, and Tom at Disputations. The short take is torture is an intrinsic evil and we can never do evil to do good. It is certainly the case the the magisterium and the papal magisterium in particular is teaching this as evidenced by the Catechsim and Vertitatis Splendor.

Too often torture apologists start by imitating Pontius Pilot and saying "What is torture" and then go to a specific situation such as the ticking bomb scenario. Using this scenario to make torture sound reasonable does not address the morality of torture. (source)

Yet taken en masse, the range of enhanced interrogation techniques looks very much like a strategy for breaking down hardened characters bit by bit; standing naked, shackled, deprived of sleep, kept awake with cold water and loud noise, prevented from cleaning oneself after defecation, and subject to painful (though not physically damaging) slaps and disorienting smacks against a wall—and then subject to repeated waterboarding over a course of weeks or months: this looks like precisely the sort of choice described by Lee and myself (though I do not, of course, speak for Lee in drawing my conclusions), viz., the choice to disrupt an agent’s capacities for personal integrity by disrupting his control over his emotions, choices, self-awareness and self-image, connection to other human beings, and judgments.

If so, then neither legal distinctions between this and the infliction of severe pain and suffering, nor consequentialist judgments about national security, nor even reasonable awareness that these terrorists were bad people, and that the US was in a very difficult situation, making hard choices under considerable stress with, in most cases, the good of the country in view, should obscure the judgment that these approaches involved torture. This judgment should especially guide us in going forward: we should repudiate such techniques across all intelligence gathering operations, as was done in the Army Field Manual for Human Intelligence Collector Operations and resolve to hold such operations to the highest moral standards. But we should hope that such a resolve is possible without descent into the politicizing and partisanship that threatens to knock any effort at serious moral self-criticism off course.

All of you commenters here who keep bringing up torture and going on and on about it:

You all are such simplistic one-issue voters on this torture issue. You're in such lockstep with the Vatican and the hierarchy that it's clear you have abandoned free thinking entirely.

I’m personally opposed to torture, but I don’t think I could ever impose that view on somebody else.

I’d rather see us have a President who works to reduce the need for torture. We need to get at the deeper issues here – it’s not just as black and white as you religious-types always say. We should work with torturers to support them, not criminalize them.

Your belief that torture is “wrong” is just that – a religious belief. Well, what about all of the people who don’t share that belief? We live in a diverse, pluralistic society. Get with the program.

How can you take what is a matter of faith for you and impose it upon another person who might not share that faith?

Did you know that the amount of torturing in this country actually went up during the Clinton presidency? It was lower under Republican presidencies.

Torture is a difficult issue, and people of good will can disagree about it. Ultimately, I think the torturer should be free to make that choice in consultation with his attending doctors, his field agents, and his God.

Besides, even if we made torture illegal, guess what? - there would still be people out there torturing. And they wouldn’t have access to all the sophisticated equipment that we have in modern torture chambers. They’d use whatever they could find – sticks, broken glass, even coat hangers.

Is that what you want? You want us to go back to the days of back-alley torturing with coat hangers?

A truly enlightened society would keep torture safe, legal, and rare.

45. The entire government of public schools in which the youth- of a Christian state is educated, except (to a certain extent) in the case of episcopal seminaries, may and ought to appertain to the civil power, and belong to it so far that no other authority whatsoever shall be recognized as having any right to interfere in the discipline of the schools, the arrangement of the studies, the conferring of degrees, in the choice or approval of the teachers. -- Allocutions "Quibus luctuosissimis," Sept. 5, 1851, and "In consistoriali," Nov. 1, 1850.

46. Moreover, even in ecclesiastical seminaries, the method of studies to be adopted is subject to the civil authority. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

47. The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools open to children of every class of the people, and, generally, all public institutes intended for instruction in letters and philosophical sciences and for carrying on the education of youth, should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, control and interference, and should be fully subjected to the civil and political power at the pleasure of the rulers, and according to the standard of the prevalent opinions of the age. -- Epistle to the Archbishop of Freiburg, "Cum non sine," July 14, 1864.

48. Catholics may approve of the system of educating youth unconnected with Catholic faith and the power of the Church, and which regards the knowledge of merely natural things, and only, or at least primarily, the ends of earthly social life. -- Ibid. (source)

Here, the court concluded with regard to the parties’ six-year-old daughter’s educational prospects that “she doesn't seem to have a problem, I don’t believe, in being able to succeed anywhere,” but then terminated the daughter’s homeschooling, asserting that her interests would be best served by public schooling, in which both parents could be involved. In the course of rendering this decision, the trial court made the following observations:

1. Public schools would offer the child a “wider exposure” than she would receive with homeschooling.
2. Public schools would offer “much more diversity, many more opportunities with respect to the things that she would be able to do.”
3. Although the court “appreciate[d] and respect[ed] [the mother’s] desire to have a religious-based schooling, we live in a very diverse society and it is not beneficial for children to be raised in a bubble where they do not have exposure to other people’s cultures and other people’s religion.”
4. Public schooling would make the child “a more well-rounded person.”

Each of these observations may or may not be true, or relevant. However, taken as a whole, they evince an attitude toward homeschooling (and public schooling) that is simply not reflected in the laws and policies of this state. Taken as a whole, these observations suggest a predisposition by the trial court that, everything else being equal, public schooling is invariably preferable to homeschooling, a predisposition that would presumably also counsel in favor of public schooling in future disputes in which parents disagreed on approaches to their children’s education.

The main people who are offended by breastfeeding, I find, are those who are uncomfortable with the idea of the breast being used for something other than sex. The idea of it being used to feed a child, the fruit of the natural and properly ordered marital act is challenging. Furthermore breastfeeding is hard. To tie the breasts to any act of sacrifice is even more challenging. All of this -- life, nurturing, sacrifice -- is a direct offense to the idea that breasts serve the sole and primary purpose of pleasing "me". That concept of purpose falls well within the subset of the world of selfish and non-fruit bearing sex. The real indignant response to breastfeeding comes from those who could care less whether or not they can SEE the breast.

In that sense it is a powerful ally in the cause of life.

I personally believe it should be highly encouraged because even for the abuses of some, it tells the truth about our purpose. (source)

Why are people averting their eyes from the coming collapse of population growth?

Our pill-popping generation has yet to feel the effects of our indulgence.

I disagree with that only because I think that many of the ill effects our society already feels are PRECISELY because of this indulgence.

Contraception divides sex from marriage and its intended purpose (be fruitful and multiply).
It thus fuels pre-marital sex by removing the natural consequence.
It fuels increased adultery by making the sin easier to cover up.
It fuels divorce by making fruitless sex the natural end and fostering great dissatisfaction should someone "more enticing" come along. Let me clarify -- it objectifies the wife thus making her primary purpose to the man sexual satisfaction.
It fuels a tremendous lack of self-control in couples, especially men, by giving them ready access to wives who will never go through pregnancies and medically recommended down periods. The tempering thought of the gravity of "openness to life" rarely enters the mind of the contracepting couple. Rather than seeing themselves as an always life-giving couple, they increasingly see themselves as a means to the end of pleasure (distinct from procreative).
It also undermines the discernment process before marriage by minimizing the role of parent in a future spouse.
Furthermore the "privacy" aspect of it is a direct precursor to so-called "abortion rights".

The division of sex from marriage also gives root to the idea that marriage is purely a socially recognized collection of folks who consent to have sex with each other. Today this is driving the gay marriage crowd. Tomorrow it will be polygamists, pedophiles etc. In fact, I have a hard time seeing how society is going to avoid the concept that sex is a "right" so much so that it would be selfish to require "consent" in the case of those who cannot exercise their "right". It would not shock me to see a push to legalize and "regulate" prostitution to allow people to exercise their right to sex. Sooner or later we will decide it should be "free" and thus federally funded prostitution will be the law of the land. The demographic winter is the final stage.

The environmental factor is a strong sign of what sex is to our country. Environmentalists are willing to use the "precautionary principle" to enact legislation of dubious possible outcome all over the map but when it comes to denying the right to free sex when it happens to be doing harm to the environment they are stunningly silent. There is our god America. IMHO contraception was like adding gasoline to the smoke filled campfire and now it is an out of control forest fire.

We must give up our idolatry.