I've heard people talk a lot over the years about "social justice," particularly in the context of the Catholic Church. Distributism seems to me to be an intellectual dead end -- more a repudiation of 1930s style fascism than, say, free market capitalism, and thus not very relevant. Secretly, I've always wondered if "distributism" and "social justice" weren't just code for socialism.
Well, reading Benedict's book, "Jesus of Nazareth" gives some interesting insight into what he believes would make for a more just society. He strongly condemns the "Marxist experiment," as well as "compassionate" government policies that breed dependence and obliterate the social order.
The aid offered by the West to developing countries has been purely technically and materially based, and not only has left God out of the picture, but has driven men away from God. And this aid, proudly claiming to "know better," is itself what first turned the "third world" into what we mean by that term today.
This is fascinating stuff, and not the sort of thing I'd expect to hear from a European. It's absolutely true, though, that the poverty we see in Africa and throughout the 3rd world is truly unparalleled in human history. The world is so rich than it was 2,000 years ago, and yet we still have starvation. How is this possible?
As Benedict tells us, when Jesus fed the multitude, he starts by asking for God's blessing. He breaks the bread, and commands people to share the loaves and fishes. Then, there is more than enough. They are moving from faith, to love to fulfillment. (I stress, this is Benedict's insight, not mine!)
If we are centered in Christ, we can find answers to hunger. However, putting this into practice is still difficult, if not impossible on a large, political level. As Benedict points out several pages later,
"the fusion of faith and political power always comes at a price: faith must become the servant of power and bend to its criteria."
I got a response to my tweet last night about breaking "into a friend's latop." Now, they gave me their laptop specifically because they were locked out and didn't have the latest password written down. So, I haven't gone rogue and started stealing bank account numbers between contracts.
This is the great mystery to me regarding computer security. Most systems have a mechanism that allows you to login in as an Administrator or "superuser" without a password. I've had to do this on Windows XP (for a college room mate) as well as Ubuntu Linux (for work). Even Vista with its vaunted security has back doors built in. You can promote regular users to Administrator status, erase passwords, and even crack shorter passwords. No 1337 h4x0r skills needed. (Beyond 8 or 9 characters, though, cracking a password can difficult, from what I've seen.)
The thing to keep in mind, though, is that this is a feature, not a bug. For your home system, you're not worried about hackers physically stealing your computer. You're concerned about online attacks. Most of the tools that allow you to recover, erase or bypass password security require physical access to your computer. You insert a "live CD," boot into a Linux variant, and you're on your way. When you accidentally lock yourself out of your system (maybe because you twice mistyped your new password in the same wrong way, as I've done) you're glad these weaknesses exist and that all your files are not irrecoverably lost.
So, moral of the story is, writing down your password may save you a big hassle down the road. If someone is able to dig through your desk drawers to find your password, they can already get into your system. If you're really concerned about prying eyes near your desk, scramble the passowrds with your Batman Decoder Ring, keep the list in your wallet and be done with it.
By the way, if you have these sorts of Vista problems, I recommend "Offline NT Password & Registry Editor."
I came across an old article by Fr. Paul Scalia while doing research for my latest Sotomayor post. It's called "Ritus Narcissus," and, like most things he writes, it's rather good. He digs into the lyrics of common hymns -- the sort you hear in practically every Catholic church in America -- and explains why they're just not appropriate for the Mass.
To appreciate the damage done by such hymns, we must first call to mind two essential aspects of the Mass: presence and dialogue. First of all, what distinguishes the Mass from all other forms of worship is the re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice. The Mass does not merely recall or reenact Christ's redemptive act but in fact makes present the mystery of faith, the passion, death and resurrection of Christ (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1366).
Second, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist and indeed throughout the Mass makes possible a real dialogue between God and man; it creates an active conversation. The remembrance of someone does not lead to dialogue with that person; only to reminiscing. The presence of Christ in the Mass, however, inspires us to speak to Him as only the beloved can speak to the Lover. Thus the Mass is a dialogue between Christ and the Church, between God and man, in which God speaks His lines and we speak ours. He speaks to us through the readings and (we hope) the homily, while we respond to Him through the prayers of the priest, our personal prayers, and the hymns.
Accordingly, active participation at Mass requires the faithful to acknowledge the presence of Christ and enter the dialogue, taking the words of the Bride as their own. They embody the Bride, and their Mass parts -- the Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei express her desire for union with the Bridegroom. Other texts used at Mass should reflect and deepen this sentiment. The dialogue reaches its culmination at the Consecration, when the Bridegroom speaks His definitive words of love and thus becomes really present to His Bride in the Eucharist.
Given the lyrics of much contemporary liturgical music, however, we must ask what has become of this dialogue and our ability to enter it. Many hymns have us sing only about ourselves and to ourselves, even going so far as to usurp God's part. Such words fail to convey the true meaning of the Mass as a dialogue between Christ and the Church. The offending lyrics come in two varieties: in the first, we sing to one another and about one another, but do not include God in the conversation; and in the second, we sing God's parts.
Unfortunately, he gives numerous examples of bad hymns, but no examples of proper ones. I kept waiting for a counterpoint at the end. "This is an example of where we are singing to God as God," etc. Scalia references the "Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus and Agnus Dei," but surely there must be some more contemporary hymns that have appropriate lyrical content. I wonder which hymns he recommends, exactly?
Obama made his feeling on the Honduran "coup" pretty well known. Unfortunately, very few media sources seem to be giving any details on the actual story. CNN dances around the issue. NPR's coverage seemed to consist entirely of covering the actions of protesters.
The problem here is this. Zelaya tried to call a referendum. Under the Honduran Constitution, he cannot do so, as their Supreme Court ruled. He then tried to distribute ballots. He is not legally allowed to conduct his own elections. The Honduran military apparently has a constitutional role there. He and his supporters actually broke into a military facility where the ballots were being held, and stole the ballots, because the military was refusing to conduct the already illegal election.
Not surprisingly, this is a serious crime -- an impeachable offense, in American terms. So, he was arrested by the military on orders of the Supreme Court and the Attorney General. This is called checks and balances. That's how healthy republics work. If anyone has a reason to believe that this was truly illegal, they need to be able to explain themselves. Arguing by assertion as our president did just makes the condemnation of Honduras' system seem unreasoned and Kafkaesque.
I know our Czar Czar is pretty contemptuous of limited powers and such, but this is pretty disgusting. And the way the entire world is siding with this criminal, Zelaya is very disheartening.
Schmuley Boteach (what a name) has this to say in the Jerusalem Post. Keep in mind that this article is mostly about Barack Obama's lack of leadership on Iran.
"Moses was just another spoiled Egyptian prince until the day he chanced upon an Israelite slave being beaten. The Bible relates, "And he looked this way and that way and saw there was no man. Then he smote the Egyptian." When Moses saw there was none but him to address this moral outrage, he sacrificed his cushy position in Egyptian society and acted to right a wrong. At that moment he became instantly unpopular in Egyptian society, but he also become an audacious leader. It should be noted that the great liberator and lawgiver could not give a public speech. He was a stutterer whose mouthpiece was his brother Aaron. But then, real leadership does not involve having the best mouth but rather the most courageous heart"
Scorch.
Drudge just linked to a NY Post story about a synagogue bomb plot in NY (click here). Is this a sign of rising anti-Semitism? I sure hope this is an aberration, but I just don't know anymore.