Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Today we continue with the post-Modernist’s and the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC) thread. From a casual surveying of the Visibislium Omnium, it would appear that this debate is FrancisRaging at present. So we will blog hop, connect some dots and try to draw out a deeper meaning.

And as we know from our previous posts, without “meaning” life is just one endless continuum of “experienced suffering”.

We start out on from the general and work our way to the specific today. On the general side, we get this post that appeared at the Zero Hedge website. (see here)

Note bene: I will start a “Spadaro File” to capture any and all information that I come across of this nature. Furthermore, since we are living in what can be called the age of Francis, the bishop or Rome as the new global leader of the Internationalist Left, and given that Francis is the “highest profile” figure presently espousing the post-Modernist “world view”, it is only fitting that this PHENOMENON should wear the name of the FRANCISSCHOOL.

Now back to the subject at hand.

In the Zero Hedge post, the following can be read:

A University of Illinois math professor believes that algebra and geometry perpetuate “white privilege” because Greek terms give Caucasians unearned credit for the subject.

Whatever that means is hard to discern, but the FrancisProfessor goes on to explain:

 “On many levels, mathematics itself operates as Whiteness,” she argues with complete sincerity, according to Campus Reform.

“Who gets credit for doing and developing mathematics, who is capable in mathematics, and who is seen as part of the mathematical community is generally viewed as White.”

Right!

Aside, notice that the words are completely devoid of any meaning. The only purpose that they serve is as phonetic sounds that are used to elicit a certain emotion.

Next:

“Are we really that smart just because we do mathematics?” she asks, raising the question as to why math professors get more grants than “social studies or English” professors.

“If one is not viewed as mathematical, there will always be a sense of inferiority that can be summoned,” she says, claiming that minorities “have experienced microaggressions from participating in math classrooms… [where people are] judged by whether they can reason abstractly.

And here we get to the crux of the matter. The problem that the FrancisSchool has with math is that the subject matter requires “abstract thought”.

Hmmm….

Not “real life” is what Antonio Spadaro LBT S.J. would say…

But hey, isn’t abstract thought one of the characteristics of human beings that distinguishes us from the rest of God’s creatures…..

Hold that thought for a future post, dear reader.

And finally, we get to the ESSENCE of the whacky FrancisProfessor’s “research paper”: (emphasis by author)

She concludes her argument with the claim that all knowledge is “relational,” or is, in other words, relative. “Things cannot be known objectively; they must be known subjectively.”

Yes indeed. The problem, according to the FrancisSchool is OBJECTIVE REALITY.

Quick commentary: If we just ignore the tree that the car just crashed into, killing 4 people, there will be no crash and by extension no fatalities. Or if we ignore the fact that a marriage that was entered into Sacrementally is an OBJECTIVE REALITY, then the 6th and 9th Commandments don’t exist, any more than the tree that the car crashed into.

Perfectly logical, yes?

Provided that you recognize that there is such a thing as logic, which is preconditioned upon the assumption that there is such a thing as OBJECTIVE REALITY.

Which brings your humble blogger back to the ECCLESIASTICAL sub-set of human activity and some bad news for the current bishop of Rome.

As we know from an earlier post titled Law Of Unintended Consequences Revisited, there are three subcategories of unintended consequences. The worst, in terms of original intent, is what is know as a Perverse Result. Here is that definition:

Perverse result: A perverse effect contrary to what was originally intended (when an intended solution makes a problem worse). This is sometimes referred to as ‘backfire’.

Now, one way to look at perverse results of unintended consequences is that the methodology of the intended action was faulty. For the sake of this example, the methodology violated the Law of Non-Contradiction.

With that in mind, we venture over to the Mutual Enrichment blog of Fr. Hunwicke. In a post titled Ecumenical Agreements, we get this piece of information: (emphasis added)

“Catechismus Catholicae Ecclesiae fidem Catholicam exprimit, quam Ordinariatus sodales profitentur”. So says Anglicanorum coetibus. Accordingly, the CCC is an integral part of the structural grammar of the Ordinariates … wired into their DNA, as people curiously say nowadays.

How appropriate is it for PF unilaterally to change this document? But he has recently said that he wishes it to be changed. Has he consulted the three Ordinaries? News of such consultation has not reached me.”

Hmmm…

So just to connect some dots. Francis needs to change the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). Most likely it has to do with “communion for serial adulterers” or the elimination of the “intrinsically disordered” designations. Personally, I think it’s the latter. But I digress… He doesn’t want to take the macho, Latino, Argentinian manly direct route, so he goes the sneaky, womenly, telenovella watching, through the back door FrancisRoute.

He “picks a target, freezes it, personalizes it, and polarizes it” a la Rule #13 of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. The only reason why the targeted Article was targeted in the first place is that it has a “phonetically appealing” subject matter, i.e. “death penalty”.

So he goes out and VIRTUE SIGNALS that he wants to change something (that can’t be changed), and Francis does it in a nonchalant, seemingly calm, routine, business-as-usual discourse to Roman prelates and scholars.

So far do good you say.

A cunning plan?

“As cunning as a fox who’s just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University?”

Well, not really. I will allow Fr. Hunwicke to explain why changing the CCC might not be a smart idea, let alone thought through idea:

If the Catholic Church subsequently signs an agreement to re-establish canonical links with the XYZ Church, will a later pope be able to change that agreement, and to do so without any sort of previous bilateral consultations with the XYZs?

….

Or is it their (“hyperultraueberpapalists”) thinking that for those already in canonical union with the See of S Peter, a more draconian system of demanding assent to the whimsies of each successive pope can be required than will be asked of the XYZs when they enter into unity?

…

How would such a system, in any case, be possible? If the XYZs were in Full Communion with the Catholic Church, then a member of the Latin diocese of Outopia who disagreed with some particular recently imposed papal eccentricity, could abandon Outopia and join the XYZs … and still be within a fully Catholic Particular Church, but one in which the eccentricity concerned would not demand assent.

I will stop here, but you get the drift…

Which brings me to what are known as “knock-on” effects and the “spirit of Vatican II”.

During that “pastoral council”, a document appeared under the title of Unitatitis Redintegratio, or the Decree on Ecumenism. In that document, it is clearly written in the FIRST paragraph, the following:

The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided.(1) Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.

Now, given that the above is the case, there are two ways to understand this. One way is the conventional Catholic way spelled out in the Gospel of Matthew 18:26 which states:

Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

The second manner, according to the “spirit of Vatican II”, in which to interpret this is through a post-Modernist literary deconstruction of that text. Here is how this looks:

The latter option, implicitly entails some form of negotiation. What those negotiations would entail is some “give or take” and ultimately, as Fr. Hunwicke mentioned earlier, an “agreement to re-establish canonical links”. Let’s assume that these negotiations would look something like this:

So Francis makes Luther a FrancisSaint and gives Lutherans access to the “breakfast wafer”, while the Lutherans decide to put in place a “profit” sharing (read KIRCHENSTEUER sharing) agreement and happy days.

But…

What if:

When PF goes around embracing leaders of Churches and ecclesial bodies, does he whisper in their ears “Of course, while I very much hope you will come into unity, if you do so you will need to understand your obligation to accept whatever novelties I or my successors unilaterally and suddenly promulgate”?

I highly doubt it.

Actually, it is apparent that the current bishop of Rome hasn’t thought any of this through. And neither has his close circle of geniuses sitting around the dinner table at the Domus Sanctae Marthae behind those Sacred Vatican Walls.

Which brings us full circle and to the moral of the story.

And the moral of the story is this: that while neo-Modernist “churchmen” will accept preaching about a “capricious god of surprises”, most will likely not accept the OBJECTIVE REALITY of a capricious bishop of Rome.

Which is why the SSPX will never sign…