Love, tolerance and the making of distinctions: deploring behavior, loving the person

Company Man

Fr. Robert Barron does this up nicely. It’s about the ability to see something as one thing, not another, in effect to love a sinner (he does not speak of sin) while deploring the sin:

What strikes me so often as I listen to the public conversation regarding moral issues is the incapacity of so many to make the right distinctions.

Some of the muddiest water surrounds the concepts of love/ hate and tolerance/intolerance. In the spirit of Sokolowski, I would like to make what I hope are some clarifying differentiations.

He does so, along the way noting the phlosophical roots of this inability (low in his column):

Once the sense that there is objective good and evil has been attenuated [reduced to not much at
all]
, as it largely has been in our society, the only categories we have left are psychological [I’d specify
emotional]
ones. And this…

View original post 112 more words

Short History of Oak Park, Vol. 2, The Donald and the Clothes Horse: Senatorial splendor, House Decoration — the Town Hall Trail, June to October, 2013

Opening shot in Illinois Blues/Short History of Oak Park sneak peaks at work in progress . . .

Berkeley on the Prairie

The Donald of Oak Park, its senator in Springfield, where he’s high in the ranks of the Ruling Party and is smooth-as-silk boss of Oak Park’s Democratic Party organization, took to the podium at Oak Park’s Carleton Hotel on a glorious day in late June of 2013 for his annual report to the Business and Civic Council. 

It was time to explain things to bankers, business owners and operators, and other issues-aware citizen consumers and taxpayers with skin in the game to varying degrees and/or psychic income from allegedly progressive political victories and enactments.

The state was in a state of turmoil, confusion, and all-around hyperactivity. The two legislative chambers were at odds over a pension solution. The governor, a one-time gadfly with Oak Park roots, was soon to cut off legislators’ pay checks to punish them for inactivity.

For the Donald, however, it was what-me-worry time. “The…

View original post 247 more words

Cost of college, school lunches, pensions; Sen. Lightford hedges beautifully

Berkeley on the Prairie

— Oct 2113 gathering of eagles, Julian Middle School, concluded —

A panel of students were given the floor as yet another quizzer of the legislators. The meeting became a middle-school version of show and tell. The first question, a good one if not something for which the legislature has direct responsibility (did the students know that?), was about the high cost of college.

The Oak Park senator punted: Legislators are aware of the problem and are working on it.

Sen. Lightford referred to MAP (Monetary Award Program) grants, the state’s financial aid program for “neediest” students attending Illinois colleges, according to a state site, but not explaining that, assuming her audience recognized the term.

Rep. Lilly offered a remarkable claim: “I passed legislation for grants for junior college,” adding an equally remarkable suggestion: “I’d like to put on the table, [we should] get parents involved. We need to…

View original post 584 more words

Hey, what about us polygamists? the man asked

They want their share of the equality business.

Just four days after the Supreme Court’s decision, a Montana man drove up to the Yellowstone County Courthouse and applied for a marriage license for multiple wives. When the office turned him down, he said, what about marriage equality? “We just want to add legal legitimacy to an already happy, strong, loving family,” Nathan Collier told reporters. “All we want is legal legitimacy… We just want to give our marriage and our family the legitimacy that it deserves.”

If the Supreme Court got it right, and whether they did or not, Mr. Collier has his point. It’s “exactly the same argument homosexuals made — and five justices ultimately endorsed,” says Famiiy Research Council’s Tony Perkins.

In the words of the Holy Father, who are we to judge?