So, I’ve decided to start two new sites. Because I’m currently working on a major writing project that centers around Catholicism, and because it is a topic that I enjoy posting about and discussing, one of the blogs will focus on it. The other will be a “whatever I feel like posting” blog, most likely a mixture of my writing, passages from literature, photos, links to and quotations from recommended reading, fun things, etc.

The sites will be hosted on Tumblr. This will, I hope, simplify things and allow me to focus more on posting instead of on tweaking the appearance of my site, playing around with CSS, etc. (I spent way too much time doing that here). Although I won’t be posting here anymore, all previous posts will stay where they are. Same goes for my literature Tumblr blog- I will no longer be posting there, but it’s not going anywhere.

This domain (mirandacelestehale.net) will be my homepage (see the main page for links to all of my sites) and will still host my “about”, “writing”, and “academic/research” pages (and any other pages I may add in the future).

I haven’t yet had the chance to post at either of the new sites, but I will soon. Here is all of the relevant information if you’re interested in subscribing to/following them:

First site: mirandaceleste.net. If you’re on Tumblr, you can “follow” it at that link. Its RSS feed is here and I’ll be posting most updates to both Twitter and Facebook.

Second site: excatholicgirl.net. As with the other site, if you’re on Tumblr, you can “follow” it at that link. Its RSS feed is here and I’ll be posting all updates to Facebook. I’ve created a separate Twitter account for this site, and I’ll be posting all updates there. In addition, I may use that Twitter account to post on-topic links or discussions. So, if you’re interested in this site and topic, please do follow its Twitter for updates.

Thank you all so much! I really appreciate readers and commenters, and I hope that you’ll follow me to one or both of my new sites. ♥

Although “desecration” of the Eucharist has long been a delicta graviora, sexual abuse of children by priests didn’t become one until 2001 (!)

And guess what has now become a delicta graviora?

The “attempted ordination of women”.

That’s right: under Catholic doctrine, desecrating a cracker, attempting to ordain someone who doesn’t have a penis, and molesting a child are equally serious and grave offenses.

This isn’t quite the kind of scepticism that Richard Dawkins has suggested might be the kernel of an atheist schooling – as Andrew Brown has pointed out, the unspoken premise there is that doubt is taught according to a set of given rules, with an implicit discrediting of ideas which can’t – at least for now – be demonstrated. Instead, it’s more radical – a method for becoming more alive to our ever-changing experience (intellect, emotion, body sensation, event perception), and developing an understanding that to treat one element (or one moment,) as the arbiter of truth is to fixate and judge in a way that limits our view.

“…doubt is taught according to a set of given rules”? What? No, the idea is as simple as this: teach a child that all beliefs, claims, and assertions need to be substantiated with evidence instead of authority (“because I said so, that’s why!”, which is especially dangerous in a religious context), tradition, or blind faith. Facts are not “a set of given rules.”

Halliwell is here advocating the tedious “there are many ways of knowing” argument, the idea that, for example, scientific inquiry is just one among many equally valid “ways of knowing” about the world. And, no, this kind of skepticism doesn’t “fixate and judge in a way that limits our view.” Emotions, “body sensation,” (what does that even mean?) “event perception,” etc., can never lead to actual knowledge or truth, because, unlike knowledge obtained via scientific inquiry, the “truth” one derives from them can never be tested or falsified.

It’s the kind of wisdom that Socrates spoke of when he said that while he knew nothing, he knew something from not-knowing. Similarly, by investigating in a meditative way, we might get a little closer to recognising how our preconceptions afflict us. It’s an approach that might not just mean fewer fights in the playground, but the spread of a humility that underpins our continued search for answers – we can accept that it’s a struggle even to formulate good questions.

Oh goodness, here we go. All aboard The Holy Rabbit Ineffable Express! This seems to be a Buddhist version of Mark Vernon’s beloved apophatic theology. It’s meaningless intentional obscurantism, derived from the ridiculous and weaselly Thomas Aquinas-y “God is an ineffable unknowable mystery who cannot even be said to exist, a fact that makes Him all the more real” school of thought.

No, we don’t “kn[o]w something from not-knowing” and we will never know anything unless we press beyond that stage of “not-knowing,” refuse to mute our curiosity, and settle for nothing less than an evidence-based system of education that actively fosters skepticism and critical thinking skills. Despite his assertion to the contrary, what Halliwell is promoting here is not “humility”. Far from it: this “other way of knowing” values one’s own perceptions, feelings, thoughts, and beliefs above all else, and, in the process, discourages intellectual growth and development.

Ed Halliwell Brown-Vernon, please scuttle off and enjoy an ineffable meal of word salad with The Holy Rabbit. Leave education reform to the grown-ups.

Sneaky, much?

And today, Phillips tells us that she will soon answer the question: “Is Christopher Hitchens a secret Catholic?”

KING HENRY: O Kate, nice customs curtsy to great kings. Dear Kate, you and I cannot be confin’d within the weak list of a country’s fashion; we are the makers of manners, Kate; and the liberty that follows our places stops the mouth of all find-faults- as I will do yours for upholding the nice fashion of your country in denying me a kiss; therefore, patiently and yielding. [Kissing her] You have witchcraft in your lips, Kate: there is more eloquence in a sugar touch of them than in the tongues of the French council; and they should sooner persuade Henry of England than a general petition of monarchs.

I am vetoing this bill because I have become convinced that this issue is of such significant societal importance that it deserves to be decided directly by all the people of Hawaii. The subject of this legislation has touched the hearts and minds of our citizens as no other social issue of our day. It would be a mistake to allow a decision of this magnitude to be made by one individual or a small group of elected officials.

No. Civil rights should not be determined by a referendum. We do not live in a direct democracy. Many bigots would eagerly jump at the chance to vote against equal rights for same-sex couples. Why should the government allow these homophobic individuals to hinder or prevent the progression towards equality?

Yes, unfortunately so. From the piece:

I have just learnt that the writer Christopher Hitchens, who for several years now has modestly assumed the mantle once worn by Attila the Hun, as “Scourge of God”, is suffering from throat cancer.

Yeah, Hitchens and Attila the Hun are so very similar. They both invade, pillage, and destroy cities, doing whatever must be done in order to expand their empires. Yep, Hitchens and Attila couldn’t be more alike.

It would be impertinent for me to feign great sorrow at this news, as I only know Hitchens from hearsay, reputation and his writings. Nonetheless, if my own doctor had broken similar news to me I would have been shocked, so he has my sympathy; prayers as well – a more practical remedy.

“No, doctor, I don’t want chemotherapy. I prefer prayer. It’s a much more practical and effective remedy.”

Some years ago, I happened to mention to a saintly Irish priest (his one small vanity was to think he looked like the actor Robert Mitchum) that the scientist Francis Crick – of Crick & Watson, the well-known firm of DNA supplies – had just died. “He didn’t believe in God,” I added. “He does now,” replied my Irish friend.

Oh the smugness, the arrogance, the sheer appalling gall. How dare they?

Perhaps visiting his doctor will be a wake-up call for Hitchens?

In other words: “his cancer is a blessing, as it may help him to finally find God.”

Vile. Vile vile vile.

And here’s something that I don’t understand: let’s say that a person does have a “deathbed conversion” or that they become religious after they have been diagnosed with a life-threatening illness. These conversions are caused by the fear of death, not a sudden realization that they have been wrong all these years, and that, actually, there indeed is a great deal of evidence for God. I would certainly never begrudge a dying individual anything that comforts them. However, I find it very confusing when religious individuals attempt to use such conversions as testaments to the truth of their beliefs. Quite the contrary: conversions made out of fear attest to nothing more than the comfort that religion and its false promises of an eternal afterlife provide to some individuals.

Phillips is the just the latest in the long parade of holier-than-thou, condescending, selfish, and opportunistic phonies who see no problem with using Hitchens’s illness as an excuse to self-righteously pontificate and proselytize.

It’s disgusting.

Patten…said demonstrators should be free to express their opinions, but should not fall into the trap of intolerance.

“I hope that (the protests) will be done with restraint, and that it will be done with a show of tolerance,” he told Reuters.

“It would be an extraordinary irony if those who polemicise past intolerance by churches are to become themselves the proponents of intolerance towards churches.”

Nice little euphemism there: “past intolerance by churches.” Doesn’t that sound so much nicer than “child rape”?

Two hundred and thirty four years ago, a group of very brave Americans came out with the rough draft of the best idea for human organization in the history of the world: a nation in which the government would run not by a monarch, but by the consent of the governed.

As I said, that was a rough draft, that Declaration of Independence. For generations, Americans lacked the ability to govern themselves because of their race, and then for a while after that because of their sex, and even for longer, because they didn’t have enough money.

But in a miraculous process, through wars and protests and lawsuits and demonstrations, this American nation now truly is run by the consent of all of the governed, of all races, creeds, sexes, and economic stations.

This truly is a miracle in human history…

Hmm. I think that I need to teach Ben and his fellow Juggalos how democracy (and magnets, and genetics, and pandas, etc.) works.