Thomas Sowell Is Now Telling Me What To Think

. . . by which I mean that I’m reading his book Basic Economics. (Thanks to those who recommended additional books; I’ll check ’em out!)

Sowell’s book is very good. Quite easy to read (just like his columns). In fact, it’s designed to be able to be read by high school students. He even has a set of study questions in the back for homeschoolers to use with their kids.

I’m impressed enough with the book that if I had any homeschool high schoolers, I would set them to reading the book immediately. Having a basic understanding of economics is something that (a) virtually all young people lack and that (b) will serve them very well in life.

Homeschoolers: THIS BOOK WILL GIVE YOUR KIDS A COMPETITIVE EDGE OVER OTHER YOUNG PEOPLE AS THEY MOVE OUT INTO THE WORLD OF WORK.

It is also likely to help solidify them conservatively so they don’t flirt with braindead liberal economic policies that will hurt both them and society in the long run.

And, of course, having more voters out in society who understand economics is a boon to society as a whole that will make things better for everyone in the long run.

Now, there are occasionally a few big words in Sowell’s writing–words that I wouldn’t have known when I was in high school–but then I went to a public high school (or, as I referred to it at the time, a sucking vortex of madness and pain), and homeschoolers either will already know these terms or will know how to look them up in a magical book known as a "dictionary."

But what momentary discomfort there may be at encountering an occasional twenty-five cent word will be more than made up for (a) by the increased knowledge of economics that the kid will have and (b) the fact that he will now know the twenty-five cent word.

But beyond that, Sowell is just entertaining and easy to read. If you’ve looked at some of his columns that I’ve linked, you already know that. In his book, his style is much the same, and he illustrates his economic principles with countless interesting examples from all over the world and all through history.

Parents (and non-parents) should read this book, too. He is startlingly clear about things and puts many in a perspective that cuts through the typical rhetoric we often have economic issues wrapped in by politicians and pundits eager to advance their own causes. He even cuts through the illusions that we ourselves tend to have.

Consider:

Many people see prices as simply obstacles to their getting the things they want. Those who would like to live in a beach-front home, for example, may abandon such plans when they discover how expensive beach-front property is. But high prices are not the reason we cannot all live on the beach front. On the contrary, the inherent reality is that there are not nearly enough beach-front homes to go around and prices simply convey that underlying reality. When many people bid for a relatively few homes, those homes become very expensive because of limited supply. But it is not the prices that cause the scarcity, which would exist whatever other economic or social arrangements might be used inestead of prices (p. 7-8).

See? Bet you, like me, have often perceived prices as the barrier between you and getting what you want. But that’s too short-term a view. The real reason is that there is a limited supply of what you want and other people want it, too. In a free market, prices simply the mechanism by which you and others figure out how much value you are going to place on getting the thing you want.

If people start valuing something less, prices drop. You can see this at work on Amazon. The books that are newly out and all the rage right now are expensive. But if you look at books there were all the rage a few years ago, you can now get them dirt cheap (like for a penny plus shipping costs) on Amazon’s used book service. This is the case with a bunch of the diet and nutrition books there. The ones that everyone’s talking about this year are expensive, but the good ones that are a few years old (like Atkins’ books) are now incredibly cheap. Less demand, lower prices (and bargain-hunter’s paradise: the obvious strategy being to wait until the "fad" factor has worn off a particular book and you can get it for a song).

I’m going to be keeping Sowell’s book right next to my copy of The Rules of Acquisition.

Now if I could just get Borg implants so Sowell could tell me what to think via direct neural interface.

GET SOWELL’S BOOK.

John the Baptist . . . Born Without Original Sin?

A reader writes:

Hello Jimmy

I heard this for the first time last night and do not know the answer.


I was told that the Catholic Church teaches that John the Baptist was Born without original sin, is this the teaching of the church if so can you please explain why.

This is not something that the Catholic Church teaches, but it is what may be called a pious and probable belief among Catholics.

The reason is that in Luke 1:13-15, when an angel prophecies the birth of John the Baptist, he says:

Do not be afraid, Zechari’ah, for your
prayer is heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you
shall call his name John.
And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth;
for he will be great before the Lord,and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.

It is commonly understood that the Holy Spirit does not fill those who are still in a state of original sin. As Catholics use the term, "original sin" refers to the privation of the sanctifying grace which unites us with God. A soul filled with the Holy Spirit seems unquestionably to be united with God and thus not deprived of sanctifying grace. Hence, it has not original sin as the term is commonly used among Catholics, just as every person who has been baptized or otherwise justified has not original sin as Catholics use the term.

(N.B., Protestants have a different and more expansive definition of the term "original sin," which includes the corrupt nature we inherit from Adam and which remains with us after we are justified. Consequently, it would sound very improbable to them that any person in this life does not have original sin, but this is because of the way the term is used in their circles, not because of a substantive theological difference.)

(N.B.B., If it is granted that John the Baptist was freed from original sin before birth, it does not follow that he was immaculate, as was the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is firstly because he may have been freed of original sin after his conception and before birth, whereas Mary was preserved from her conception from contracting original sin. And it secondly is because Mary was not only free of original sin, as is posited in the case of John the Baptist, but also utterly free of the stain of original sin, which includes more than just the deprivation of sanctifying grace. It also includes, for example, the later tendency to sin–concupiscience–to which we are subject in this life.)

The J-Files

Let’s continue the cross-linking of my apologetics work from the Catholic Answers web site.

As most of y’all know, we publish a magazine called This Rock.

<hypnotism> SUBSCRIBE TO IT. . . . SUBSCRIBE TO IT . . . </hypnotism>

We also post it online, but delayed by several months so you still have to

<hypnotism> SUBSCRIBE TO IT. . . . SUBSCRIBE TO IT . . . </hypnotism>

The most recent two issues we have online are the July/August 2004 and the September 2004 issue. We publish monthly except for May/June and July/August, so you get ten issues a year when you

<hypnotism> SUBSCRIBE TO IT. . . . SUBSCRIBE TO IT . . . </hypnotism>

Okay, enough of that gag.

Here’s the deal: Each month I publish a column in This Rock, and my column is called "Brass Tacks" (which is Cockney rhyming-slang for "facts" or, in some sources, "hard facts"–which is what I try to deliver in the column). I also sometimes write feature stories.

In the two most recent issues that are online, my columns form a pair.

In the first issue I talk about WHY CATHOLIC APOLOGISTS NEED TO LEARN MORE LANGUAGES, PARTICULARLY THE BIBLICAL ONES (AND HOW IT’S EASIER THAN YOU THINK).

In the second issue I follow up by MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LANGUAGE-LEARNING RESOURCES AND REFERENCE WORKS–a subject I am often asked about here on the blog.

In fact, you may notice a suspicious similarity between the second article and certain previous things I’ve written on the blog. Yes, it’s true. Sometimes I get behind the eight ball on a deadline and will cannibalizeadapt things I’ve written elsewhere . . . all in a quest to deliver timely and quality material, of course! In this case the second article was a logical and much-needed follow-on to the first.

I normally don’t have a feature story in This Rock, but it so happens that in the July/August issue, I do.

It’s called THE LOSS OF MASCULINE SPIRITUALITY.

This article deals not only with gender relations and how they are rooted in human nature but also the impact of gender on spirituality and the negative consequences that can ensue when a church places an over-emphasis on either "masculine" or "feminine" spirituality. God made the masculine and the feminine mutually interdependent in humans biologically, and they are both equally necessary in us spiritually, as well.

Unfortunately, I diagnose the present situation of the Catholic Church as involving an under-emphasis on "masculine" spirituality, which results in some of the problems we have in the Church today. I call for a renewal of this mode of spirituality to compliment the "feminine" spirituality that we presently have (and will always need) in abundance.

For what it’s worth, when this article came out many people locked on to it as an article of particular significance, and I got requests for electronic copies of it as well as requests for notification of when it was online.

Now I’m fulfilling the latter.

I am very particular about fulfilling my commitments. 🙂

Have fun reading . . .

THE J-FILES.

Thomas Sowell, Tell Me What To Think . . . !

. . . ABOUT THIS ARTICLE ON "THE END OF THE AGE OF INFLATION."

In it, the author (Robert Samuelson) argues that the main powerhouse driving the economy in the last number of years was not the economic and tax policies of different administrations that were often touted, nor simply the effect of technology and the Internet, but the end of the era of double-digit inflation that we experienced in times past.

According to Samuelson, it was inflation that posed the greatest risk to the economy and that caused the recessions that used to plague America with far more frequency than they do now.

Unfortunately, the end of the era of inflation means that we can’t expect the economy to grow at such a rate in the future and that nobody knows that the shape of the future economy will be.

Even more unfortunately, I don’t know enough about economics to evaluate what Samuelson says.

That’s why I’d like Thomas Sowell to do one of his neat-o, spiffy columns on it.

But . . .

That’s not overly likely to happen, a realization which caused me to finally break down and buy Sowell’s book Basic Economics (reputed to be one of the easiest-to-read introductions out there).

Maybe when I’m done I’ll know enough to have an opinion about what Samuelson says.

A Few Words From Mark Brumley

I haven’t yet had Mark Brumley as a guest blogger here, though he’s more than welcome to serve as one any time he likes. As I’ve said before, Mark is one of the best of the best in the apologetics world. Unfortunately, his duties as president of Ignatius Press often keep him from doing as much apologetics (and as much blogging) as he’d like.

But yesterday (along with a bunch of other folks) I got an e-mail from him announcing a couple of recent Ignatius titles that are worth y’all’s consideration, so perhaps by reprinting his e-mail here it can serve as a faux blog entry for him. Here goes:

Friends,

Theology students, apologetics enthusiasts, and others interested in
theology often ask me, “What’s a good book on Tradition?”

Tradition is one of those ideas that people often get muddled—including
many apologists. In part that’s
because there are so many different meanings to the word.

Apologists commonly (and rightly) distinguish between what is often
called “capital ‘T’ Tradition” and “lower case ‘t’ tradition”, the former being
divine and the latter human. That distinction is helpful, but not
sufficient. There’s a lot more to
the theological notion of Tradition (and tradition).

Probably the best, relatively short work on the subject is Yves Congar’s
The
Meaning of Tradition
. This is
an accessible, more coherent presentation of the material Congar put together
in his massive two-volume work, Tradition
and Traditions
.

Ignatius Press has just re-published Congar’s classic volume, I am
delighted to report.

Cardinal Avery Dulles’ insightful Foreword to the new Ignatius Press
edition is now available online at IgnatiusInsight.com:
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features/carddulles_foreword_dec04.asp.

Check it out and please help spread the word to apologists and others
who are interested in the subject.

And—at the risk of sounding like Columbo—just one more thing:

Ignatius Press has also recently published Louis Bouyer’s The
Word, Church, and Sacraments in Protestantism and Catholicism
. There is no other book in English in
print today that so succinctly explains in a friendly way the key differences
between Protestants and Catholics on these subjects. Bouyer shows how many Catholics and Protestants
misunderstand Catholic teaching about the Bible, the authority of the Church,
and the Sacraments.

Every theology student and apologist who participates in
Catholic/Protestant discussions on these subjects needs to read this book. Bouyer is lucid, and he is fair to both
sides of the discussion, even though he is himself a convert from Protestantism. You get neither pabulum nor polemics,
but a patient exposition of the subject. Bouyer is a master.

I can’t recommend these books highly enough.

Mark

P.S. I hate to sound like a commercial here, but I don’t know what else
to do. These are great books.

This Week's Show (Dec. 2, 2004)

It has come to my attention that not everyone reading the blog is necessarily familiar with my other apologetics work (to which the blog is really just a sidelight).

I’d like them to be.

To that end, I’ve decided to start cross-linking things I’ve done recently (or even longer ago) as they become available on the Catholic Answers web site.

Let’s start with yesterday’s edition of Catholic Answers Live, on which I was a guest. It’s in RealAudio format (which you may be able to listen to with Windows Media Player).

LISTEN TO THE SHOW.

DOWNLOAD THE SHOW.

Highlights:

  • "Novus Ordo Saeculorum" vs. "Novus Ordo Mundi."
  • Can an Anglican be music director/cantor at Mass?
  • What does "sin unto death" mean?
  • Modes of expression in Job.
  • Can a non-Catholic be elected pope?
  • If angels in heaven fell, will we be able to fall from heaven?
  • Did Jesus have a human soul?
  • Will God compensate the innocent who suffer?
  • The New World Translation.
  • How can non-Catholics be saved without confession?
  • Peter & the Rock at Caesaria Philippi.

This Week’s Show (Dec. 2, 2004)

It has come to my attention that not everyone reading the blog is necessarily familiar with my other apologetics work (to which the blog is really just a sidelight).

I’d like them to be.

To that end, I’ve decided to start cross-linking things I’ve done recently (or even longer ago) as they become available on the Catholic Answers web site.

Let’s start with yesterday’s edition of Catholic Answers Live, on which I was a guest. It’s in RealAudio format (which you may be able to listen to with Windows Media Player).

LISTEN TO THE SHOW.

DOWNLOAD THE SHOW.

Highlights:

  • "Novus Ordo Saeculorum" vs. "Novus Ordo Mundi."
  • Can an Anglican be music director/cantor at Mass?
  • What does "sin unto death" mean?
  • Modes of expression in Job.
  • Can a non-Catholic be elected pope?
  • If angels in heaven fell, will we be able to fall from heaven?
  • Did Jesus have a human soul?
  • Will God compensate the innocent who suffer?
  • The New World Translation.
  • How can non-Catholics be saved without confession?
  • Peter & the Rock at Caesaria Philippi.

Something Absolutely Horrendous

Today I was talking with one of the Catholic Answers apologists about a sacramental situation in a particular parish where a priest is performing a bizarre form of penance service. The apologist wanted to know if the absolutions the priest was performing on the laity were valid.

After carefully reviewing the facts of the case, I told the apologist that, although there was a manifest grave violation of Church law, the absolutions were nevertheless probably valid.

Elaborating, I went on to pose an analogy that I sometimes use. You know how kids have a tendency to break toys, especially boys? That’s why Tonka Trucks as made as tough as they are. They’re very hard for children to break accidentally, even when subjected to rough play. Something like that is the case with adults, too. God knows that if humans can foul something up, they will, and so in entrusting the sacraments to us as means of our salvation, he made the requirements for their valid celebration rather minimal.

Because of the importance of the sacraments, people often worry unnecessarily about whether minor defects in the celebration of the rites render them invalid, but the truth is that God made the sacraments hard to break. It takes something absolutely horrendous to truly invalidate a sacrament.

That’s not to say it can’t be done.

THIS PARISH IN AUSTRALIA HAS BEEN PERFORMING INVALID BAPTISM FOR YEARS.

Hundreds of them.

They’ve been baptizing people in the name of "the Creator, the Liberator, and the Sustainer," and that’s not a valid formula for baptism.

It is especially disastrous sacrament to get wrong, because baptism is the gateway to the remaining sacraments.

The criminal priests who were pastorally irresponsible enough to do a thing such as this, which is so abominable that it goes beyond the ability of polite language to adequately characterize, have created an enormous mess and deserve to be slapped with the most severe sanctions that canon law can provide. In fact, if I were one of the involved parties I would be inclined to slap them with more than ecclesiastical sanctions.

I would be inclined to slap them–repeatedly–with my hands and fists.

Moneychangers of this sort need to be driven from the Temple with whips. The desecration they have wrought on the sacraments and on hundreds of individuals is beyond belief.

CANONIST ED PETERS GIVES AN ANALYSIS OF JUST HOW HUGE A MESS THESE EXECRABLE VIPERS HAVE CREATED.

What amazes me is how the problem could go uncorrected for so long. It is hard to imagine that the Australian faithful are so abominably catechized that in all the years the desecration has been going on nobody would recognize such a grossly defective baptismal formula as problematic and report it.

No matter how bad things have been down there since Vatican II, I assume that at least some of the Australian faithful are old enough that they were learned on whatever their nation’s equivalent of the Baltimore Catechism was (perhaps the Penny Catechism) and thus knew enough to spot the problem at their grandchildren’s baptisms.

It seems that there are four options:

1) Australian Catholics really are such total ignoramuses that that nobody spotted the problem (and I don’t buy that for a second),

2) Australians Catholics are evil and like it when they knowingly witnessing sacrilege (that’s also a dog that won’t hunt),

3) Australian Catholics are so uncommonly pusillanimous that none of them had the chutzpah to report the problem (and I don’t buy that either, what with Australians being descended from folks courageous enough that they refused to stay within the bounds of the law), or

4) Some Australian Catholics did spot the problem and did disapprove of it and did report it and someone in a position of authority (possibly several someones) turned a deaf ear to their pleas.

My money is on option #4.

If that one’s the case, that person or those persons need to be outed for the pastoral good of the community and also slapped with severe ecclesiastical sanctions as willing co-conspirators covering up the canonical crimes of the abominable Judases who desecrated the sacrament of baptism hundreds of times and thus led to the other sacraments being desecrated thousands of times.

(There! And I managed to get through all that without using the word "b*st*rds.")