Pecco ergo erro

Last Updated on Friday, 30 September 2011 12:32 Written by Father Bill Friday, 30 September 2011 12:32

I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights. I’m pro-immigration. I’m pro-gun control. I believe in Darwin. (Michael Bloomberg as quoted in Forbes, October 10, 2011, page 286)

Sometimes you simply cannot believe your ears (or, in this case, your eyes) when a great one of this world sets forth moral verities. And, so, from the last page of Forbes this month, we find moral and epistemological consistency, coherence, and lucidity shining with blinding power from amidst a collection of quotes from men of fabulous wealth.

I think the idea here is that such wealth manifestly endorses the moral and epistemological  authority of those who are quoted, for the headline of this collection is “Thoughts from Forbes 400 members past and present.”  Surely Forbes‘ editors intend that we understand these toughts to be true rather than false, profound rather than trivial. And the irony is this: Bloomberg’s quote is one which everyone must salute as true and profound, whether one joins him in believing in Darwin or not. Here Bloomberg agrees with St. Paul (1 Corinthians 2:13) and King David (Psalm 116:10).  Who knew?

Bloomberg (and King DAvid, and St. Paul) would have us understand that moral and political commitments result from prior convictions, whether those about God or Darwin.  Because Bloomberg believes that what Darwin taught is truth, so he promotes the murder of infants and the normality of perverseness, and so on.  In this case, those committed to the truth of Holy Writ and those committed to the error of Holy Writ agree on the moral consequences of a commitment to Darwin.

If one wishes examples of inconsistency, incoherence, and confusion, look no further than those who claim to be Christians who affirm belief in Darwin but disagree with Bloomberg’s moral agenda on abortion and homosexuality.  Or those who claim to be “Biblical” in their belief but who follow the agenda Bloomberg follows.

Will Bloomberg’s consistency, coherence, and lucidity about his faith and commitments avail at The Doom?  No.  He will confess “Pecco ergo erro,” I sin and so I err.  And, in that confession he will be joined by many within modern professing Christendom, who like him believe a lie and so clothe themselves with wrong.


Learn More

Kill Your Baby, Save A Tree

Last Updated on Friday, 15 October 2010 07:36 Written by Father Bill Friday, 15 October 2010 07:36

The Scientific American has an idea for addressing global warming (or, if you prefer, climate change; whatever):  contraception and abortion,  The goal: reduce the earth’s population and, therefore, the “carbon footprint” left by all those babies who are never permitted to get outside the womb alive.

David Bielo begins the article with a breathlessly delivered statistic and a hopeful prognostication:

An additional 150 people join the ranks of humanity every minute, a pace that could lead our numbers to reach nine billion by 2050. Changing that peak population number alone could save at least 1.4 billion metric tons of carbon from entering the atmosphere each year by 2050, according to a new analysis—the equivalent of cutting more than 10 percent of fossil fuel burning per year.

There are so many ways this could be lampooned, the mind boggles. 

First, there’s the whole climate change folderol, which in another decade will be the butt of endless jokes, except for Al Gore and his enviro-nuts who have drunk uncounted gallons of the kool-aid.

Second, there is the link between population and the so-called carbon footprint. On one hand, the advanced nations are already in population decline (a fact ignored by Bielo in The Scientific American), a decline so severe that it is nearing irreversibility in Russia, Italy, and the Netherlands.  A panicked South Korea, where three out of every four pregnancies ends in abortion,  has decided to begin enforcing a long-ignored ban on abortions because of its now-irreversible population implosion, a fate also facing Japan. 

According to The Scientific American, this is all a very good thing and needs badly to be replicated in the United States and in those parts of Europe not already in precipitous population decline. 

Finally, if one reads between the lines, it is not hard to find an anti-human, pro-anything-but-human ethic behind all this.  Jeff Poor, commenting on The Scientific American article for the Media Research Center Network, notes that even more radical ideas are out there:

Paul Watson, founder and president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society in 2007 called for the world’s population to drop below 1 billion, meaning roughly 5.7 billion people would have to go away.

Okay, that’s radical, I suppose.  But it is any more radical than agitating for increasing the number of abortions, already in the tens of millions annually?  Is it any more radical than agitating for entire nations to commit demographic suicide?

[This blog is crossposted to St. Athanasius Anglican Church: Contra Mundum Redivivus]

Learn More

Vile, Mindless Idiocy

Last Updated on Saturday, 19 April 2008 06:06 Written by Father Bill Saturday, 19 April 2008 06:06



Two things incline a Christian’s heart toward eternity – the lure of heaven and its glories, and revulsion with the world we are departing. The lure is usually fainter, for our glory is unimaginable for our world-darkened minds. But, revulsion with this world is usually never very strong, and so the Scripture exhorts us against loving the world.


Two things this week increased my revulsion with the world. If you can’t stand feeling revolted, go away until I post something else.


I expect many of you have already encountered the first thing I’ll mention: a story in the Yale Daily News which reports a Yale senior art student’s “performance project” in which she purports to inseminate herself repeatedly with a syringe, and then to induce a series of abortions on the results of her inseminations.


Yale officials insist it’s all a farce. The art student insists it’s for real, that university profs and deans supported her project, and she’ll show you video to prove that she’s not making it up. Supposedly, everyone’s outraged, even those who endorse abortion.


In the latter case, I wonder why. If an art student at an Ivy League university can conceive such a thing, enlist support of faculty and deans, and carry it out; if she can go forward with plans to “present” the record of her achievements as her senior project – well, what does that tell us about the political, cultural, and spiritual environment in which all this is going on?


Second thing I ran across is even more horrific, though most folks won’t think so. It comes from the Philadelphia Inquirer, in a story  about young evangelicals defying political/cultural stereotypes. The money quote runs like this: “I’m not for gayness, but everyone deserves to have a great life. I’m not for killing babies, but I’m pro-choice.”


The mind boggles.


How about:


“I’m not for hari-kiri, but the self-disemboweling community deserves to have a great life just as much as anyone else.”


I wonder what this nonstereotypical evangelical would say to this:


“I’m not for bombing abortion clinics, but I don’t condemn those that do.”


Learn More


Bill’s Blog Posts

Bill's blog Faith and Gender is now migrated onto this website. The comments are now visible!

Access Bill's blog by clicking here.





Copyright © 2012 ICGS