I love whenever the Holy Father comes out with some statement because it gives me an excuse to wax philosophical. Pope Benedict XVI today addressed the importance of understanding natural law in a modern society that is more and more hesitant to make "judgments."

Referring in his remarks to a soon-to-be-approved draft document entitled "The search for universal ethics. A new look at natural law", the Holy Father pointed out "the urgent need, in the current situation of culture and of civil and political society, to create the conditions necessary to raise awareness of the indispensable value of natural moral law". "Natural law", he went on, "is the authentic guarantee everyone has to live free and respected in their dignity as human beings, and to feel they are defended from any form of ideological manipulation and all abuses perpetrated on the basis of the law of the strongest".

That "law of the strongest" reminds me of Benedict's "dictatorship of relativism," and I'm inclined to think that the two phrases could be used interchangeably. Ultimately there is no difference. I think no doctrine today poses a more serious threat to freedom than the intellectual error of relativism. It seems nice. Relativism seems laid back and unimposing. But by disposing of any moral fundament, relativism leaves the disenfranchised who live in a relativistic universe with no forum to address grievances when the powerful do them harm. If there is no moral law, then there is no social justice to seek after. The only legitimate way to vindicate one's desires in a relativist world is through the use of force. But the power of force is a gift given only to some and not to others. Relativism is, I think, ultimately the most popular modern excuse for people to not do what they know they must. I know I should step in and help this person who cannot speak for herself, but some might disagree. I might make enemies. And who am I to judge those who exploit her anyway? If they think she is lesser and not worthy of rights, who am I to tell them otherwise? When people are being exploited and disenfranchised, or even annihilated, and those who know what they must do don't do it, then the powerful win out. If there is no natural law, then force becomes the gravity to which all persons are bound. That's the law of the strongest. Relativism leads naturally to it. If relativism is true, for example, then there is nothing wrong with Iranian police arresting people for dressing like westerners. Simple freedoms like the kind we so obliviously enjoy in America depend, not on the dismissal of objective moral realities, but on the mutual understanding of a natural law that really safeguards our rights, even though we may not be able to fight for those rights ourselves. The natural law is the internal gravity that forces people to understand they have no excuse not to rock the boat, if they know that's what they have to do. The Holy Father is concerned that people are losing sight of that today. I don't blame him. Freedom without a moral compass is really just relativism. And that is no freedom at all. It is the opposite.

Three words: What a crock. Oh well, at least now I and my fellow Longhorn faithful no longer need have that awful taste in our mouths of actually wanting the University of Oklahoma to not suck, but only by a little bit. No, now is the perfect opportunity to hope for their bone-smashing, pride-crushing defeat. Why not? If they lose, it won't hurt our strength of schedule. After all, they would only be losing to another ranked opponent that we beat. So, destroy them, Tigers. Make the Sooners cry. Embarrass them. Make them wish they didn't get this far. Make them wish the pollsters had all come to their pea-sized senses and sent Bevo to the Big XII Championship Game instead. Take the big three teams in the Big XII -- Texas, OU, and Texas Tech. Who came the closest out of those three teams to beating both of the other teams? Not Tech. They came the closest to losing to both of their opponents and got spanked by the Sooners. Speaking of the Sooners, not them either. They spanked the Red Raiders, so thanks guys, but ahem, Texas beat OU. And it was clear that Texas won it by outlasting the Sooners. Both teams played great. But Texas just had more steam down the stretch. Texas did that to the Sooners, and then played two more well-ranked opponents, and beat both, before traveling to Lubbock to face the Red Raiders. Texas lost on, for all intents and purposes, the last play of the game. If they lost out on the National Title because of those final seconds of football then so be it, but in lieu of the Sooners, of all teams? I'm okay with Florida jumping us. That's a team we haven't played, and if we did, I think Texas'd beat them, but I can't say for sure. In the case of OU, I can not only say that they would. They did. Who was the only team out of those three to win a game against either of the other two outside of their home turf? Point of fact none of these three teams won a full-blown away game against either of the other two, but Texas came the closest, winning in Dallas against the team that is now going to the Big XII Championship game against the team that Texas beat the following week. Texas didn't get the pleasure of facing either of the other two teams at home. OU and Tech both did. The 2008 Texas Longhorns have pulled out an incredible season, playing with heart and passion that rivals what we all saw in 2005. In that season, it was expected from the beginning that they would make it all the way. They didn't get a chance to surpass expectations until they put the Trojans in their place and won the National Championship. This 2008 team has surpassed expectations since the beginning of the season, going through a four-week meat-grinder against top-11 teams and surviving the toughest division in the country with no more shameful blemish than a 6-point loss on a top-10 opponent's home turf. The shaft this team has gotten is borderline sinful. Eat my shorts, BCS.