This Liberal Blog

On the Changes Children Bring

2010-03-10T15:17:00.003-05:00

I've been thinking a lot lately about how much children change your life. I had a dream the other night that I lost one of my children and it's difficult to describe the panic that I felt. Sometimes a picture of my son makes me think, well, it makes me think terrible and touching things.

Anyhow, what I would liek to do is demistify some of these changes for people without children, or even for people with children. There are some amazing changes that come with children, not without meaning.

When the kids came, I wasn't overwhelmed. I was talking to my accountant, and he described his feelings on the day of his daughter's birth as 'a rush'. I didn't feel any rush. Due to complications, my wife was scheduled for a c-section about three months before the birth. We showed up at the hospital without any of the prototypical drama associated with births - it was like showing up for a normally scheduled appointment, which it was in fact. Once we were in the hospital, the attitude of the staff was so efficient and professional that worrying actually seemed out of place. I was worried about my wife, of course, but it was so far out of my control that I felt almost like I was getting in the way. They pulled each of my children out; my son silent and my daughter screaming, each covered with associated detritus and quickly spirited away by an overweight nurse to another room where they were... well, I have no idea what they did in the other room. I had no desire to cut anything, although I was very interested in looking, which they did not let me do. I was told to sit down when I tried to peak over the curtain.

So later I was in a room with my wife, who was a little out of it due to the anasthesia, and my new children. The nurses, as they were throughout our stay, were helpful, senstitive, and on the spot. They seemed the most comfortable with the situation. I was kind of dumbfounded. I had been around kids for years, having five nephews and nieces by this time. I had been there. There was no rush, just completion. I was happy, but it was hardly unexpected that two children would appear. We had been to ultrasounds every month, we had talked about it almost constantly, we had planned, moved, and prepared for eight months. I was not shocked, nor was my wife (as far as I could tell).

We brought them home - to their home, where they would live. That was a moment, but again, not unexpected. I read somewhere that what makes a family exceptional is that children intuitively understand that they are unconditionally accepted at home. My house would be the place where they would be received, always, forever. Like I said, it was a moment.

Up to now, and for the next few months, the only emotion elicited by the kids was exhaustion - if that's a feeling. They were lots of work. I posted to Facebook at one point saying "I think I have this parenting thing figured out." What I meant was that it was just a lot of work and you have to keep working and hope your wife keeps supporting you. It was twins, and let me tell you, it's a lot of work with twins. But there was no whopping emotional feeling associated with caring for them. It was just work.

One thing I noticed during this time was how much less I was thinking of myself. Many of the neuroses associated with the late teens and twenties I now attribute to having too much time and energy. Getting four hours of sleep a night for weeks on end, with a night off, then for weeks more, takes it outtaya. I was wishing that I was back in my twenties, with all of the associated youthful energy. One of the guys in our Multiples Birthing Class was 55 and having triplets. For goodness sake, I'm glad I wasn't him. In any case, you wanna stop thinking of yourself, have some kids. Or don't, I guess there's lots of people out there that are still crazy with kids. But I found it to expend a lot of energy leaving me with little time to think too much about myself.

So now I think about who I would kill if something should happen to my kids and panic in dreams about losing them. It kind of snuck up on me. I don't know if I'm just dense, or what. Probably dense. But here I am, crazy about my kids and thinking about them often. Which isnt' so bad - it's another way to take the focus off myself, where it doesn't need to be.

On Women and Politics

2010-02-09T09:19:00.003-05:00

A progressive friend of mine who is a computer programmer once remarked that he sometimes felt like cultural mores were like pieces of code created by another programmer that he stumbled across while performing edits. They sometimes appeared useless, but he was hesitant to delete them for fear that they were performing some essential function in the program. I love this analogy, and I think it is apt.

I bring this analogy up in this space, again, as it pertains to a topic that is on my mind a lot lately: women's suffrage. Believe it or not, there was a day and age in which the idea of women voting was thought ludicrous by both men and women. And it wasn't that long ago. A personal hero of mine, G.K. Chesterton, was distinctly opposed to women's suffrage. Of course, expressing this view now is enough to get you locked up in a sanitorium, or at least enough to get you ruefully ignored. Come to think of it, if you promoted the idea that women should not have the vote in a place like Northampton, MA, then I think you would have a very long day.

Here's what I'm noticing: women are naturally more sympathetic than men, and tend towards leftist politics. They desire security above all else, and are naturally unwilling to be hard on those in naturally difficult circumstances. I suspect, and this is not a comprehensive analysis of the situation, that our drift to the left politically is directly aligned with women's suffrage. And I also highly doubt that abortion will ever be illegal in a republic with women's suffrage.

Chesterton's difficulty with women's suffrage was that it created a division within the household. In the operation of the household, it was necessary to have a unity of action and sentiment. Men and women were forced to work together to a common end, and this was a good thing. Hopefully, a man's decisions were tempered by his wife's feelings and sympathy, and vice versa, her sentiments were tempered by his practicality and desire for action.

What we have now is a society where the sympathetic sentiment and practicality are sundered. There is no longer unity of action.

I think that this is the root of the 'politically correct' culture that we now currently live and breathe. There is this air of division, and in some places being 'masculine' is an exercise in cultural revolution. A witness to this is the Dodge Charger advertisement during the Super Bowl which trumpeted the car as "Man's Last Stand". Men feel cornered, but they also feel that acting like 'themselves' is somehow an act of violence. Men are not allowed to be men.

I believe this has a larger effect on the culture, and its impact is especially felt in the collapse of Fatherhood in the United States.

The solution? That's a subject for another post.

Movie Review: The Hurt Locker

2010-02-01T09:00:00.006-05:00

So, I had The Hurt Locker on my Netflix list and then my neighbor foisted a stolen copy upon me. I felt bad - I didn't want to make a fuss with my neighbor about the illegal copy.

Anyways, I was looking forward to seeing the movie. There was a lot of buzz. For example, a reviewer on the DVD box called it "one of the defining movies of the decade". Hey, now, you don't hear that very often.

In broad strokes, the movie is about a team of soldiers in Iraq in 2004 whose job is to defuse Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). It's obviously a high-stress job. The movie, in part, is about the dichotomy between the daily adreneline rush active duty soldiers experience and the monotony of civilian life when they are not deployed. More on that later.

The movie is a very good (it seems) depiction of the life of our soldiers in Iraq. It is interesting to me that so few of this type of movie have been made. It seems that most Iraq War movies are intended only to disparage either our government (c.f. George W. Bush) or, what's much worse, our soldiers. This movie doesn't put our soldiers on a pedastal, but nor does it tarnish their much deserved reputation for bravery and service.

I'd be interested to hear a veteran's opinion of the authenticity of the movie's depiction of life for our soldiers in Iraq.

I'm not sure how much of a cohesive 'theme' this movie has. I think, in large part, it is just asking you to experience the daily life of these men and to have some sympathy for what their service does to them mentally - especially in the near-daily brushes with death and violence. It's a worthy message.

An unfortunate, and neither unexpected nor unrealistic, element of the movie is the contrast between the 'excitement' of active military duty and the 'boredom' of civilian life. Of course, it's more than just 'excitement' and 'boredom'. Soldiers of every nation go through something that can't really be related to anything in civilian life. Living your life under contstant threat of a violent death does something to you. On the other hand, it is also true that ordinary life is too often identified with a boring life. Ordinary life is not boring.

Upon reflection, the movie may tell this story, too. Sometimes it's easier to face an IED than your wife. Courage comes in many forms, and is just as necessary in the ordinary events of life as it is in the extraordinary.

On the Myth of "Choice"

2010-01-30T12:17:00.003-05:00

So, in case you haven't heard, Focus on the Family has paid 2.5 million dollars for a spot during the Super Bowl that will tell the story of Pamela Tebow, who was encouraged to have a surgical abortion on account of pregnancy complications 23 years ago. She declined, and as a result we have Tim Tebow, Heisman Trophy winning quarterback for the University of Florida.

Pro-abortion advocates are, predictably, in a kerfuffle. Most are objecting on the grounds that broadcast groups have agreed to avoid advertising related to 'controversial issues'. Others insist that airing controversial material during the Super Bowl will somehow ruin the 'universal spirit' of the event.

There is an irony here that absolutely punctures the myth of 'Choice' with which these groups nearly always wrap themselves. The point is this: the ad is only about Ms. Tebow's choice. From all reports, it is not an idealogical attack on any political or social reality. It's only about one woman's "Choice". And the response of so-called "Pro-Choice" groups like NARAL and NOW is to seek to censor Ms. Tebow's story.

This is why many in the Pro-Life movement, including myself, find it more accurate to refer to these groups as "Pro-Abortion".

NARAL and NOW are free to run ads of their own, describing alternative choices. I have a feeling that they won't be as popular. Perhaps the time has come to bring the stories out into the open - they will be compelling. And I think it is the knowledge of how each 'choice' appears in context that scares the crap out of pro-aborts.

Go Saints.

On Partisanship and Politics

2010-01-28T16:24:00.003-05:00

I watched the whole State of the Union Address last night - all 80 minutes of it. Here’s my thoughts:

It seemed really jocular. There were tons of laughs - and a lot of it was genuinely funny. But, really, time and a place. I haven’t watched a ton of these things, but it seemed kind of yukky to me, in the sense of yukking it on up.
He said some good stuff. I liked what he said about nuclear power plants. He threw in some stuff on American ingenuity and breaks for small business. He seemed to be really trying to reach out to the folks who shlocked it to him in Massachusetts last week. Hey, we can work this out, you know?
Some stuff I really didn’t like. When he kept crabbin’ about Republicans not playing nice, it seemed like total BS to me. It’s pretty clear to everyone that Barry O. has been trying to push through a far-left agenda, abetted by majorities in the House and Senate. What have Republicans had to go along with? Barry O.’s been acting like he didn’t need the Repubs for a while now, and then he starts talkin’ like the Republicans are some sticks in the mud for not going along. It’s like bitchin’ about somebody not coming to a party to which they weren’t invited.
I didn’t, at all, like the comment directed at the Supreme Court. You don’t like what the Supreme Court does? Tough shit. Even if nobody believes that the Supreme Court is above politics, they still are and should be treated as such. No president should ever go where he went last night in his comments about the court. Ever. Seriously, it’s inviting anarchy to even insinuate that the President may be questioning the Court’s decision in a case.

In the end, it was clear that there really wasn’t any more information to be gathered from the speech. Barry’s playing like he’s chastened, but he’s like a bad basketball player giving a pass fake. It’s nothin’. He’s still cocky, but he doesn’t know that someone just stole his ball and is driving down to his hoop.

So what does this have to do with religion and culture? I don’t know. I don’t think that larger government is good for American culture. I think it’s the road to whatever the opposite of culture is: homogeneity, institutionality, dependence. It’s bad, it’s bad.

Wow, that all sounds really partisan. Am I a partisan? It seems like it’s hard to really be in the middle nowadays. What do you think?

St. Josemaria talks about appreciating where people like President Obama are coming from: there’s plenty of injustice in the world and it’s a good thing to be discontented with it. But I guess there it is - I can appreciate it, but I still find it a bad approach. Barack Obama scares me a bit. He’s not moderate, and nor are his policies or approaches. I don’t like it...

On Local Culture

2010-01-26T10:31:00.005-05:00

For a while now, the theme of 'Local Culture' has been in the front of my mind. My previous post alludes to the idea that the solution to 'life' issues is changing the culture before (or along with) changing the law.

Here's a little story:

About 150 years ago America was a white-bread, Protestant society - largely Anglo-Saxon in demographics and culture. Certainly all of the people that 'mattered' were WASPs. They passed the laws, they owned the newspapers, they were the leaders of industry, etc. They 'formed' the culture.

About 100 years ago, an amalgam of European immigrants started pouring into the country. These people were invited to our shores to man the machines of industry owned by the existing Anglo-Saxon power brokers. At that time, many asked 'How will all these immigrants assimilate into our culture?' The answer was 'We don't know, but to grow as a nation we need these people. Otherwise we will be left behind.'

So millions of immigrants, mostly but not exclusively European, poured into the United States. Germans, Irish, Italians, Poles, French Canadians, and others set up cultural enclaves mostly in urban areas. The political, and cultural, clout of these enclaves was very limited in the larger community. These enclaves were insular, at least by modern standards. A friend once told me that when his French Canadian father, back in the 50s, wanted to marry an Irish girl his parents opposed the marriage saying, "Where will you go to Church?" Both families were Catholic, but participated in segregated French and Irish parishes.

So, until about 50 years ago there were these separate cultural enclaves - Anglo-Saxon Protestants pulling the levers of power and others manning the machines of industry. What both enclaves had in common was an ethnic identity stretching back hundreds of years, if not more. Not that they had a common ethnic identity, but their separate identities were all, more or less, old.

This shared ethnic identity created a cohesion and identity amongst these groups. It was the mechanism by which Faith was nurtured in these separate communities, in separate ways. These different cultures were also a deposit of cultural wisdom and 'rules' for living that helped individuals navigate the sometimes roiling seas of life. In a way, these groups were even a social service provider for themselves, either in the form of religious fraternities or beneficent organizations.

Fifty years ago, the dams of these little enclaves began to burst - little Italian girls started to marry little WASP boys, or any of a thousand variations on these themes. These little girls and boys didn't quite understand why it mattered very much, but it really changed everything. An example: My great-grandfather ran an Italian bank in the early twentieth century. The sign over his bank read 'Italian Banker'. He could do that because it meant something to people that he was Italian - it made them want to do business with him. As these dams broke, this meant less.

As the ethnic cultural environments began to fade, a vacuum was created. Some of the elements filling this vacuum were new human developments in and of themselves. Television replaced 'visiting' as the primary form of entertainment. Government became larger and took over some 'social welfare' needs. Business was transacted less on relationship, and was based more and more on short-term profit/loss calculations. Big business arose, and small family businesses declined.

Other things were lost. Families were exposed to new challenges. Extended family networks broke down, having in the past been sustained by traditional cultural understandings of marriage, as well as by family members willing to assist in child rearing. Women went to work, creating a dual strain on themselves as 'provider' and 'nurturer'. In fact, the sexual revolution had numerous impacts on the family. The family became smaller, divorce became more common, and children were sexualized at a much younger age. Things got a little rough.

In all of these developments, individuals were hurt by the lack of a larger social support system. This social support system was often nurtured by a common cultural framework, based on some type of 'local' identity, that is no longer there.

So, what is the point of that giant story? Just this: that I think we'd all be a little, or a lot, better off if we had more of a common cultural identity. That's not terribly controversial, but I wonder if people really think that way. Is anyone trying to create a local culture, consciously? Does anyone think that being 'American' or a 'Massachutan' is something special? Is there anything that sweeps all of us up, into a common cultural bin? Right now, I don't think that there is. But there should be.

How to? Another post.

On the Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

2010-01-22T14:03:00.002-05:00

Today is the 38th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that struck down state laws prohibiting abortion during the first and second trimester of pregnancy. I would like to offer a few recommendations, mostly for men, towards building a culture of life.

Be a man. All of my recommendations relate to this theme, but it is important to keep this principle at the forefront. It seems that many attacks on pro-abortion policies either are, or can be perceived as, anti-woman. We need to accept the principle that men are born to be leaders, and if this is the case then abortion is more than 50% our fault. We need to go after men for not being men, and be men ourselves.
Bind yourself. Get married, or make some other lifetime commitment of service, and live it out. Don't wait until your in your mid-thirties. This is a mistake. All of the energy and life that people in their twenties possess is meant to be directed towards a family (or some other difficult end). A lot of the difficulties that people in these age groups face are a result of excess energy that is supposed to be turned towards children that gets turned inward and makes us fret about ourselves.
Be a good husband, father, or priest. However you choose to bind yourself, do it well and never stop. Tell yourself that it is forever and learn to love it. Never, ever, let up. There is so much work involved in being married. It can be scary. A friend told me that one of the most courageous decisions a man can make is to get married. He was right. The next most courageous is having kids.
Put away the porn, now. If you're invovled in any way with pornography, you are hurting women. Being chaste is extremely challenging, and I'm not judging anyone for falling. But if you want to help build a culture of life, confess your faults to God and move on. Now.

The common thread in all of this is courage. Being a good husband, father, brother, or friend is very hard work. One person can make a difference. If enough of us do these things, abortion would be a non-issue. I'm not speaking against lobbying the government, but it's a joke unless we're laying the cultural foundation.

In the immortal words of St. Josemaria Escriva, "Esto vir!" Be a Man!

On Opposing Gay Marriage

2009-11-04T14:21:00.003-05:00

I am becoming more comfortable with my role as a 'blue-state conservative'. I am used to measuring words, to the conversational confusion that ensues after a clueless liberal assumes political esprit de corps, to the downright rage that often ensues when I simply say what I think.

Homosexual 'marriage' is an interesting case in point. For example, I am pleased with the outcome of the referendum in Maine that repealed a judicial mandate to legalize gay 'marriage'. But simply expressing that point of view could pose real danger to my social, and even professional, prestige.

I find that the best way of defending my point of view is by simply being myself. Doing so is simple, yet difficult.

As myself, I'm not out to bash anyone else's point of view. I'm not out to be negative. My views on gay marriage are positively informed, if challenging, and come from a sense of optimism about people. The difficulty is that conversations are often orchestrated to put defenders of marriage, well, on the defensive. Do you ever get the feeling that you are tenaciously clinging to your viewpoint (which makes perfect sense to you) while trying to defend yourself from the charges of being a bigot?

I once had a conversation, albeit a one-sided one) with an acquaintance about gay marriage. It was on Facebook. By the second post, I was accused of defending 'bigoted views'. I defended myself, saying that those who know me would never think of me as a bigot. "Oh," went the reply "I never called you a bigot." Well, what do you call one who holds bigoted views? Etc.

There is a spirit of manevolence in the pro-gay marriage folks. I hate to say it, but it is the natural result of defending a sinful behavior, and usually results from a desire to excuse either the pro-gay person's own behavior (homosexual or no) or that of someone they love. There is no common ground, no understanding. They really can't countenance opposing views, because if gay sex is wrong then other stuff may be wrong, too.

It takes a good deal of pluck to defend tradtional views of marriage. You'll be accused of being everything that self-styled progressives despise: rigid, judgemental, holier-than-thou, etc. The irony is that each of these maledictions could be re-pasted on the forhead of the would-be crusader for gay 'rights'! Doubt it? Try having a conversation with them about it.

The best defense of marriage is the family itself. Have a big family. Be happy. Be very happy. It's the best rememdy for what ails the culture. Raise your kids to respect themselves. Shower them with love. That's the positive. But don't be fooled - it ain't easy. It takes a lot of courage to get married. It takes even more to have kids. But it's worth it.

That's the optimism. Optimism exists in the face of challenges, otherwise it is platitudinous.

So, I'm happy about the results of yesterday's referendum on gay marriage in Maine. I'm not sure what it portends for our culture, but I'm willing to be optimistic. I'm also willing to stand up to the bullies. Someday they might thank you for it.

On the Anglican Reunion

2009-10-30T09:08:00.002-04:00

I have been following developments in the Anglican Church for some time now. I don't know if it is my British ancestry (my mother is a New England Yankee, raised Episcopalian), or if it is just my American cultural heritage - tied as it is at its root to British culture. I have always felt close to England, and interested in the fate of English-speaking Catholics.

For those who need background, the Anglican Church is otherwise known as the Church of England, and was separated from the body of Christendom in the sixteenth century after the Pope refused to grant an annulment to Henry VIII of England. Since that time, the monarch is the head of the Church of England. Unlike many other European churches that came under the authority of the state, the Church of England retained many doctrines, practices, and beliefs that are considered 'Catholic'. There has always existed within the Church of England so-called 'Anglo-Catholics' who believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, go to confession, and honor Our Blessed Lady in special ways.

In recent years the Anglican Communion (a network of church organizations associated with the Church of England and roughly coterminous with the former holdings of the British Empire) has been strained by what can only be called factions within the Church. Anglo-Catholics and some conservative Evangelicals have been at odds with more numerous so-called 'progressives' over issues such as women's ordination, the ordination of openly gay men, and gay 'marriage'.

There is an irony, which I do not relish, in all this. Anglicans have hung tenaciously to their cultural faith for hundreds of years. The English are amongst the most culturally anti-Catholic nations in the world. Until fairly recently, the Pope was burned in effigy every November 5 on Guy Fawkes Day. The plight of faithful Anglicans has been to remain in their pews as the barque of Henry slowly sinks beneath the waves of Modernism. Their only life-line, the Catholic Church, was barred by the very same faithfulness that kept them in their pews.

It has been a long decline, and many faithful Anglicans are finally fed up. Anglicans have divided over the above-mentioned issues, and have now formed breakaway provinces that hew to traditional mores. Some attempts at compromise have been tried - which have been like trying to reconcile the Key West Fantasy Parade and a Fatima Procession.

So, after appeals from disenfranchised Anglicans, the Holy Father has taken the unprecedented step of welcoming a mass defection - allowing Anglicans to enter the Catholic Church pretty much as-is, with their parishes, their rites, their priests, and all. This is no slow rapprochement, marked by vacuous statements of Christian unity. The existing Catholic/Anglican ecumenical apparatus had been issuing decrees on shared doctrine, all while the Anglicans were blessing homosexual unions and marching forward in matters related to women's ordination.

The Holy Father's decision has a gravitas that appears as a magnanimous supercision of cultural and intellectual cul de sacs. The Pope is the father of all Christians, and his concern is for his flock, and as a good shepherd he cares most for his sheep - not their errant custodians.

Upon reflection, I think my love of the English Church comes from my love of English literature, and especially the literature of English Catholics. Newman, Faber, Chesterton, and Belloc have long had my heart - their struggles have been mine. Through their words, I can almost feel the chill wind that blew past Newman in the Birmingham Oratory.

I am truly happy to hear of this reunion. I long to hear the Anglican use liturgy celebrated in a Catholic manner, to partake of the Eucharist in a rite long celebrated by my kinsmen. And I welcome another division of God's children to the Catholic fold - all the more because they are my mother's people.

On Michael Moore and Distributism

2009-10-13T08:27:00.002-04:00

So, I was watching Wolf Blitzer the other day. He was interviewing Michael Moore, and it was one of YouTube's top video's of the day. So I said, "Hey, that looks interesting." So I start watching.

You know what? Moore was sounding an awful lot like a Distributist. He was also identifying himself as a 'Christian'. He was saying things like, "I think the workplace should be more democratic" - that is right out of Chesterton or Belloc.

For those of you who don't know what Distributism is, look here.

So, chances are that Moore is just co-opting the Christian moniker and cherry picking his favorite snippets of Christ's teaching. But, hey, isn't it interesting? There are lots of dopes who claim to be Christians, such as Bill Clinton who once claimed in front of a Southern Christian audience that Jesus was his personal Lord and Savior (and maybe He was, I'm just sayin' that Clinton's a dope). But the interesting thing about Moore is that he's not just appropriating Christianity, but Distributism.

This puts me in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Michael Moore.

I have another acquaintance who happens to be a Marxist economist teaching at a local university. Can you believe it, in this day and age, a Marxist teaching at a respected university? I live in Massachusetts, so you can imagine. But anyways, he claims to be a Christian Marxist. I would normally say, "Sorry, buddy, you can't be both". And I do believe that you can't. But I give him a few minutes to explain, and what he's saying sounds like Distributism. I think, kind of a little bit, that he's just confused about terms, so he appropriates 'Marxist' to explain what he's thinking. I don't know.

I've also, of late, fallen in with the 'Local First' movement, which advocates the patronage of small businesses to promote a healthy local economy. You can see some of their online material here. These folks seem very Distributist in their thinking, but with distinct differences.

I think one of the major points of departure between Mr. Moore, the Marxist Economist, the 'Local First' people, and true Distributists is the emphasis on the family.

Here's a story: My wife's father's family grew up in a part of my city that is dominated by a local university - the same one that my Marxist friend teaches at, by coincidence. So anyways, this local university started buying up property during the seventies and eighties and became a de-facto landlord for the area. I suppose they wanted to ensure that there was adequate housing for students. However, as the population moved from being resident owners to renters, the neighborhood went into a steep decline. By removing local owners, the school had done considerable damage to the neighborhood.

This little fable demonstrates the value of local ownership. But it also demonstrates that families are integral to stability and sustainability. There is nothing that gives one concern for a community like having kids who live there.

I think that Moore, et al miss this point, almost on purpose. It sticks out like a sore thumb. It's obvious. But to be in favor of traditional family is to betray a whole bevy of liberal wish list items. The idea that the family is sustainable violates all kind of liberal orthodoxies that this crowd can't touch.

So if you want real Distributism, you're gonna have to settle for Belloc, Chesterton, and other Christian writers who can swallow both halves of the Distributist concept. Sure, we shouldn't trust big corporations to be concerned about us. But we also can't trust those who work to sever every line of interpersonal responsibility in a search for self-centered fulfillment. We need those who would accept the burdens of relationship, and who wish to see the family thrive.

On World Consensus

2009-10-09T14:07:00.005-04:00

"His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population..."

-Nobel Committee on the selection of President Obama for the Peace Prize

I wonder how they define 'the majority of the world's population'. Do they suppose that most people in the world agree with a gaggle of Norwegian bureaucrats? Do they think that all those good folks all (or even mostly) agree with Barack Obama? Just wonderin'...

Do you suppose that it's just a tad hubristic to imagine that one speaks for the whole world, or that one knows what the majority of people think?

Chuckle Worthy

2009-10-09T13:31:00.001-04:00

"There was a time, long before Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, when Alex P. Keaton was the only conservative on TV."

This very funny line comes from an article on the creator of Family Ties, Gary David Goldberg.

On Obama and Nobel

2009-10-09T11:11:00.004-04:00

There are times when a certain slide in the former bulwarks of Western culture reveal the vast divide between the opposing poles of cultural thought in the West. Such a moment was this morning's announcement of Barack Obama as winner of this year's Nobel Prize for Peace.

Americans released a collective 'huh?' at the news. The prestige of the Nobel had been slipping in recent years, but it had still held some cache as a universal prize. Nobel had been about things everyone could agree on - it was, to some extent, something everyone could point to and say "This is what is best about humanity."

This morning's announcement was grinningly partisan - the opposite of universal. There can be no explanation for Obama's success other than an endorsement of a point of view cherished by the elites that pull the levers at Nobel. They say as much themselves, as President Obama has accomplished nary a minor success in the realm of international relations. Nobel has thrown their weight behind Obama as a political reality.

My thoughts, on hearing the news, wandered to musings on the much-discussed erosion of Western cultural institutions. Thinkers whom I respect very much have described Western culture as in a state of quiet bloodletting - the form still stands while the substance is drained. Many of us think that the edifice is still intact, while its mortar is slowly being dissolved.

The point is that Nobel used to stand for something. Awarding the Peace Prize to someone who has done nothing is a frank betrayal of its legacy. It quietly revealed itself, for a shocking moment, to be devoid of gravitas - a grinning zombie-version of its former self. What else that we lean on is ready to fall to dust?

One of the best expressions of what I am talking about was spoken by a Jesuit at a conference at Assumption last year. I can't remember his name, but he was from Fordham. He said that the West is spending its cultural capital. An affluent heir can spend for quite a while - keeping up the appearance of affluence to all but those who can see the books. When the capital is gone, he is not only without means but without the foundation upon which those means were based.

I can't help but feel that we are entering a new time. As von Balthasar said, "It can't go on much longer like this."

On Levi Johnston

2009-10-08T11:16:00.003-04:00

This kid is such a dope. Levi Johnston, nearing the crash-and-burn of his downward media spiral, will be posing for Playgirl magazine. The upside here is that he's being revealed as the dipshit that most common sense people have seen him to be for the last year or so, and that hopefully he will also out his celebrity enablers who used this young man as a tool in their virulent hatred of everything that Sarah Palin stands for.

You see, it's OK to be a powerful woman as long as you're using your power to advance a certain credo. It's OK to be a single mom, unless you're from Alaska and your lifestyle is a convenient handle with which to pull down a conservative boogey-(wo)man. Hollywood is such a stinking pile of shit.

Polanski and Misplaced Outrage

2009-10-08T10:58:00.003-04:00

If the demand for sexual pleasure is so compelling that we can throw overboard moral principles that extend back to the very roots of our civilization, it is not clear why we would insist that it stop short and respect the consent of individuals. In short, sexual liberation conjured up a spirit of moral nihilism to liberate the unrestrained pursuit of pleasure, and it is not at all certain that such a spirit can be commanded to behave once it has been summoned.

This is from an interesting article on the recent arrest of Roman Polanski and the subsequent reaction of both conservatives and Hollywood-types. The article is titled "Roman Polanski, Hollywood, and the Mystery of Missing Outrage". The author admits that one might feel pity for Polanski upon his arrest, but asks why is Hollywood's reaction not based on pity for the guilty but outrage at those who would do justice.

The article can be read here: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/10/roman-polanski-hollywood-and-the-mystery-of-the-missing-outrage.

On Healthcare

2009-09-04T10:39:00.002-04:00

I've wanted to write about the healthcare debate - a truly rending process for Catholics who are torn between care of the poor and a healthy subsidiarity. Personally, I think it's going to be bad either way. Probably, it will be worse if Obama gets his way.

I was talking to a friend the other day who owns a business in the Main South district of Worcester. He was talking about how "nonprofits control everything" in Main South. "They're great when it comes to helping out homeless people and drug addicts, but they don't understand business." For Main South to really rise from the muck of poverty and neglect in which it currently stands, it will take a healthy community - businesses, families, and institutions working together.

I think that it is a healthy criticism of the social change championed by President Obama to say that it is of the 'nonprofit' type. It helps people by alleviating suffering and giving a helping hand, but it is not necessarily encouraging of the healthy structures that should normally be supporting a neighborhood - namely families and businesses. In my opinion, the government should intercede in extreme cases, and allow normal structures to work, well, normally.

There was a time when healthcare was provided, free of charge, through the activities of charitable societies. In Catholic cultures, it was religious sisters that provided this care. In other cultures, charitable societies of lay women would provide care and compassion for the poor. This was a time of healthy community; not perfect, but people were more aware of the plight of their neighbor then compared to now.

In many ways charitable societies were less effective than the modern healthcare industry, but in others they were more - moslty in matters of personal attention and concern. We are far from this model now, not for any lack of material wealth. We are simply poor in community. We don't reach out anymore to the stranger in our midst.

I have a friend from Morocco. He says that in Morocco, the head of every family is expected to give away ten percent of his income every year. If they don't, there is a social stigma. I asked, "How do people know that someone has given away their ten percent?". He said, "People just know. Word get around." How refreshing.I have a friend from Morocco. He says that in Morocco, the head of every family is expected to give away ten percent of his income every year. If they don't, there is a social stigma. I asked, "How do people know that someone has given away their ten percent?". He said, "People just know. Word get around." How refreshing.

I think that President Obama's healthcare plan is misguided in its compassion. It will reach out to more of the poor, and even to the marginally poor. In the long run, it will increase the numbers of those who depend upon the State for care, and it will do nothing to increase the bonds between us - it will do nothing to strengthen the 'normal' bonds upon which communities depend for health and survival.

Communities take maintenance - you don't get something for nothing. Communities need to be organic - self-directing and maintaining. When help only comes from above, it is called Socialism. It is the death-knell for communities. The vitality of socialist countries is sapped as if by a cancer. They are eaten out from within. This is why subsidiarity is so important.

Think of what we could do if we turned off the TV once a week and waited on an elderly neighbor. We'd probably lose a bunch of weight (and reduce our future healthcare burden) and learn a little something about the past. You and me. We could do it. Together, we can. We could beat 'em to it. Together, we can.

On Distributism

2009-08-27T15:12:00.002-04:00

I've been away for a while. I have some time - so I figured I would post. The thought is Distributism. What is Distributism? It is 'the economic theory that advocates the distribution of capital amongst as many persons as possible'. Some have called it a middle-way between capitalism and communism. Some have called it eminently unreasonable, and others have claimed just the opposite.

The ideas behind (or underneath) Distributism are largely related to the medieval concept of usury. Usury, I think, should not be understood simply as charging interest on a loan, but rather as charging undue interest on a loan. The principle being that it is immoral to use your wealth as an unfair advantage over another. The problem is that our system function precisely on just that - the wealthy make their money by loaning it to the poor, or by financing enterprises that mine money from the poor without inviting their ownership or participation. G.K. Chesterton called our current economic system 'A Utopia of Usurers', as it seems perfectly created for them.

Hillaire Belloc, another proponent of Distributism, spoke of the injustice committed to the poor in the form of rent. A renter has no foundation upon which to stand, nothing to call his own, and nowhere to hold his earnings. His wealth is simply absorbed by another without personal accumulation. This is the blessing of property - the ability to build and excel upon a foundation created by our own work. In too many ways, denizens of Western societies are 'renters', paying dividends for most of their lives to people they do not know, and who do not know them.

What's to be done? Well, distribute! But hold on, how do we take stuff from those persnickety rich folks who have it all now? Great question! I don't know the answer!

Here's what I can see now: the practical application of Distributism starts with people. I love the subtitle to E.F. Schumacher's book Small is Beautiful: 'Economics as if People Mattered'. We need to exercise our economic power as if people mattered. This means, for starters, shopping locally whenever possible. I take this as a given, the benefit of local economics. Some don't. It's worth a conversation.

We need to think of our money as a sort of moral 'vote' for whatever business enterprise we invest it with, or purchase from. When we give someone money, we are in effect saying, "You deserve my money. I want you to thrive and keep doing what you are doing." We need to start voting for things that matter. Before long, we will live in a Distributist society.

Sound funny? Think about it. We are told that, as far as money is concerned, selfishness is good. If you buy the cheapest product, you will have more stuff, and you will be happier. We can all see this isn't the case. Our money should be a tool for living, and we should use it to forge relationships with people we like, that we trust, and that we respect. Fight the power, chilluns. Don't be reduced to a consumer - there's more to life than that.

On New Babies

2009-06-12T15:59:00.006-04:00

Hey, my wife gave birth to our first two children on Tuesday. It was pretty cool, you wanna hear about it?

My wife (The Other Liberal) had a scheduled Cesaerian section, due to the orientation chosen by my son (one of two Little Liberals). For the last three months of her pregnancy he was in what is called the 'frank breach' position with his legs over his head and his butt down. They don't even consider turning such babies around - it's the knife.

The operation went smoothly, at least from my point-of-view. They are, after all, professionals and do these things all the time. It was a well-oiled machine. No complications. My biggest complaint was the giant, mug-faced nurse who began our pre-op briefing by asking my wife "Are you getting your tubes tied?" No, but thanks for asking first.

During the operation I was placed behind a curtain, from which my wife's head protruded at the bottom. After about ten minutes they pulled out my children. I tried peeking over the curtain once, but I was told to sit down with the commentary: "We don't need two patients". OK. I'll spare the details for everyone's sake.

The Other Liberal was somewhat groggy coming out of the operating room. The Little Liberals were good - healthy, five fingers and toes on each appendage. All good.

The staff were, overall, very good. We have had many more good nurses than bad (one is assigned to us at all times). One nurse was constantly putting my wife on edge with doomsday predictions. Let's just say that you should never utter the words "Oh, no" to a recently delivered woman on matters touching her newborn children. The words are just off limits. But, really, I have been consistently impressed with the demeanor and bearing of the nurses that we have worked with. Very impressive.

On a side note, and I'm not sure I can really call this a complaint, I can see why health care costs are spiraling upwards. We were in a gigantic private room for five days. Very nice, but it can't be cheap. We were provided with everything we could possibly need, from food to clothing, to bedding, to tests on our car seats. Very nice, but obviously very expensive. Someone put the tally for a twin birth at $30,000. A far cry from the days when children were delivered at home, and women would recover there. I'm not saying it's bad, but probably two orders of magnitude more expensive than the bad-old-days.

Last thing - most people describe watching the birth as a profound emotional experience. It was pretty cool, obviously. I saw my kids enter the world - the beginning, i.e. you can't get any earlier, the start. But what has been more profound in my experience is just sitting around in the hospital with my wife and kids, doing nothing. Man, that's something. I highly recommend it.

On Tolerance

2009-06-10T14:07:00.012-04:00

I'm a very bad husband. I can tell by the questions I am getting today:

What are you doing here?

Your wife gave birth yesterday and you're at work? Are you still married?

Why don't you take the rest of the week off?

The puzzling thing is the certainty of my interrogators. They are certain that something must be wrong. My wife gave birth yesterday and I'm at work today. The math is simple: I'm a chauvinist bastard.

Most people accept cultural norms as the highest expression of truth, with little or no question. Cultural conditioning over the last twenty years (or so) has dictated that child-bearing is a burden that has been unjustly borne by women - and the solution is absolute 50/50 sharing of responsibilities. Deviations from this model are unacceptable. Thinking otherwise is unthinkable.

We're like an army of automatons designed to act sensitive - disregarding the fact that sensitivity demands understanding. Never mind the particulars - you will be sensitive or you will be harangued into conformance. 'Bee-boo-bop-boo-beep. Insensitivity detected; insensitivity detected.'

The irony is that most of these same people reject serious religious belief on the grounds that they are far too refined to believe something simply because they are told. We're all individuals, we think for ourselves, you see.

The challenge is responding politely to such idiocy. The easiest course seems to be pleading ignorance: "What do you mean 'Why am I at work'? Where else would I be?" or "My wife told me to go to work and make some money - I wasn't adding any value at the hospital."

Welcome to the land of culturally programmed tolerance - where we all play a part and miss the point.

On the New Terminator

2009-06-02T15:26:00.004-04:00

I saw Terminator Salvation with my lovely wife on Saturday night. Loved it.

First, from the perspective of a simple action movie, it was spectacular. The special effects were well done, and they weren't so affected that you couldn't make out any of the action, a la Transformers. It really kept us on the edge of our collective seat. It's really a theatre movie, as well, as in it should be seen in the theatre. There are some super-sized robots and expolosions in this one. When a giant automaton would plunge its metallic foot downward the theatre would reverberate with the impact. Good stuff.

Second, the story was compelling and intersting. Many reviewers have commented that Christian Bale's performance was lacklustre. Throughout the whole movie he speaks in this hoarse whisper that is supposed to imply some sense of intensity. It ain't workin, dude. But the secondary plot involving a next-generation Terminator struggling with his identity is engaging, to say the least.

The appeal of the Terminator series has always been the man vs. machine agitus, which seems to strike a deep chord of dread in most post-moderns. Ever since Arnold tossed around the chick in the first Terminator movie to the sound of her 1980s pop music, we have thought "Oh, shit. He's so cold." We have a grave fear, one that is justifiable, of the limits of technology and its power to destroy us.

Well, this next installment of the Terminator franchise taps into this theme some more and pits the Machine (Skynet) against the Man (Marcus) - the result is the victory of the human spirit. The movie is a true fable that demonstrates the value of humanity, which is, in the end, its human-ness. This movie is, in the best sense, pro-life.

The end sucks, though. They added some shit so that they could go up to Terminator 32 and make a franchise. Try to ignore it.

Chesterton at 135

2009-05-29T15:49:00.005-04:00

Late Victorian era novelist and essayist Gilbert Keith Chesterton would have been 135 today, had he been exempt from bodily decay. He was not, so it is up to us remaining to carry the torch of his legacy. And, oh, what a legacy. Some gems:

"An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered; an adventure is an inconvenience rightly considered." - On Running After Ones Hat, All Things Considered, 1908

"Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance." - The Speaker, 12/15/00

"By experts in poverty I do not mean sociologists, but poor men." - ILN, 3/25/11

"I believe what really happens in history is this: the old man is always wrong; and the young people are always wrong about what is wrong with him. The practical form it takes is this: that, while the old man may stand by some stupid custom, the young man always attacks it with some theory that turns out to be equally stupid." - ILN 6-3-22

"A man imagines a happy marriage as a marriage of love; even if he makes fun of marriages that are without love, or feels sorry for lovers who are without marriage." - Chaucer

Chesterton excelled at creating the rules for the debate by identifying the underlying epistemological assumptions. He understood that most idealogies are fueled by those who are absolutely certain of one thing. Often, this same certainty blinded them to every other fact. He was a generalist in the very best sense of the word: someone who looked at the big picture and really wanted people (other than himself) to be happy. This is far more difficult than it sounds.

If you've never read Chesterton, I can't recommend him enough. His most famous book, Orthodoxy, can be difficult to plow through, but it's worth the effort. His essays and novels are available online, for free, here. You can also see some of his short fiction, of which the Father Brown Mysteries were the most noted.

Happy birthday, GKC. May God grant us many more.

Nordlinger on Graciousness

2009-05-28T14:53:00.001-04:00

Here's a quote from an article by Jay Nordlinger at National Review Online:

...I’d like to glance back at President Obama’s Notre Dame speech. You remember: abortion. A big-deal speech and occasion.Obama was given credit far and wide for being gracious. He was serene, civil, understanding. He called for lowered voices and mutual respect. His message, in effect, was “Can’t we all get along?” (which is Rodney King’s line, I realize).

Fine, fine. But it’s easy to be gracious when you are getting your way, 100 percent. Abortion-on-demand is high in the saddle. Partial-birth abortion. Federal funding. Everything. Embryo-destructive research, to boot. The pro-choice side has everything, and the pro-life side has not a crumb.

(As I usually do, I use each side’s preferred label. Please don’t write me. Thanks!)

Again, when you get things 100 percent your way, it’s easy to say, “Okay, let’s all be cool now.” The likes of Obama tell pro-lifers, “You get nothing — zero — but if you’ll just not bitch about it, we will be gracious toward you. You don’t want to be disruptive, do you? We don’t want raised voices, do we?”

Obama’s peace is something like submission — the submission of his opponents.

Apparently, the president is cutting health-care workers some slack, if they oppose abortion. This is the area known as “provider conscience.” You don’t have to participate in an abortion if you don’t want to. And Obama gets great credit for cutting these people some slack.

But, to me, it’s a little like saying, in pre-abolition times, “I know you have this moral hang-up and all. You don’t have to whip them yourselves, you know.”

I will say once more: It’s easy to be gracious — and to call for calm and mutual respect — when you get your way, 100 percent. Try being gracious when you have to give a little, or even lose. That is something harder, and deserves more credit.

The rest of the article is here.

Movie Review: Burn After Reading

2009-05-26T15:57:00.003-04:00

I watched this movie Saturday night with my wife and another couple. My wife and I are big fans of the Cohens, and were looking forward to the movie despite the scattershot reviews.

I would say that it is a good movie, if not terribly entertaining. The Cohens seem to be exploring the meaningless-ness of life theme that they started developing in No Country for Old Men. In No Country fate was arbitrarily determined by a homicidal madman. In Burn After Reading, the determinant of fate is a CIA beaurocrat who bases life and death decisions on the amount of paperwork invovled.

It is hard to create a conventional story based on a nihilistic viewpoint. If your aim is to show that nothing really matters, denoumont is out the window. This was true in No Country and it is true in Burn After Reading. The former was more entertaining because there were, in a sense, 'good guys' who you wished to see survive and who struggled against the menacing automaton, Anton Chigurh. In Burn After Reading the characters, although realistic, are nonetheless personally preposterous. You really can't like any of them, although they are too stupid to dislike. They are almost like pawns in a game moving inexorably towards their doom, which is perhaps the whole point.

A complaint: it seems that graphic sex scenes are now de rigeur in 'artsy' movies. To the point where the rating explanation is 'suggested sexuality' when the image is of a sweaty man, heaving and grunting over a woman while both are clothed only in bed sheets. It's really slightly more than suggested, which implies some imagination is required.

So, as I said, it's a good movie if not entertaining. If you read the review and it sounds interesting, I would suggest it (minus the heaving). But if you're looking for a few laughs, look elsewhere.

On the Past

2009-05-21T14:31:00.004-04:00

The Irish government recently published a lengthy report on the history of abuse in Catholic orphanages and other institutional settings run by the Catholic Church. How sad for everyone involved.

I read a quote by an Irish bishop, who said that the report would "humble" the Irish Church. By all means. The report will likely be used as a club by the Church's many enemies, and it will certainly be humbling. A few thoughts to mitigate any counter-abuse by those who would seek to unfairly discredit the Church with these findings, hopefully keeping with the spirit of humility:

1. The Catholic Church is the largest public beneficient society in Ireland.

It doesn't make much sense to conduct inquiries into the treatment of children in Jewish or Lutheran orphanages in Ireland, because there really aren't any to speak of. In other cases, abuse rates in Catholic-run children's welfare organizations was roughly equal to abuse rates in secular institutions. No excuse - but it certainly puts things in perspective.

2. Even if the report details abuse by 'thousands' of Catholic priests and religious, it is still a small proportion of the total body of relgious in Ireland during the period detailed.

In the United States, the number of priests accused of abuse was staggering. But it still only represented less than 1% of priests. It was a black eye that unfairly caused good, upright priests and religious to be looked at askance. I'm willing to bet that the situation is similar in Ireland.

3. It's easy to judge the decisions of Church officials from afar without fully understanding what they were thinking.

The Church is more like a family than a business. If I have an employee that is stealing, or abusing other employees, it is my responsibility to fire him. If I found out that an immediate member of my family was a sexual deviant, I'm sure it would present difficulties for me personally. This in no way excuses bishops who knowingly shuffled abusive priest from parish to parish. But we shouldn't be too quick to judge someone who is more like the head of a family than a manager at Denny's, until we have walked in his steps.

4. The Church did mountains of good in the last 100 years in Ireland.

I'm willing to bet that Ireland isn't struggling with mounting healthcare and social service costs nowadays, and it certainly wasn't during the difficult years of the early and middle century in Ireland. The Catholic Church provided billions of hours of medical care, social service, and assistance of every sort free of charge. The good brother and nuns of the Irish Church worked in very difficult and stressful situations, more often than not to the great benefit of society. For every story of abuse, I'm sure there are at least two stories of saintly Christian Brothers who educated a child without thought of remuneration.

I'm more than willing to discuss the faults of the Church, but I've also questioned the motives behind these reports and investigations. One could hardly fail to notice the glee in the tone of many American reporters during the Scandals of the last decade in America. There is more than a hint of vengeance in the accounts of abusive priests, vengeance that has nothing to do with the actions of prelates and pastors and more to do with resentment towards the Church itself, and what it stands for.

So, I'll be praying for the Irish Church - that gentle mother who nursed the West back to health and who has given so much to her Irish homeland. Let's hope she emerges stronger from this black time.

On the Nations of Wine and Beer

2009-05-20T15:22:00.002-04:00

I've decided that I write far too much serious material. Besides the danger of blowing a gasket, I feel the need to reassure my gentle readers that I do, indeed, do more than think about the impending end of the world. I also enjoy myself while anticipating our immanent destruction.

And so this diversion on the topic of wine and beer. Here is the central question: 'Can one be both a wine enthusiast and a beer enthusisiast?' I believe the answer to be 'no', but I suspect that many will disagree.

Wine and beer, for all of their similarities, are not complementary. A simple example: try drinking multiple servings of each in the course of an evening. But more than just the single-night experience - I feel the need to choose betwixt beer and wine. I can't be dedicated to both.

If it comes to a decision, it's really no decision. I vastly prefer wine to beer. But that does not make the choice less painful - I also love beer.

You may say, "TL, this is all in your head! It's absolutely silly to imagine that you have to choose betwixt beer and wine. One can harbor a love for both in the same palate." In response I say, "Hogwash. You either love only one, or you love neither, and in any case you don't understand."

Not to say that one couldn't pick one and enjoy the other on occasion. That is all well and good. But to be an enthusiast? You must choose.

Perhaps my angst is a result of my mixed Etruscan and Anglo heritage. Or perhaps it is a result of my working class roots - seeing my dad drink his nightly course of Naragansett for many years as a child. I don't know.

I tell you this - there is a mysterious quality to both wine and beer that make them something more than a drink. They put you in a camp, a tribe. And these tribes are at war. A citizen of both is equally a traitor to each.

Currently, there is no beer in my fridge. Can I make a clean break? Can I proclaim my fidelity to the vinyard and renounce the field? Perhaps. At least until the Super Bowl.

Oh, These TImes...

2009-05-14T21:34:00.004-04:00

This Liberal is sick of it, lately - tired of the BS. It seems like we lost Father Richard Neuhaus just when we needed him most. The world lately has been a zoo of a cultural battlefield. The issues are hot, hot, hot.

I feel like we're at a critical time. The voices of relativism have never been more shrill or powerful. I think it's make or break - it's a time when we have to speak up or, as they say, forever hold our peace.

It's not so much a case of arguing a point. Most who attempt to stick up for the Faith (or any faith, for that matter) find that it is something far different. In these times, it is a battle for your life, for your good name, or even for your ability to say anything at all. You see, the enemies of the Faith are not interested in dialogue - although they will encourage you to assume that they are. It's not an honest argument. They will choose the high ground and insist that you occupy the low ground. They will take your point of view, a priori, as immoral. It's a shrill, nerve-racking, confusing battle to the death.

Take Miss California. You gotta love 'er. The poor woman is battling for her life - her career - and she's only twenty two! And a girl!

Here's the point, People. Do you want the foremost defender, the highest-profile defender, of traditional values to be a twenty-two year old blonde from California? We all love Miss California, but there is a word for those who allow young women to fight their battles for them. They're called cowards. That's you and me, Folks.

What can you do? Stand up. Pray about it. I'm pretty sure that you'll find that you have opportunities to stand up for marriage, to stand up for life, or to stand up for religion in the public square. Write a letter to the editor. Respond to a Facebook comment. Wear a T-shirt.

You'll be rewarded with scorn, contempt, and personal attacks. Trust me. But you know what? That's all they have. They don't have reason. They don't have the moral high ground. All they have is the tools of their Father: fear, confusion, intimidation. Those who whisper in their ear will give them a creativity that is, well, diabolical.

You remember the part about denying him before men, etc.? This is that part. If you don't stand up now, it's not going to get any easier next time. It's now, People. It's make or break.

2009-03-31T13:59:00.001-04:00

From a recent interview with Archbishop Charles Chaput at the Pew Forum:

[W]e Catholics serve Caesar best when we serve God first, and that means living our Catholic beliefs vigorously, faithfully and without apologies at home and in the public, at work and in the voting booth. We can't ignore the sufferings of the poor or the homeless or undocumented immigrants and then claim to be good Catholics. We also can't ignore the killing of unborn children without struggling to end that daily homicide -- not just through supportive social policies, but by changing the law.

The law not only regulates, it also teaches. The current law of the United States teaches that it can be acceptable to kill an unborn child. But it isn't acceptable; it never was and never will be. And Catholics can't make peace with this kind of deeply evil law without lying to themselves, lying to the believing community and trying to fool God. It doesn't work.

The rest of the interview is here.

More on Chastity and Health

2009-03-19T11:58:00.003-04:00

I have to share some quotes from a great article in National Review today entitled "Benedict Has it Right". There this:

[T]he pontiff reaffirmed the Vatican’s position... by saying that the continent’s AIDS epidemic “cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems.” This may sound rather baffling to a person who “knows”... that condoms do prevent, as a medical certainty, the transmission of HIV if used properly. Knowing this — and perhaps only this — the pope’s critics have not labored themselves with the details...
The Catholic position seems naïve to the average Westerner who, thinking of himself and his own society’s inability to regulate its collective sexuality, applies this lesson on the impossibility of self-restraint to the whole globe.

Then this:

In fact, such Westerners, before they criticize Benedict for being unrealistic, may first want to calibrate their own sense of reality to African standards. Because where abstinence and monogamy have been most vigorously promoted, the HIV-infection rate has declined the most dramatically. Particularly, this is true of Uganda, where evangelical Christian influences have imbued the country’s AIDS policy with a moralizing outlook and an emphasis squarely on behavior change... In spite of the expectations of public-health wonks, Uganda saw a “60% reduction in casual sex . . . equivalent to a vaccine of 80% effectiveness,” according to a review of the policy published in the journal Science. In the wake of the policy’s implementation, Uganda became one of the first African countries to post a decline in the HIV-infection rate.

Here's a good one, too:

In its obsession with condoms, the Western public-health community has been every bit as dogmatic as the pope. And it has been even more blinkered to the realities of Africa, which is arguably in the grips of a huge religious and moral revival that has a huge potential to be wielded in the fight against AIDS. Church attendance is soaring, and Africans are willing to make sacrifices, of both their money and their pleasure, for moral causes. In this respect, it is not Benedict and the Catholic Church who are out of touch. It is the West and its condom myopia.

You know, it's not like I expect the main-stream media to be able to comprehend such subtleties, but I figure I should do my best to promote them on my little corner of the web here.

Good day.

On Condoms for Africa

2009-03-18T11:07:00.003-04:00

You gotta' love the Pope. I mean, you gotta'. The thing that I love most about Benedict XVI (and that I loved about JPII) is his propensity to speak out on Catholic truths in the way only the Pope can. I mean, it's amazing.

Say you're the Pope. You could participate in the non-stop cultural haggling that bloggers like myself are used to. You could try to couch words and ideas in such a way that they will be least offensive, when you know they're going to be offensive anyways. Or, you could simply respond directly and thoughtfully to questions about what you believe and set everyone else off in a polemical tizzy.

This is what happened recently when the Pope explained to reporters the Catholic perspective on AIDS prevention in Africa.

In case you haven't heard, there are two types of people in the world. I'm sure you've heard, but perhaps you haven't heard of this latest division. You see, everybody knows that human beings are in rough straits. We're pretty sad creatures, really. Everyone knows that is true, although some people only think it is true of everyone else. But, in any case, here's the division. Some people think that we're helpless and hopeless and that's just fine. Others don't.

If you work for an NGO (non-governmental organization), chances are that you are of the former group. You think that contraceptives are the greatest thing ever, because people can go on being rotten and weak and sad - and condoms can dull the edge of our rotten, weak, and sad behavior. We can go on being that way and the consequences of our wicked actions won't be as bad. And you know what? That's just sad.

So then you have the other view, which says that it's the behavior itself that has to change. Not only that, but they also say that trying to reduce the impact of crappy behavior can actually encourage that behavior. Imagine that!

But you gotta' love the Pope. He just lays it out, like he's talking to a retarded person about heating up baked beans for dinner. Don't worry, I'm also mentally retarded compared to the Pope.

Edward T. Oakes, S.J. on the Pope

2009-03-13T15:28:00.001-04:00

Reading this made me feel stupid.

On Abortion and Politics

2009-03-10T16:25:00.005-04:00

Politics is the art of the possible, or so said someone or other. It is also the art, and I mean art in the fullest sense, of manipulating public opinion. Or maybe it's just the art of manipulating people.

Recent events have brought this to mind - events occurring in the wake of the passing of Proposition 8 in California. Yesterday, two state legislators from Connecticuit introduced legislation that would hand over fiscal authority in Catholic parishes from the diocesan bishop to a lay committee. This arrangement would restrict the parish priest and bishop to an "advisory role". You can imagine that the Catholics in Connecticuit are unhappy. The latest word is that the two legislators have retracted the proposed bill in the face of protest. The message was sent, nonetheless.

Other events include the appointment of Catherine Sebilius to the Health and Human Services cabinet post, and recent attempts by city officials in San Francisco to remove the Church's tax exempt status.

In a way, I'm glad it's happening. Today's news of the Connecticuit bill, I think, put into clear contrast the competing values operating here. On the one hand, you have the civil liberties arguments put forth by the gay lobby. "We should be allowed to get married because we feel like it". On the other, you have the first amendment of the Bill of Rights guaranteeing freedom of religion. It is forcing the issue. We'll see on which side the balance rests.

Anyhoo, I'd still be happy if the balance comes down against us. The reason being that it will force action. The 'tolerance' principles of the so-called progressive movement are being tested. Do they tolerate contrary opinions to their own? You'd never know by the way homosexuals have reacted to the passing of Proposition 8. Do they engage in fruitful discussions, seeking compromise? No. They demonize and vandalize their opponents - and try to bully them into submission. You'd never know it, either, by the way that President Obama steamrolled any opposition to stem cell research by putting "science over ideology". You see, any opposition to embryonic destruction is mere "ideology". Don't you get it? Conversation over. That's it.

This is the tyranny of relativism, folks. It moves with all the force of the Third Reich, and for the same reason: it knows that it is right. The frightening thing is, namely, that it is convinced of the inability to know anything for certain. It is absolutely certain of its uncertainty. Irony is no defense, for relativists admit not even irony.

Freedom isn't free. The price of liberty is discipline and compromise. Part of this discipline is the discipline of mind. If we allow ourselves to be intellectually (and spiritually and physically) emasculated, there are those who think they know something who will make our decisions for us. They could be cool characters announcing how "these little cells" (embryos) will make us capable of giant leaps of medical discovery. Or they could be the robed imam, declaring that "Europe is the disease and Islam is the cure".

The imperative is upon us, fellow Westerners. Start believing in something (besides empty platitudes). If your mind can't muster the strength to cut and shape - someone else's will. And chances are, you'll find yourself consigned to the fate of the weak... And by then it will be too late.

Life in a Time of Decline

2009-03-05T13:49:00.000-05:00

I was struck recently by the last words of German theologian Hans Urs von Balthasaar. As he lay dying, this man who many considered the most cultured man in the world, had this to say: "It can't go on much longer like this". He was referring, evidently, not to his health but to the state of the world.

A recent article brought von Balthasaar's words to mind. Designer babies are here at last, and not in China or Belgium but right here in the U. S. of A. From the article:

A Los Angeles fertility clinic is offering a new service that would allow couples to choose their baby's physical traits, including eye and hair color.The LA Fertility Institutes said it has already received half a dozen requests for the service and expects the first designer baby to be born next year.

It can't go on much longer. The article quoted the fertility doctor who runs the clinic, located in Los Angeles, as saying "I would not say this is a dangerous road. It's an uncharted road." Thanks, Doc. What's that shiny, inclined surface behind you? Might it be the slippery slope that you told us not to worry about?

Sure folks, nothing to worry about here. You're designing the master race in a strip mall in L.A., and we shouldn't worry? No, I'm sure that you are fully capable of discerning all of the possible ethical subtleties involved here. No reason to worry, at all. We'll all go back about our business and hope that the stimulus plan will restore the American dream's lustre. No moral abominations here, folks - we call it progress.

The kicker is that after years of ethical confusion caused by the wholesale slaughter of fetal humans, we are intellectually castrated. No one will articulate why exactly this is wrong. Is he hurting anyone? Is it "consensual"? Hey, what could go wrong? This has always been the threat of legalized abortion - the gradual blurring of the value of human life. If I can destroy pre-born humans, what can't I do?

A culture that places value on children according to their superficial traits no longer deserves to survive. God's hand is approaching the lever on our cultural toilet, and you can hear the first faint sounds of flushing.

So how are we supposed to make decisions in a time of accelerating decline? What is the use of staying engaged with a culture that has been flushing children down the toilet for the last thirty-five years?

Yeah, I know, I sound like a wack-job. Fuck it, man. There was a time when I over-estimated the ability of people to repent of stupidity. I thought that there was a way out of this mess that wouldn't be that painful. I am no longer victim to such illusions.

Here's my plan: I am going to invest in things that will last, things that will make life for me and my family easier in the years to come. I'm going to plant a garden; I'm going to stock up on non-perishables. I'm going to conserve resources and plan for... the worst. And you know what, I'm gonna buy a gun. Maybe several. Moving to Wyoming sounds really good right now, too.

The storm's brewin', and it may already be over our heads. I don't believe in the ability of the leaders of our culture to read the signs of the times, never mind the jamoche watching 'American Idol'.

I'll stay engaged. I'm not going to hide out in my bomb shelter, or move to Saskatchewan. But if you're not building a roof over your head when you know a storm's coming, then you're just stupid. I'm not sure how much my experience with Windows software is going to be worth when the rain starts falling. It may be time to learn some new skills.

On Race and Courage

2009-03-04T16:46:00.002-05:00

John Derbyshire of National Review has this to say about Attorney General Holder's recent comment that America is a "nation of cowards" when it comes to race:

If we are afraid to talk about race, it’s with good reason. For white people, at least, talking openly about race is a sure way to get yourself in trouble. The only white people who are willing to speak frankly on this topic are those who are old enough and/or financially secure enough not to give a damn — Pat Buchanan, for instance. For an ordinary white middle-class Joe, with a family to feed and a job to hold on to, by far the wisest strategy is just to keep his mouth shut, parrot a few multi-culti catch-phrases if the topic comes up, rent a couple of good action movies to see him through the Martin Luther King holiday, and take a crossword puzzle along to keep himself awake through those Diversity Awareness seminars his company makes him attend once a year in hopes of insulating the firm against nuisance “discrimination” lawsuits.

The rest of the article is here.

On Lent

2009-03-02T15:25:00.004-05:00

I have run into many questions on Lent since last Wednesday. As a cultural phenomenon, Lent has pretty much lost steam. That juggernaut of cultural propulsion, the Catholic Church, has forced an acknowledgement of its beginning. But the impact of Lent on most Americans is a small dent - there is very little impact.

I think the reason for Lent's decline is the cultural fragmentation that is at its height in the United States today.

One of my friends was talking about Lent in his blog. He's a programmer, distanced from a Catholic upbringing. He was musing on the significance of giving things up while divorced from a cultural context. He thought giving things up was important, but found he didn't understand the rest of the picture. Could you give up the "trappings" of Lent and just keep the practice of giving things up? He described it as a piece of code in a program that you suspect is useless, but that you are afraid to delete because it might serve some function.

Such is culture.

A question like, "what is the significance of Lent?" is fraught with dangers. The answer lies at the heart of Christianity. I was at a gathering last Friday where someone mentioned that giving things up for Lent "seemed negative". Well, it is negative - or maybe it's positive... What is good and what is bad? Jesus stood all of that on its head for us Christians. We are witnessing to the ascendance of the soul over the body - and reminding the body that it can't always have its own way. Is that negative? No, I don't think so. If you think the soul is more important than the body, then it's pretty damn positive.

Anyhoo, another thing that strikes me is the importance of the cultural context. It's almost impossible to fraternize with non-observers during Lent and to remain observant. Lent can almost seem more like a marathon of explanation and apology than of self-denial. It takes a great deal of footwork to explain why you're not having ice cream without sounding like an asshole. Especially if, like me, you have a reputation for eating and drinking heavily. I've already ruffled several sets of feathers and we're not even a week in.

Here's a newsflash - most people in our culture are so abandoned to their appetites that they don't even know it. They couldn't fast even if they wanted to - but they are neither aware or desirous of such a situation. Witness the glut of diet programs that tacitly assume that no one in their right mind would actually eat less and exercise more to lose weight. You see, it's gotta be a trick - it can't actually be done by an effort of the will.

Anyways, I'm sounding preachy again. I have friends who have promised to stop me if this happens.

Here's a motivation for the worldly like myself. That first sip of coffee after the forty days is going to kick ass. Just the smell off of the top of the cup is going to send me into ecstasy - never mind my first scotch.

On Prophets, True and False

2009-02-26T14:35:00.003-05:00

I'm deeply troubled. I'm troubled at the honest shambles that we are in. I, for one, believe that the current economic troubles are but the first tremor to move through the cultural foundations of America.

The Salve Regina, the 1,500 year old hymn to Mary that Catholics have sung for centuries, describes this life as a "vale of tears". Often I have pondered the fact that calling life a "vale of tears" would only bring puzzlement to most Americans. Life is good here, and you will find very few dissenters from that proposal. We're not crying.

I wrote a blog post a couple of weeks ago that I had decided was too... well, it was too something to post. In it, I talked about the media and about how utterly baffling they can be. You see, the media are the prophets of our time - predicting or decreeing; opening and shutting the American mind. The catalyst for this thought, for me, was the whole media brouhaha over Richard Williamson, the Holocaust-denying bishop. Within moments of the story breaking, the media had decreed that Pope Benedict was woefully ignorant of their moral strictures and led the outcry against... I'm not sure what it was against, actually. There was a lot of railing, and judgement, fire and brimstone, and all the rest. I assume that the media wanted him to say he was sorry and that he shouldn't have done that.

I wish I could count the number of stories that decided that this issue proved that Pope Benedict was out-of-touch with reality. Dreamer! Stay there in Rome and mumble about condoms and women and whatever else you talk about which no one cares.

What was in my last post, which I did not post but I would like to include in this post, is the idea that as the culture slides towards Ghommorrah there will be more shocks like this most recent one. There will be moments where millions of people will be looking for an answer. And just like the prophets of Baal, who cut themselves and screamed asking Baal to make it rain, the media will scream and yell and paint bloody pictures. In that story, the people were rooting for Baal. Baal is a lot more fun than Yahweh - much more cheerful.

But when Elijiah showed the people that those prophets were doing little more than showmen, the crowd asked for their blood. And you know what? Elijiah gave it to them. Back in the B.P.C. era, you would find paintings of Elijia - knife in hand - standing atop a pile of the prophets of Baal.

I was talking to a friend about investments the other day. He said that his brother told him he should buy gold. He replied, "What am I going to do with a bar of gold - eat it?". I know I sound like a wack-o, but I'm investing in a generator and gasoline. I think people sense that there are cracks in the system - that this really is a vale of tears and that we have been dodging the bullet for the last fifty years. You don't have to be a prophet to suspect that tough times are ahead.

I'll close with the words of a real prophet - Mother Theresa. According to Mother, "The fruit of abortion is nuclear war". We've been spilling the blood. It's only reasonable to suspect that tough times may lie ahead.

You are Dust, O Joe, and to Dust You Shall Return

2009-02-26T09:47:00.004-05:00

Here's our friend, Ole Joe Biden, witnessing to the reality that all is dust and ashes aside from the marvellous gift of faith. Keep on truckin', Joe. Remember that you are dust, O Joe, and to dust you shall return.

This recalls arguments about the scandal caused by pro-abortion politicians in the public square. See Rick Santorum's column in the sidebar.

On a Name

2009-02-25T14:37:00.003-05:00

I've been fascinated with names for a while now - it goes along with my general fascination with etymology in general. I think about it a lot, and it occurred to me the other day that I may have put together enough thoughts to make an interesting blog post.

Take my last name - Zamarro. My father is Italian, and according to him the Zamarros were from Calabria. The name, however, is Spanish. It comes from the Segovia region. How the Zamarros got from Segovia to Calabria is anyone's guess. Well into the nineteenth century, Spanish lords ruled southern Italy and Sicily and this is a likely cause of the transfer. I can't imagine the name existing for more than a hundred years in Italy without being changed, so I imagine that my Spanish ancestors came to Italy in the nineteenth century. That would probably mean that I am at least, in some small part, of Spanish blood.

The meaning of the name is still somewhat of a mystery. In Spanish "Zamarro" is a name for a rough winter jacket made from sheep hide. It is what shepherds wore in the fields during the winter. It could have been the name of one who wore such a jacket, or one who made them. So perhaps my name meant 'shepherd' or 'tailor'.

There is actually a Swiss heavy metal band named 'Zamarro'. According to their website, 'Zamarro' has become a by-word for 'gangster' in Spanish. So perhaps my ancestors were thugs and crooks.

Basically, I have no meaningful connection with my last name. It could mean any number of things, but it is as many as four degrees separated from my current life and situation.

This brings us to the origins of names, and what they meant. In this article, I am mostly interested in last names. I could write at least one more article about first names, but one at a time.

Last names, as far as I can tell, were either used to denote some type of noble title or else they were mere descriptors of trade or origin. We're all familiar with names such as 'carpenter' or 'sawyer'. Names such as 'Krakowski' or 'Calabrizzi' indicate a city or region of origin. And, obviously, there are patronymic names such as 'Johnson' or 'Mikalevich' that indicate the first name of the father.

I married my wife, a Donahue, who became a Zamarro. She's 100 percent Irish. Donahue is a gaelic patronymic. I believe that the Irish had an idea of 'clan' that doesn't really fall into the categories outlined above. It could be that this idea of 'clan' is really what we deal with today. In this model, a name is a memorial of a beloved or reknown ancestor that passes along to his descendants and even their hangers-on.

However, I have a feeling that last names are becoming something else - a placeholder. If we continue to be alienated from the meaning of our names, isn't there a danger that they are just a convenient way of finding someone in a phonebook? What's in a name, indeed.

To be honest, I am somewhat desperate to find some meaning in my name. It will be part of my legacy to my own children. What does it mean to be a 'Zamarro', after all? I'm not so sure. I've thought of changing my name to something else - not necessarily out of any shame about my existing name but to create a name with which I have some identification; perhaps to 'Engineer'.

That probably won't happen. The solution, it seems to me, is to find out about the name and to immerse myself in its history. That would seem to be the only way to inject meaning into the name.

But what of the threat of names becoming superficial identifiers? My children will be 50 percent Irish, 25 percent Italian, 13 percent Anglo-Scottish, and about 10 percent Swedish. Will being a 'Zamarro' really mean something to them throughout their lives.

I'm not sure. In some sense, my children will face a very real dilution of their culture. We are now 'Americans', whatever that means, and we have very little common cultural identification. The immigration history of the last two-hundred years has left us somewhat culturally empty.

It will be interesting to see how this cultural emptiness is filled, if at all. Cultural dynamics of this type are hard to predict. It could be that my children will find themselves accepted by the majority Latino population of the future U.S. due to their Spanish name. Talk about a melting pot.

On Father Maciel

2009-02-06T12:42:00.007-05:00

It came out earlier this week that the founder of the Legionaries of Christ, Father Marcel Maciel, had been living a double life and had a mistress and at least one illegitimate child. This is a grave blow to the order that he founded, as well as the the vibrant lay apostolate that it is paired with: Regnum Christi.

As one commentator put it this week, the Legion has attracted virtually equal parts of praise and condemnation. I have never been personally attracted to any of their apostolates, but I have the highest regard for several of their projects; notably the National Catholic Register, the Institute for the Psychological Sciences, and the work of Father Jonathan Morris in media. Besides these outlets, the Legion has an estimated 2,500 men in seminary training for the priesthood - probably about a third of all men in seminary training in the United States.

I can't say much about what the thousands of men, women, and families associated with the Legion are going through right now. Obviously, these revelations have nothing to do with the good works and character of the many thousands who have followed him thus far. I'm sure that the guidance of God will show them the appropriate path to take.

There is one thing that I want to say. In thinking on this issue, I was reminded of a talk that Catholic musician Sean Forrest gave at the Boston Catholic Men's Conference a couple years back. In it, he said to the 2,500 assembled men "You know, you shouldn't have to drive an hour to hear someone like me talk once per year. You should have leaders in your parishes and in your neighborhoods that inspire you and who call you to prayer."

Sean's point, and it's bearing on Fr. Maciel is this: I think we Catholics have a tendency to participate in the media mentality of this age of celebrity. One of the primary criticisms of the Legion was that it bypassed diocesan and parish organs. We have to live and work where we live and where we are planted. We have to live in our parishes and we have to live a life of prayer.

This is not so much a criticism of the Legion as it is a call to personal holiness and prayer. We need saints now more than ever. And it will be you and me, or it will be nobody.

Here's what I think we need, and I will continue to elaborate upon it within these pages. I think we need an authentic and organic Catholic culture in the United States. And it will begin in two places. The first is in your own life as you make a commitment to prayer. As my spiritual father used to say, "If you're not praying at least a rosary a day, then you don't have a spiritual pulse."

The second place that an authentic Catholic culture will be built is in our parishes. Here's an idea that sounds revolutionary: go to your local parish and worship there. Meet the people in your neighborhood and just be with them. Even if the pastor there is a wacko and tells you not to go to confession so much, keep going there. If we form "Orthodoxy Ghettos" within certain parishes, the spirit of Orthodoxy will never penetrate into the heart of American Catholicism.

I will end with a personal story. In the early 00s, I was in an RCIA program at a consummately liberal parish. I had read some books that fired my interest in Catholicism and I was taking the next steps towards re-forming my childhood bonds with the Catholic faith. After a couple of months in this parish I started to wonder if the Catholicism that I had read about only existed in books. Then I met the man who would become my godfather - who was clearly fired about his faith and taking it very seriously. Over time, I learned about the crosses that he bore by going to this particular parish - the misunderstandings, the frustrations, and the patience he practiced. If I hadn't met him, I wouldn't be Catholic today.

Pope Benedict XVI and the Traditional Mass

2009-01-29T08:19:00.005-05:00

If you're like me, and I am, the most interesting news story of the week was the lifting of the decree of excommunication upon four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988.

A little background: Lefebvre was an influential French-Swiss bishop before, during, and after the Second Vatican Council. He became the leader of a large group who felt that the Council had been led astray, most importantly in the renovation of the liturgy. Lefebvre founded a sect, which was eventually declared 'schismatic', that adhered to pre-Conciliar teachings and celebrated the old mass - otherwise known as the Tridentine Mass or the Mass of St. Pius X. The group, emphasizing their focus on the old mass, took the name of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX).

Lefebvre existed on the fringes for twenty or so years after the council. In 1988 he consecrated four bishops without the consent of the Vatican. The consecration, according to Catholic teaching, was valid but illicit - in other words he could do it, but he wasn't supposed to. SSPX people have been thriving, in a sense. They estimate their own numbers at 1,000,000. And from my experience with SSPX, adherents are not casual members. Traditional Catholics are regular church-goers, strong contributors financially, and take matters of faith and morals very seriously. Aside from their commonplace deprecations of papal authority and of the validity of the council, they are good folks with a strong devotion to the Church.

So, that's part A. A big part B is the strangely timed statements by one of the four bishops regarding the Jewish Holocaust perpetrated by the National Socialists in Germany during the second world war. Bishop Richard Williamson, an Englishman and one of the four, was quoted on a Swiss television show that only a couple hundred thousand Jews died in the Nazi Holocaust, and that the ovens were a myth.

This precipitated a largely justifiable uproar, but the focus of the reconciliation between the Church and the SSPX became Bishop Williamson's unfortunate remarks. The high priests of secular culture (the New York Times editorial staff) decreed that Pope Benedict XVI was a confused old man who cared more about liturgical minutiae than the real concerns of ordinary people. And that settled it for most people.

Luckily you and I are not most people, so we can take the time to savor and appreciate the manifold intricacies of this amazing event.

First, the lifting of the excommunication was a master-work of Church diplomacy and spiritual guidance by our beloved Pontiff. I'll say it again: a master-work. It is amazing.

First, the lifting of the excommunication took place during the "Week of Prayer for Christian Unity" observed by the Catholic Church every year. The prospect of bringing a group of 1,000,000 back into the folds of the Church can only be considered a decisive victory for the Pope, by Christian standards.

Second, it demonstrated that there are differences between the fringes of the left and the fringes on the right. The fringe on the right is actually open to reconciliation and diplomacy. They hold regard for things like reason, fidelity, and tradition. Their differences with the Church are often incidental, or at least within the bounds of reconciliation. As for the left, I am not so sure. In my opinion, the reformers of the left are far more interested in a break than in a reconciliation. That "break" could be a break with the Church, but more likely it is a breaking of the Church. They don't really want to come back to the fold, they want the fold to come to them or to go away. And I think that the reconciliation of the Lefebvrists demonstrates this.

And the third characteristic of this masterwork is that it presents a clear demonstration, in dramatic terms, of what the Church's mind is on the matter of liturgy. The Pope is saying to those who love the Tridentine mass: "We want you back. You have a place here." There are some within the Church who are horrified by the prospect of the return of the Latin mass. It gives them shivers. In a grand gesture, the Pope is showing that he is committed to continuity with the past while being grounded in the present. The Tridentine mass was jettisoned by panicked Catholics in a rush to be considered acceptable by more "modern and established" persons. The Pope is demonstrating that we have no need to deny our past to be the Church in the modern world - we always were.

For those not in the know, the Holy Father's actions could be those of a benighted old man. The same people have said the same thing before (see Regensburg Address) and they were dead wrong. We're lucky to have such a Pope.

On Obama and Abortion

2009-01-23T12:40:00.004-05:00

I am again struggling for soemthing intelligent to say regarding Obama and abortion. There was an interesting article in this month's issue of the journal First Things - it was called "The Will to Disbelieve". In it, the author compared the views held by the intellegencia on Communism in the 1980s and those currently held by the intelligencia on the sexual revolution. Her verdict was that in both cases, the views of the elite had a tendentious to non-existent connection with reality. Communism was bad for the people who lived under it. So also with the sexual revolution. But nobody wants to say so.

I read an article yesterday with a quote by an 85-year old woman stating "What's the good of being free if someone can tell you what you have to do with your body?". The reference was to abortion. You see, it all hinges on freedom. I want to be free. But we live in a society that demands mutual interdependence and the demand for freedom doesn't exist in a vacuum.

The sexual revolution was about freedom, and especially about freedom for women. And it is true that women are, by and large, more free today than they were fifty years ago. But it can not be denied, although it commonly is, that the sexual revolution has exacted a terrible toll. The authoress of the above referenced article pointed out that the population most effected by the sexual revolution were children, both born and unborn. But even if the toll is only counted among those who have survived abortion, it is still terrible. And it should not be overlooked that it is still being counted. We have not seen the full effect of the virtual elimination of sexual mores amongst the young girls of our current generation.

I liked what Ranerio Cantalamesa had to say last week at the Family Conference in Mexico City. He pointed out that the battle for the family does not merely, or even mostly, depend on changing legislation. The early Christians catalyzed a revolution in the decaying Roman Empire through example - and really by example alone. The power of demonstration can go so far. We need to show people what healthy families look like. Granted, they are much harder to come by and to create in this day and age. But not impossible.

The point is that the value of freedom needs to be compared to the value of the family. Neither of these things exists in isolation. Freedom gets a lot of good press. The family not so much. But stumbling upon a loving family, as I have had the good fortune to do on occasion, can be revolutionary.

People look to "freedom" in this day and age with something nearly approaching idolatry. It is commonly understood as a "good". And it is. I don't think we can focus on prying the good from the collective hands of our co-culturalists. We need to present another good - the family.

So get to work.

On Inauguration Day

2009-01-20T17:30:00.004-05:00

I am uninfected by the frenetic enthusiasm fleeting through the cubicles of Siemens Water today. A projector screen was set up in the cafeteria at work today so that we could watch the Inauguration live. As I was walking the other way from the caf', a coworker asked if I was going to watch history being made. I told him I would watch from my desk.

In fact, I wore black today for the occasion. I'm not sure anyone noticed.

I have had many opportunities to be impressed with the manner and style of our newly inaugurated leader. He has demonstrated finesse and class on several occasions. He's very charming - and I mean that in the best way. But one's manner and bearing are never the sole indicator of trustworthiness - they should not even be the primary indicator. I'm glad the man has class. It's certainly no negative. But let him be judged on his record, and let his former actions give us a picture of the man. Every one of his actions has shown him to be an agent of the sort of change desired by the far-left of the political spectrum.

If you're like me, you think that many of the difficulties in today's world are related to a gradual slide towards the ideals of men and women like Obama. Obama pitched himself as a moderate, and America bought it. I have good reason to suspect that it is not the case. I think that he will militate for social issues that will soften our resolve and seal our fate - our fate of falling into a prolonged sigh that will end in the fading and eventual extinguishment of what used to be called "the West".

The din of enthusiasm today brought to mind a line in Anna Karenina when the rustic Dolly goes to visit the cosmopolitan household of Anna and Vronsky. She says that while she was there, she felt like she was in a play and she was the only one who didn't know her lines. I feel like I am in the midst of a play, but no one else knows that it is a play. They all think that to change the world all that we really need to do is to want to change it - and so they are happy because they do. Look what we did. Curtain falls; happily ever after, etc.

All you did was vote for a guy that no one is sure of - the Journal had a op-ed piece entitled "The Opacity of Hope". I think the bulk of Americans have been hustled, and a good portion wanted to be hustled very badly. But I think that we got the opposite of what we needed. We need a healthy dose of reality, but we got a fantasy.

I told a friend the other night that my primary hope is that hte economy goes into the shitter before Obama can do very much. It's already happening, to some extent. That's scheudenfruede people, and it ain't pretty.

Here's to President Obama, and to these United States. May we get either what we need or what we deserve.

Economic Indicators, &tc.

2009-01-10T11:46:00.002-05:00

A front-page headline in the Wall Street Journal today read, "Unemployment Worst Since 1945". For those of us not privy to the significance, 1945 was the year that the U.S. emerged from the Great Depression with the help of good ole WWII.

I don't know about you, but my impression is that we haven't seen the worst of it. I work for Siemens Corp., one of the largest companies in the world. We had some layoffs maybe four months back, but nothing huge. There is no way that Siemens is going to come through this unscathed. They are too big and their business will be impacted. So we haven't really even started the layoffs, and I think a lot of companies are in the same boat.

Pope Benedict XVI once remarked that it was unfortunate that the word "schadenfreude" existed in the German vocabulary. It is with some guilt that I admit my schadenfreude at the current economic situation. I have been a consistent doomsayer, so there is some small pleasure in watching the wheels come off the wagon. We're at 7.2% unemployment, and the worst of it hasn't even hit us yet. In Peggy Noonan's column today, she had an imaginary American wondering where her food would come from when the economic infrastructure broke down.

Also from Noonan's column today:

This is not a nation of 300 million people in extremis and on a morphine drip; it's a nation of 300 million people who are alive, alert and ready to go.

She's raised this point a couple of times, and it is a good one. We are strong, and we've got to stay positive. But I have my doubts. We've been on top a long time. There is a critical point in a contest when the champion is bloodied and shaken; it's been a long time since he's been in this position, since he's been desperate. Fear and panic are more likely in a strong country that has forgotten what it's like to be on the ropes.

I'm not going to panic, yet. But I am going to invest in a generator.

That Wicked Church

2009-01-09T10:23:00.004-05:00

Here's a couple of articles that you wouldn't have seen unless you have a Google News Alert for the Catholic Church, like some people I know:

Church grabs chance to attack birth control pill - Guardian UK

Austrian birth pill creator sparks church attack - Autstrian Times

You see, the Church is always attacking things and "grabbing" chances to pounce on innocent pharmaceutical products like the birth control pill. After all, the pill was just standing there minding it's own business. Well, actually, it was being a little naughty, but who isn't these days? And the Church! Ahem.

So, you can see by these news headlines how wicked and really hurtful the Catholic Church is.

The articles are actually interesting reads. It turns out that Carl Djerassi, one of the originators of the artificial hormone that made the birth control pill possible, is lamenting the demographic effects of the pill. In the article he describes contracepting couples as "wanting to enjoy their schnitzels while leaving the rest of the world to get on with it". It could only have been said by an Austrian.

From the Guardian article:

Djerassi outlined the "horror scenario" that occurred because of the population imbalance, for which his invention was partly to blame. He said that in most of Europe there was now "no connection at all between sexuality and reproduction". He said: "This divide in Catholic Austria, a country which has on average 1.4 children per family, is now complete."

That prickly Church, always using innocent commentary as a chance to attack. Perhaps if these meddlesome inventors would just keep their mouths shut, the bovine masses wouldn't become disturbed. These inventors don't realize how hard it is for the media to guide their flock in the way of truth and security. Sometimes, the media feels completely taken for granted. You can tell by how upset they get when their authority is questioned. Gosh!

Go back to your cud.

RJN: RIP

2009-01-08T15:34:00.002-05:00

From a comment on America Magazine's online blog, regarding the recent passing of Fr. Richard John Neuhaus:

"I'd like to think that Tim Russert needed him in Heaven for a panel discussion on Obama. May he rest in peace."

The original article is here.

Litany of Humility

2009-01-06T16:04:00.001-05:00

O Jesus! meek and humble of heart, Hear me.

From the desire of being esteemed, Deliver me, Jesus.
From the desire of being loved...
From the desire of being extolled ...
From the desire of being honored ...
From the desire of being praised ...
From the desire of being preferred to others...
From the desire of being consulted ...
From the desire of being approved ...
From the fear of being humiliated ...
From the fear of being despised...
From the fear of suffering rebukes ...
From the fear of being calumniated ...
From the fear of being forgotten ...
From the fear of being ridiculed ...
From the fear of being wronged ...
From the fear of being suspected ...

That others may be loved more than I, Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may be esteemed more than I ...
That, in the opinion of the world, others may increase and I may decrease ...
That others may be chosen and I set aside ...
That others may be praised and I unnoticed ...
That others may be preferred to me in everything...
That others may become holier than I, provided that I may become as holy as I should…

Written by Rafael Cardinal Merry del Val (1865-1930), Secretary of State for Pope Saint Pius X

On Youth and Chastity

2008-12-30T13:40:00.003-05:00

The news outlets are covering the release of a report that purports to show that teens who took "purity pledges" have the same likelihood of engaging in pre-marital sex as teens who did not take the pledge. With their usual balance and candor, the main-stream-media is covering the story with little detail or explanation. It makes good print to say that all those smarmy religious kids are just as dirty as the rest of us.

Only one outlet - Fox News - mentions the methodology used in this test. It turns out the test uses the same data as a previous study that showed that teens that took such pledges actually did have lower incidence of pre-marital sex. This new study juggles the data differently. The analysts for this new study only used teens that were "similar" demographically to teens that took the pledge.

The study used a method called "matched" sampling, in which the analyst can isolate a single factor in the course of a study using varied data. Through a bit of data juggling, the analysts in this study created a pool of respondents who were similar to the "pledgers" in every respect - except that they didn't take the pledge. This similarity includes a number of religious variables. So in a way, this new analysis is more apples to apples. But it fails to account for the fact that "purity pledges" are in fact taking place in a religious context. It makes sense that kids whose responses to religion-related questions is similar to "pledgers" would have similar incidence of pre-marital sex.

Here's a revealing quote from the abstract to this article (emphasis mine):

CONCLUSIONS. The sexual behavior of virginity pledgers does not differ from that of closely matched nonpledgers, and pledgers are less likely to protect themselves from pregnancy and disease before marriage. Virginity pledges may not affect sexual behavior but may decrease the likelihood of taking precautions during sex. Clinicians should provide birth control information to all adolescents, especially virginity pledgers.

If we were looking for an agenda, I think we may have found it. The entire article reporting the results of the study can be viewed here.

The point is the religious context. Religion comes in a package; you can't take it apart according to what you find helpful or according to purely practical standards. I don't think anyone is saying that resisting the temptation to engage in pre-marital sex is easy. It usually takes a strong religious commitment, supported by multiple cultural elements to make it possible. I'm pretty sure that this Pediatrics study would show that fact exactly, if the facts were re-shuffled a bit. What do you think the correlation is between religious activity and sexual activity? I'm betting it's pretty strong. It was at least strong enough to bend the data back from previous studies when the comparison of non-religious kids to "pledgers" without matching showed lower incidence of pre-marital sex amongst "pledgers".

I had a friend who went to a physical exam before college and was asked whether she wanted birth control. She told the nurse (who was a parishioner at her church) "No, I'm saving myself for marriage." The nurse told her, "Sweetheart, a lot of girls say that and then find that they just can't keep their promise. You really ought to take a prescription for birth control."

Thanks, Nurse Ratchet. What is happening here is the defection of a large portion of the medical industry from the degree of cultural support and holistic attention that these girls need. It's also a commentary on the college dating scene. Kids need to be told that a) purity is a goal that is worth fighting for and b) it's going to be really hard but you can do it with help. They're gonna fail sometimes, often in proportion to the support that they got before and during their college experience.

Really what this study has to say is this: sometimes kids say something, even promise something, and then don't follow through with it. We could jump to the conclusion that they will never, ever keep the pledge so we should medicate them to prevent them from becoming pregnant. The rest of the story is this: it is possible to abstain, and it's a lot easier with religious formation. That may or may not include a purity pledge. Boys and girls that do abstain from sex until marriage are usually healthier, happier, and better prepared for the challenges they will be facing later in life. And we need a lot more of them. I'd love to see a study on that.

On Popes and Presidents

2008-12-23T15:26:00.005-05:00

Last week Pope Benedict gave a whack to the P.C. beehive when he used the environment as an analogy for our approach to sexuality. A quick perusal of Google News shows the media's balanced response:

Gays outraged by pope's 'homophobic attack' - AFP
The Pope's Christmas Condemnation of Transsexuals - TIME
Pope's speech draws criticism from gays - UPI
Pope's comments cause outrage - BBC

One would think that the whole world had gone gay. The stories, of course, focus idiosyncratically on the Pope's analogy while failing to engage any of the issues that the Pope highlighted in his talk. It is, after all, a lot easier to jump, yell, and call names than to seriously exchange ideas. But we (especially the media) all know that anyone opposed to homosexual behavior is simply psychologically disordered and not worth the trouble of dialogue. Especially the Pope.

I found the Pope's message to be articulate and interesting. It contained an idea that was novel, to me anyways. His Holiness made a comparison to the well-intentioned efforts of many ecologists to preserve natural environments in their "pristine" and original conditions. If we look at nature as "good" in the form it is handed to us, why do we not have the same criteria when it comes to human nature? Why do we expend so much energy forcing modern constructs onto the forms of man and woman? Why not take them naturally, as they come to us?

Perhaps I am as psychologically deformed as the Pope. That would explain my appreciation. That's probably it.

Another, somewhat unrelated, idea that has been on my mind lately is the condition of our culture as it is handed over to President Obama. I heard a reference recently to the United States "spending its spiritual capital". The comparison was between those who create capital and those who spend it. It is not hard to envision the United States as a nation of consumers, sucking up more than they create. Such a situation creates a false and temporary security, where an apparent abundance is taken for granted until it is spent. For me, the analogy is apt for both the material and the spiritual elements of our culture.

In fact, the current financial crisis, it seems to me is a result of the disconnect between what we are consuming and what we are producing. I wonder if the current financial crisis is going to be a bit worse than many think. Perhaps that is just paranoia on my part. But healthy economies are the provenance of healthy cultures. Just as an individual needs to earn more than he spends, just so with a culture. It is fairly common for Americans to believe that they are entitled to 7-8% returns on the stock market in exchange for... nothing. Just because we are Americans and we deserve it.

Here's an idea - what if all of the progressive social programs that Obama would like to implement come to nothing because the nation is plunging headlong into the shitter? I'll tell you what, gay marriage will fall off people's radar pretty quickly if unemployment hits 15%. Social and economic hardship tend to push a culture towards conservatism. The family, the neighborhood, and even the state become very organic things when there's no paycheck coming in. You learn who you depend on.

It's a strange hope. But as I've referred to in other posts, I believe hardship is healthy in a lot of ways. Like a trust-fund baby whose withdrawls exhaust their legacy, we may wake up to a chastening reality. Second place (or third, or fourth) may not sound too bad, but when you're used to being number one...

Ave crux, spes unica.

On Deception, Abortion, and Mischief

2008-12-06T09:49:00.007-05:00

My attention was captured for a moment by this story in Fox News. Briefly, a 20-year old pro-life activist enters an abortion clinic in Indiana posing as a 13 year-old girl. Her story is that she has been impregnated by a 31 year-old man. The nurse attending her advises her to lie about the man's age, as Indiana law requires her to report all cases of statutory rape to the authorities. She also gives the girl information on abortion clinics in Illinois, where parental notification laws are not enforced.

It is noteworthy that only Fox News is carrying this story, based on a Google News search.

About four years ago a local paper had a story about a couple of girls from a local college who posed as a young pregnant couple and went to the crisis pregnancy center. There intention was to trap the volunteers there into proselytizing, which probably occurred. At the time , I remember thinking that it was something of a betrayal to present yourself under false pretenses. But somehow we justify these deceptions to achieve the means of exposing the heinous crimes of proselytizing, in one direction or another.

There was a time when I spent one morning a week praying outside of an abortion facility. During that time, I was witness to sundry impish activities surrounding the facility; on the part of abortion consumers, purveyors, and protestors. That is not to say that it was all of the same sort, or the same severity. I was surprised at the level of... well, there's really no other word for it than wickedness - the wickedness surrounding mostly the consumers and purveyors. There was the Satan worshipping attendant who obviously took a wry pleasure in his work; the doctor brought up on sexual harassment charges by an attending nurse; an angry mother herding her curly-locked young teenage daughter to get an abortion.

I remember once, when we were organizing a vigil at the facility, we went door to door in the neighborhood. No one came to the door. No one wanted to talk about it.

I've seen mischievous behavior on the part of protestors, as well. I've seen behavior by protestors that no balanced person would consider charitable. I've seen, or read about, aggressive proselytizing that steps way beyond appropriate bounds. But I've rarely seen a protestor get beyond the realm of impish, into actual maliciousness. This, of course, excludes the rare occasion of violence directed towards abortion purveyors. This shouldn't be ignored, but nor should it be portrayed as typical.

Unfortunately, misleading young (I mean young as in 13) women probably is typical. This is not the first time an abortion purveyor has been tricked into displaying their willingness to become accessory to statutory rape. Again, the means are supposedly justified by the end, which in this case is removing the injury of childbearing from the primary injury of the rape. A brief reflection will suffice to show that this does no justice to the girl.

The lie is that this can all just go away if the child is gone. People can forget, they can move on. But that isn't how real life works. That little girl (she is real) will go on being abused. The sacrifice is not effective; the pain continues.

We eventually had that vigil outside of the abortion facility. We were there, late in the night and early into the morning. My experience at the vigil reinforced all my earlier experiences, and both were vindicated by simple logic. This was an evil place, where women walk in with babies and walk out with none. This disappearance was perpetrated by people who, on some level, knew what they were doing. And no respectable people wanted to talk about it.

Well, another four thousand children died today. Probably more, since it is a Saturday. That's a real count: four thousand children per day. Four thousand children that no one wants to talk about. The count gets astronomical. If these are real lives, or if these are even partial lives, then what a cost - all perpetrated in the name of freedom. How free are we? How free will we be in the near future?

None could say it more eloquently than Blessed Mother Theresa: "The fruit of abortion is nuclear war." God doesn't forget: He is merciful and just. But He is not like us: He doesn't forget.

On the Tragedy in Mumbai

2008-11-29T16:59:00.002-05:00

Is there ever a time when dialogue is not the appropriate answer to aggression? I think the answer to that question is yes. But what about when the aggressor is a culture?

I think the response of Western governments to the recent terrorist actions in Mumbai will be insular. Strictures will become tighter. Our way of life will become more observed, more and more intruded upon. We will take it upon ourselves to cushion our way of life against violence by small groups of maniacs such as these, who munched on almonds while indiscriminately gunning down unarmed men, women, and children.

For these men, it was as simple as getting a few AK-47s and a boat and cruising into Mumbai harbor. How hard is it, even in America, to get an AK-47? As Walter from the Big Lebowski said, "You want a toe? I'll get you a toe." Anything is available.

Let me propose an alternative. I'm not saying that this solution is ideal, or exhaustive. It could be very, very wrong. But I'm not sure.

Let's find out where each one of these men came from. We have the technology. Let's go back to their village, or town, or city, and execute every person within three degrees of relation. Mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, children, uncles, etc. Repeat this action for every act of terrorism executed, anywhere, for any reason whatsoever.

Sound extreme? It is. It is very, very cruel. It borders on barbarism, and may even have passed the border into barbarism, driven a few hours and checked into a hotel in Barbaropolis.

We are dealing with barbarians. The alternatives that we face are equally chilling: retaliation or insulation. My fear is that the West, which has co-opted Christian principles and then promptly forgotten their roots, is unable to adapt to this challenge. We are like idiot savants who can only repeat the same actions without understanding their meaning. I don't think it is always good to be civilized. We could civilize our way into a stagnant and weak inactivity, or into an Orwellian observationist state that watches your every move.

Radical Islam, which is orthodox Islam, has declared war on the West. When your outposts (India) are being raided by savages who are killing your women and children, you are at war. The U.S. was in this situation as little as 200 years ago. And you know what we did? We wiped the Indians out. We destroyed whole villages.

What's our next move?

More on the Conservative Future

2008-11-25T12:09:00.002-05:00

I've been continuing to think on this conservative future, and a couple more things have jumped out at me.

One thing is the nature of technological change and its relation to family and tradition. I was out raking my lawn on Saturday, and I was thinking about how we have this general feeling in our culture that technology is going to make everything OK. I think that the lie that technology would bring happiness was assisted by the blinding pace at which technology was developing. You could believe that universal happiness was right around the corner when every year brought leapfrog developments in consumer technology.

As I was raking I was thinking, "Life won't be that different for my kids than it was for me." Sure, the game systems are a bit better and the internet is a more (less?) effective time-waster than good ol' television. But the pace has slowed such that no one is imagining going to work in a flying saucer anymore. We can barely get thirty-five miles per gallon.

And you know what, people are as miserable now (I think perhaps more so) than they ever have been. I think there is a palpable sense in our culture that the answers may not be so evident.

So what does this have to do with the future of conservatism? Well, just this, that when people stop thinking that the human race has suddenly matured and entered the next phase of development then that is when they start looking to family and relationships and community as the answers to life's ills. They might even give religion a glance.

Another aspect of modern life that may give the inclination towards introspection a boost is the immanent decline of U.S. power. According to the CIA, America's status as the capital of the world will be under threat in the coming generation. A desire to strengthen the internal fabric of your community is a logical next step when you are no longer the international tough guy.

And related to all this is the idea that we need to work - that personal responsiblity counts. Both technology and the assurance of material prosperity have combined to give individuals the perception that hard work is not really necessary for happiness. In fact, many in our culture have the impression that hard work is actually detrimental to happiness. Even in the best of times, making a living and putting up with people is hard work. It is work that is easily sloughed off and ignored. This is bad for people, it's bad for families, and it's bad for communities.

Hard times aren't a good thing, but they can remind us of an essential truth. Namely, that we live in the Vale of Tears and if you're not working hard you're probably not doing it right.

The Future of the Republican Party

2008-11-20T15:07:00.006-05:00

Who am I? Just some thirty-two year old nobody from central Massachusetts. And that gives me about as much right as anyone to make comments about the future of the Republican party. Well, not really, but I think I have a pitch and maybe it will get the two or three people who read this blog thinking about these things and generating some discussion. In any case, here goes.

I really liked the article that I read in National Review after the election calling for "principled" conservative leaders. I don't know exactly why it is that politicians tend to go bad. I was reading an interview today with Robert Novak, who has been in Washington since 1957 covering politics, and he said that he has met more bad politicians than good ones. And he didn't mean that they weren't good at the job, he meant they were bad people.

I think, at every level, we should be looking at the character of politicians. We shouldn't just be thinking "Hey, there's nothing really wrong with this guy." We should be thinking "This is an outstanding individual and I want him in Washington." When we're concerned with our pocketbooks, we want to make sure nothing is wrong. When we want to save the lives of 1.5 million unborn children per year, we want a hero. It's possible. Now's the time, let's do it.

Also, I think there is a lot of debate at the moment regarding which "camps" will define the Republican party moving forward. There's the social conservative camp, the fiscal conservative camp, and then there's the Log Cabin Republicans. It's interesting, the single-most important issue to me is abortion. To your average fiscal conservative, abortion is a non-issue. But on the other hand, there is common ground in the idea of cultural continuity and limited government.

A fiscal conservative, at least the hypothetical average fiscal conservative, would be interested in maintaining stable cultural supports such as marriage and family. By and large, these are issues that support the fiscal bedrock of our nation and enable us to act with strength in the event of a crisis.

Speaking personally, as a social conservative, I am in favor of limited government and a re-focus of responsibility on the individual. This means lower taxes, fewer government programs, and a smaller social welfare net.

The point is, that there is a lot of common ground. I would like to skip the four to eight years of soul-searching that many pundits are projecting. I would also like to encourage and foster the idea that principled leaders are out there, and that they can make it into office with our help.

A little more on that: when I was dating my wife I didn't consider certain parts of her life off-limits when making a judgement about whether or not she was the right person for me to marry. I looked into how she treated her family, how she felt about God, and what she did for those who were less fortunate. My judgement was very harsh in these areas, and she passed. I don't do the same for the guy pumping my gas or making my coffee. I think that the severity of our assessment of politicians should be closer to a potential spouse than to a potential gas pumper.

Just my two cents.

St. Josemaria Escriva on the Fight

2008-11-18T15:08:00.001-05:00

A reflection by St. Josemaria Escriva de Baleguer:

We were talking previously about the need to fight. But fighting calls for training, a proper diet, urgent medical attention in the case of illness, bruises and wounds. The sacraments are the main medicine the Church has to offer. They are not luxuries. If you voluntarily abandon them, it is impossible to advance on the road, to follow Jesus Christ. We need them as we need air to breathe, the circulation of the blood, and light to appreciate at every moment what our Lord wants of us.

A Christian’s asceticism requires strength, which is found in the Creator. We are darkness and he is radiant light. We are infirmity and he is robust good health. We are poverty and he is infinite wealth. We are weakness and he sustains us, “for you are, O God, my strength” [1]. Nothing on earth is capable of stemming the impatient gushing forth of the redeeming blood of Christ. Yet human limitations can veil our eyes so that we do not notice the grandeur of God. Hence the responsibility of all the faithful, especially those who have the role of governing — serving — the People of God spiritually, of not blocking the sources of grace, of not being ashamed of Christ’s cross.

(Christ is passing by, 80)

Writing Themselves Into Obscurity

2008-11-13T09:22:00.005-05:00

Cardinal Francis George of Chicago released a letter today to President-elect Obama regarding his announced intention to sign into law the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). I don't have time to go into the ins and outs of FOCA in this space, but the long and the short of it is that it will attempt to remove any restrictions on abortion whatsoever. The restrictions removed would include parental notification, term limits, protection for born-alive infants, and existing limits on taxpayer contributions to funding abortion here and abroad.

You can read the Cardinal's letter here.

The bishops met Monday through Wednesday of this week in Washington, D.C. The stated purpose of the meeting was to discuss politicians, abortion, and the fact that slightly more than half of the Catholics in the United States voted for the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever. There were some great moments (I've been paying attention). Auxiliary Bishop Robert Hermann of St. Louis was quoted as saying, "Any one of us here would consider it a privilege to die tomorrow--die tomorrow!--to bring about the end of abortion." Cardinal George's opening statements made it very clear that Catholics who claimed that the best way to reduce the frequency of abortion was to address economic concerns were seriously misguided.

But in the end, there was a lot of spark and flash and all we got was this letter.

There is nothing necessarily wrong with the letter, there's just not enough that is right in it. It comes off sounding like the bishops are coaching Obama on politics. He's a politician, and a very good one, and he doesn't need coaching. He's pretty aware of what people are thinking and doesn't need information on demographics and voter impressions.

What we need from the bishops is a vigorous statement defending unborn life and condemning those who support its wanton destruction. The Catholic population of the United States has been denied direction on the topic of abortion for the last 35 years. There is no sense in this country, among the majority of Catholics, that there is something gravely wrong with abortion. It is the duty of the bishops to rectify this situation. Do they really think that this will be accomplished by writing letters to the President advising him on legal and political matters?

There is only one thing, and exactly one thing, that the bishops can do at this point to remind the American people that abortion is murder. That is to decide, as a body, that those who publicly endorse laws that accelerate the destruction of human life are acting in gross violation of the Churches laws and teachings and to deny them participation in the celebration of the mass. In other words, they must be excommunicated.

This is not an unusual or atypical approach to guiding the people of God. It is the tool used by bishops for two thousand years to discipline and to guide those who stray.

It is the path of charity, for those who stray and even more so for those who would remain in the fold. It is the only thing that would register in the minds of the millions of Catholics in the United States the fact that there is a choice to be made.

I'm tired of expecting something from our bishops. Historically speaking, it is probably foolish to hope. I believe that it is representative that when Henry VIII revoked the spiritual authority of the Holy Father, only one or two bishops out of a couple hundred opposed him. And the fact is that people are not of a better quality today than they were in the sixteenth century. We're all alone on this one.

I wonder if the concern of bishops in many dioceses is making it as easy as possible for the laity in their diocese to be Catholic. Isn't that the job of an adminstrator? Wouldn't a lot of people be alienated if the Church required them to be counter-cultural?

I don't want it to be easy. Maybe that makes me harder to lead.

I remain a faithful Catholic and pray that I will die in the arms of Holy Mother Church. But I am left with profound confusion as to my place in this communion of confusion and facility. I didn't decide to follow Jesus because it was easy. I just didn't expect the leaders of His Church to make it so hard.

Quote of the Day

2008-11-07T14:42:00.002-05:00

"Religion is a very concrete phenomenon that means to prevent people from killing each other completely."

-René Girard

The complete interview is here.

On Hope and Change

2008-11-06T10:15:00.006-05:00

I had the same feeling yesterday that I did the day after the Patriots lost the Super Bowl last year. Kind of a bewildered depression, a stunned confusion. One difference is that I expected the Patriots to win, but in any case hopes were high.

On a forum discussing the impact of the election, a commentator put forth the proposition that the loss to Obama was an opportunity. He kept using the word “principled”, that we need principled conservatives.

I have been reading Hillaire Belloc’s classic work, Europe and the Faith. I highly recommend it. In it, Belloc speaks against the idea, popular in the early 20th-century, that the fall of the Roman empire was a triumph of Northern barbarians over the civilization of Rome. Instead, he proposes that the barbarians were civilized by their interaction with Rome. For Belloc, it is impossible that something lesser is conquered by something greater. The Roman Empire was ordered and reasonable and chaos could not conquer it.

We live in a time of great intellectual squishiness, much of it associated with liberalism. Theirs is a soft ethos, given to comfort and uncertainty. It is, often, given over to evil as in the case of abortion. These factors all make it a weak opponent, hesitating and without direction.

There is something different. There is a principled conservatism that is based on the Classical traditions and rooted in religious belief. It believes in reason and virtue, and it is embodied in individuals willing to live out its precepts. There are many young people who are just discovering the strength and challenge of the Conservative Tradition.

The ideas of the Conservative movement have barely penetrated into the Universities and Colleges of this country. But wherever they do, they leave civilization in the place of chaos and strength in the place of confusion.

I very much like the idea of principled conservatives working from within to change our culture. It is a personal phenomenon, requiring a resolve and dedication from each and every one of us. Now is precisely not the time to give in to despair.

Now is the time to get tough. Very tough. Civilization may depend on it.

On the Personhood of the Unborn

2008-10-30T12:29:00.003-04:00

I have been interested in a concept recently, namely the personhood of the unborn. The thought occurred to me while listening to a talk by Wesley J. Smith on those in a persistent vegitative state. He asked, passionately, that they not be referrred to as "vegetables". His rationale was that the term de-humanized persons with impaired brain function. It made them into non-persons, or at least into sub-persons.

I am by no means the originator of this thought, but it occured to me that the concept was applicable to pre-born humans, as well. They should be constantly referred to as "people".

What is it, exactly, that gives a person rights? What gives them dignity?

If a fetus is not a person at conception, at what point is it a person? When does it begin to be entitled to "rights"? Is it viability? Is it the will of the parent(s)? Is it self-awareness?

These have all been proposed, more or less intentionally, as the beginning of personhood. A thoughtful comparison of what we think of when we think of the word "person" and these concepts will show a disconnect.

What we mean by "person" is often indistinct, but no less powerful for being so. There is a danger in reducing the value of this concept by tying it to things like the ability to survive alone, self-awareness, or the will of another. Because, if you think about it, each one of us will be identified with one of these characteristics before we die. We will be at the mercy of others, depending upon their respect and assistance. We will lean upon their respect for us as a person.

When we de-humanize the unborn, we weaken the walls that protect the weakest in society. Someday we may be the weak one.

So when you are speaking about unborn life, call it what it is. The rights of the unborn are "human rights". Their dignity is human dignity.

On Growing Up

2008-10-28T10:04:00.002-04:00

I just read an interesting article by Bill Whittle on National Review, Shame Cubed. Mr. Whittle gets pretty fired up about the comments of Barack Obama recently made public by the Drudge Report. These were comments made about 8 years ago on a Chicago NPR station.

One of Mr. Whittle’s qualms, which I share, is with the media who did not publicize this interview but instead spent millions of dollars researching the paternity of Ms. Palin’s child, Trig. It is a fair accusation to make, that the media is not terribly interested in researching or “digging up dirt” on Mr. Obama. Mr. Whittle states: “We no longer have an independent, fair, investigative press. That is abundantly clear to everyone — even the press. It is just another of the facts that they refuse to report, because it does not suit them.”

Another thought that has been kicking around my noggin lately is the idea that the United States is still a relatively young society. By “young” I don’t mean that our median age is low. It is not, it’s 37 years, the highest it’s ever been in the U.S. What I mean is that we are in the midst of a cultural gestation that we may have reason to think will result in a more mature populace.

The United States was largely an Anglo-European and Protestant nation for its first 100 years. The foundations of the society were based on common descent (mostly English, Scottish, and some Western Europeans) and Protestant principles. The fact that most of the population was Protestant is significant because it formed, amongst other things, the national cultural and moral consensus.

In the late nineteenth century, into the twentieth century, the population of the U.S. at least doubled with an influx of immigrants. Most of these immigrants were Catholics from Ireland, Italy, or a host of other poor European nations. This was a tremendous influence on the socio-cultural makeup of the United States. For several decades (into the 1950s and even 1960s) these immigrant populations were sequestered in ethnic communities with their own stores, churches and schools. Intermarriage was not common.

Of course this changed in the 70s and 80s, and any cultural divisions were virtually invisible and irrelevant by the 90s.

The net result is a swirling and muddying of the socio-cultural waters. Cultural identity has virtually gone to nil, and this has in turn lowered the bar on education and awareness. Those consider themselves educated who turn in to “The Daily Show” or read “The Onion”. We have become the nation of the quip.

My thesis is this: that intelligent conservatism relies on tradition and culture, both of which are currently lacking. They lack because we are a nation without identity, as a result of a cultural confusion that is pervasive in the United States today. We don’t know who we are.

But there is reason to hope that this will change. We are a nascent republic in many ways, just discovering ourselves. Will we congeal into a “people” with common culture and moral direction? Perhaps if we do, we will have the sense to demand a media that is as interested in the socialist declaration of a presidential candidate as it is in the sex life of a vice-presidential candidate’s daughter. Perhaps we will grow up.

Bishop Hermann on Voting and Life

2008-10-22T15:48:00.005-04:00

The following is a reflection by Bishop Robert J. Hermann, Administrator for the Archdiocese of St. Louis, published in the St. Louis Review on October 17, 2008. It is reproduced here in its entirety:

Judgment Day is on its way. We cannot stop it. We don’t know when it will come, but just as surely as the sun rises daily, the Son of Man will come when we least expect.

Judgment Day is on its way. For many, this coming election may very well be judgment day, for this election will measure us. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus tells us in 10:32-33: "Everyone who acknowledges Me before others, I will acknowledge before My heavenly Father. But whoever denies Me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father."

Judgment Day is on its way. When my time comes, I will be measured by my Savior for the decisions I have made. I will either be acknowledged by Jesus or denied by Him in the presence of our heavenly Father. The question I need to ask myself is this: What kind of witness will I give to Him when I go into the voting booth this election day?

The decision I make in the voting booth will reflect my value system. If I value the good of the economy and my current lifestyle more than I do the right to life itself, then I am in trouble. Pope John Paul II, in his post-synodal apostolic exhortation Christifideles laici tells us: "Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights — for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture — is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination."

The right of our children to be protected from destruction is greater than my right to a thriving economy. I am living proof of this, since I am here because my parents believed this priority and lived it. My desire for a good economy cannot justify my voting to remove all current restrictions on abortion.

My desire to end the war in Iraq cannot justify my voting to remove all current restrictions on abortion. My parents got married about one year before the stock market crash of 1929, and yet they raised 15 children in the midst of the Great Depression. They had no money. My mother made her own wedding gown and her own bouquet of flowers. I have my parents’ wedding picture on the wall of my office, and I am reminded every day of the sacrifices they made for life.

We had no money, but we had each other! My parents were at home with us for three meals every day. We had plenty to eat because we raised almost all of our food. We seldom got new clothes, but we wore hand-me-downs, unless my mother would buy materials and make our clothes. We lived in poverty, but we learned the value of hard work. We had no running water or electricity. We had no TV, Internet or cell phone. Yet, we were very happy because we had life! We had each other! Today, all 15 children in my family of origin are most grateful for the sacrifices Mom and Dad made so that we could have life. Making sacrifices for each other brought us incredible joy and enhanced our dignity, because it gave us a chance to participate in serving each other!

In an article written by Pope John Paul I, printed in the current issue of Magnificat, the pope reflected on the life of Andrew Carnegie, who wrote: "I was born in poverty ... but I would not exchange the memories of my childhood with those of a millionaire’s children. What do they know of family joys, of the sweet figure of a mother who combines the duties of nurse, washerwoman, cook, teacher, angel and saint?" Does life get any better than this, when gifts of creativity, generosity and faith are nurtured in the midst of poverty? This is the abundant life on this earth, because it is fueled by faith and sacrifice! Perhaps this is not so much poverty as it is faith-filled luxury.

Judgment Day for us is on its way. Those 47 million children our nation destroyed are still living. We have destroyed their bodies, but their souls are still alive. When our Lord comes again, they may very well be there to judge us. Even worse, Jesus tells us that whatever we do to the least of our brethren, we do to Him. We would truly shudder if we heard the words, "I was in your my mother’s womb but you took my life!"

It is quite possible that we might see these children, but, depending upon the choices we have made, we may very well be separated from them by a great chasm which cannot be crossed, much as the rich man who ignored Lazarus, the poor man, during his lifetime here on earth but was separated from him after death. The rich man was in flames, but Lazarus was in the bosom of his heavenly Father.

The Catholic Church teaches, in its catechism, in the works of Pope John Paul II and in the writings of Pope Benedict XVI, that the issue of life is the most basic issue and must be given priority over the issue of the economy, the issue of war or any other issue. These same teachings inform us that when both candidates permit the right to abortion, but unequally so, we must chose to mitigate the evil by choosing the candidate who is less permissive of abortion.

Judgment Day is on its way! I may deny it. I may pretend that it is still far away, I may deny that my actions are sinful, but that will not change God’s judgment of me.

The deepest problem with many of our Catholics is that they have become so accustomed to rationalizing away a life of sinful actions so that they seem to be on cruise control, heading in the wrong direction. "If today you hear his voice, harden not your hearts."

My goal is not to engage you in some political party way but to engage you with our Savior and His teachings. We need to constantly challenge our accustomed behaviors in the light of the Gospel. We may say that we are following our conscience, but are we informing our consciences with the truth about these issues? Cardinal George Pell of Australia has said that we must follow truth and our conscience, but be steeped in truth so that our consciences be rightly formed.

Perhaps having to face these issues during this coming election can turn out to be a grace that truly awakens our need to learn more about the teachings of the Catholic Church, and then to use the Sacrament of Reconciliation so that we can receive His mercy and bring our behavior into conformity with the mind and heart of Christ. It is not too late to admit our sinfulness and turn to the Lord in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. When we do this, both we and the heavens will be filled with joy!

Judgment Day is on its way. Pray your way into conformity with the teachings of Christ and His Church. Pray the family Rosary daily between now and Election Day so that you may not only make the right choice but also have the courage to discuss these issues with others who may have been misled by our materialistic culture. Include the candidates in your prayer intentions. It is my hope that our discussions will bring all of us to our knees to seek help from above.

On FaceSpace

2008-10-10T16:35:00.004-04:00

So, I don't know what impelled me to do it, but I joined Facebook the other day. In case you're slightly older than I am, social networking sites like Facebook or MySpace (or as my friend Pete calls them FaceSpace) are online social networking sites that connect you to people through existing members. As of today at 4:30 I have connected with over a dozen people that I have not spoken to in over ten years. Wow.

It's quite a thing. It certainly has limits, and perhaps even some negative aspects, but hasn't everyone thought to themselves "I'd really love to know how so-and-so is doing right now"? Well, now I get at least a peak at how so-and-so is doing, as well as where he lives and what he is talking to his friends about.

The limits: it's superficial, it's unreal, you can't hug people. It's not like being there, that's for sure. My "friend" Gabe is living in London. I heard from him today. Gabe was a casual acquaintance in college and will probably continue to be so. Will either of our lives change even slightly due to our encounter on Facebook? Probably not. Was it a good thing to know what he's doing and what he looks like after seven years?

The thing that initially struck me about Facebook was this feeling of being connected. In every other age beside our own, you would grow up and live around people for long periods of time. You knew the people in your neighborhood or town. You knew their families, so even if they moved away you would get news or even the occasional visit. It's not like that anymore. People are so mobile and transient, and besides people don't know each other as well anymore anyhow. Facebook is kind of like the hometown that you can come home to, except that it's not really and they're trying to make money off of you somehow.

People move on, and today they move pretty far and fast. It's not a good thing and digital technology will never make it the same. There's nothing like being there. It's like the old AA saying: "If you care, then you're there".

So I won't let Facebook substitute for real relationships. It's still important to know your neighbor and to go over their house every once in a while. But it's good to see old friends smiling and waving in pictures with their husbands, wives, children, or friends. It makes me feel like I'm there, and that they're OK.

On the Debate

2008-10-03T08:31:00.003-04:00

I had an interesting experience last night. Erin and I were listening to the vice-presidential debate on the radio since we don't have the cable hooked up yet. She was interested in the debate, but I was really excited. I was looking forward to Palin having an opportunity to shine and perhaps adding some much-needed lustre to the McCain campaign.

Right from the beginning of the debate, it sounded like Palin was getting hammered by Biden. He seemed to come out of the gates speaking very technically about precise issues. He spoke intelligently about the economy and foriegn policy. He seemed to be running circles around Governor Palin, who sounded like a 19-year old girl arguing politics with a college professor.

I went to bed very depressed. So, imagine my surprise when I awoke this morning to newspaper headlines declaring the debate a draw, and even some giving the debate to Governor Palin! WTF?

All that I can chalk it up to is the difference between watching and listening to a debate. I saw pictures in the morning and Palin looked very good last night. There may have been some body language and expression that carried a lot of weight on TV, but (obviously) not so much on the radio.

Last night, listening to what I thought was a devastating loss for Palin, I comforted myself with the thought that sounding intelligent and being a good debater do not make one right, necessarily. I would be voting for the McCain/Palin ticket in any case based on things that I knew Obama and Biden believe in that I think are dead wrong. But it raises a couple of questions about modern politics and the future of the Republican party.

First, I think debates should be listened to. I'm happy that Palin appeared to come out on top on TV, but she should have sounded good. It was a more cerebral experience listening to the radio than watching TV. I'm glad that my VP hopeful looks great in pumps and a charcoal-gray business thingy. But conservatives should be able to go toe-to-toe with any educated liberal and come across as erudite and articulate. Conservatism is not merely guns and religion at the expense of reason.

Which leads to the second thought. The debate made me wonder about the future of conservatism. I think back to the Supreme Court nominations of this last presidential term, where the only qualified conservative candidates were Catholics. Do I think that there aren't any intelligent conservatives who aren't Catholic? I'm not so sure any more.

Being conservative means having a respect for history and Truth. This has long been the realm of those who are of a religious ilk. If you add to this respect a certain amount of intelligence and education, you get a Catholic. Why is this? Because amongst Christian religions, only Catholicism (and perhaps Eastern Orthodoxy) has roots deep enough to bear up against the load of post-modern intellectualism that has permeated virtually every corner of our culture.

So, you want someone who will energize the base and also be able to debate Joe Biden. Well, let's see, you'll need someone with traditional values who is also intelligent and firmly grounded in social and cultural issues. Well, my friend, you have yourself a Catholic.

Of Politics and Pulpits

2008-09-29T22:13:00.002-04:00

A group of pastors is challenging the legal ban on Churches endorsing candidates for political office. To be more precise, the group is challenging the current law which bars churches from endorsing candidates and remaining tax exempt.

I'm honestly torn on this one. It is one of the few topics on which I do not have a fully formed opinion.

Some of the language put out by those in favor of the status quo is pretty stupid:

They seem to have ignored completely what politicking would do to compromise the credibility and lessen the integrity of religion... They would seem to place more emphasis on getting a particular candidate elected to office than on preserving the historic ability of religion to reconcile people's differences.

I suppose there is something to be said for religion's ability to "reconcile people's differences". But it's not like they want John McCain elected so that he'll buy new cushions for the pews. These candidates perform a duty in political office which is actually a lower calling than their call to serve God. We have a right to have a religiously formed opinion on these matters, and it is the job of pastors to help us form these thoughts.

There is something ghetto-ish about the whole thing. "You're going to compromise the the credibility of religion!" Well, religion is not doing terribly well in many circles, nowadays. I'm not sure that those who would be upset at the pastor's behavior are not those who already have a fully-formed negative opinion of religion and its place in the public square.

So I do have some respect for the idea that religion should not be married to politics. Congregations should have a political identity separate from their identity as churches. But endorsing a candidate is not to identify yourself with that candidate.

I also have a great respect for some of my Catholic pastors here in town and I am unwilling to believe that they are merely cowed by Big Brother into acquiesence. My thought is that they have their reasons.

The Constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If my religion says that I shouldn't vote for John McCain, is Congress prohibiting my free exercise by preventing my pastor from telling me so?

I would lean towards yes.

On Dialogue

2008-09-29T22:08:00.002-04:00

Dialogue has grown exhausting lately.

I wonder if I'm doing it wrong.

Jesus says not to throw pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and then turn to rend you.

I feel rent.

I think I'm going to stop casting.

Ho hum.

St. Josemaria Escriva on Surrender

2008-09-24T15:33:00.000-04:00

As well as having given you abundant and effective grace, the Lord has given you a brain, a pair of hands and intellectual powers so that your talents may yield fruit. God wants to work miracles all the time - to raise the dead, make the deaf hear, restore sight to the blind, enable the lame to walk... - through your sanctified professional work, which you will have turned into a holocaust that is both pleasing to God and useful to souls. (The Forge, 984)

Your boat — your talents, your hopes, your achievements — is worth nothing whatsoever, unless you leave it in Christ’s hands, allowing him the freedom to come aboard. Make sure you don’t turn it into an idol. In your boat by yourself, if you try to do without the Master, you are — supernaturally speaking — making straight for shipwreck. Only if you allow, and seek, his presence and captaincy, will you be safe from the storms and setbacks of life. Place everything in God’s hands. Let your thoughts, the brave adventures you have imagined, your lofty human ambitions, your noble loves, pass through the heart of Christ. Otherwise, sooner or later, they will all sink to the bottom together with your selfishness. (Friends of God, 21)

On Our Crappy Media

2008-09-19T19:28:00.001-04:00

This from CNN today: Todd Palin: 'first dude' or 'shadow governor?'.

Can you believe it? Just imagine. Imagine them saying this about Barack Obama. Can you?

The criticisms of the media regarding their treatment of Ms. Palin had not really moved me until now. But this is absurd.

And another thing - it is thoroughly tinged with sexism. Throughout Hilary Clinton's campaign she claimed her time as first lady as foreign policy experience. Now, examining a woman in an executive position, her spouse's involvement in official activities is an indication that he is in a dominating role?

I'm sure CNN will say that they are only speculating based on what other people have said. Note the quotation marks in the title. But the fact remains that Mr. Obama has not been subjected to such scathing, intrusive attention.

We need to demand more conservative media. The domination of media by the political left is unbearable at times. There was a time in this country when there were more choices in media consumption, or at least more diversity. Somehow we have gotten to where we are now. The only solution that I can see is patronizing and supporting conservative news outlets. At least we have some, such as the Wall Street Journal and Fox News. But it needs to be more on the ground. It may take some time, but I believe we will see it one day.

On Church-State Separation

2008-09-19T08:37:00.006-04:00

An extended quote from the article A New Order of Religious Freedom by Fr. Richard Neuhaus:

In a democracy that is free and robust, an opinion is no more disqualified for being religious than for being atheistic, or psychoanalytic, or Marxist, or just plain dumb. There is, or at least there ought to be, no legal or constitutional question about the admission of religion to the public square; there is only a question about the free and equal participation of citizens in our public business. Religion is not a reified thing that threatens to intrude upon our common life. Religion in public is but the public opinion of those citizens who appeal to religion in public.

As with individual citizens, so also with the associations that citizens form to advance their opinions. Religious institutions may understand themselves to be brought into being by God, as the Catholic Church certainly does understand herself, but for the purposes of this democratic polity they are free associations of citizens. As such, they are guaranteed the same access to the public square as are the citizens who comprise them. It matters not at all that their purpose is to advance religion, any more than it matters that other associations would advance the interests of business or labor or radical feminism or animal rights or whatever.

On Masculinism

2008-09-17T09:15:00.010-04:00

From today's Salon.com, there's this article: Dude, Where's my Manhood? It's very interesting reading and directly related to earlier posts on feminism. The Salon column is mostly drivel, grossly misdiagnosing the root of the problem. From the article:

While a fair number of Kimmel's observations about this new demographic are depressingly familiar, he warns that the dangers posed by disgruntled guys will rise the longer we tolerate, brush off and deny their bad behavior... All in all, reading "Guyland" has the same effect on a liberal as a good horror movie; it makes you terrified of something you're so used to that you probably manage to ignore it most of the time.

Speaking of horror movies, how about the offhand way liberals jettison "tolerance" for groups they don't endorse. Two such groups are those with religion and those with penises. What about the "God made me this way" approach that is applied so frequently by liberal apologists?

More from the article:

Kimmel pinpoints the cause of young white male frustration in another typically pithy coinage: "thwarted entitlement." You might call this phenomenon the blowback of the civil rights and women's and gay liberation movements, an ever-growing sense among young white males that women and minorities have snatched away the jobs and social positions that their fathers and grandfathers implied they could take for granted. Sure, it's hard for minorities to feel sympathy for white guys who seem to believe in personal responsibility when it comes to poverty yet claim that women and people of color are taking their jobs -- but they may do so at their peril. When large swaths of young men feel disenfranchised, violence is usually in the offing. If the guys Kimmel studies suddenly lost the ability to sponge off their parents, he implies, the effects of "thwarted entitlement" could easily spread out beyond the bad apples and erupt into various forms of chaos.

Ay! One would think that there is really nothing good at all in us white men. White devils, we are!

I do believe that the phenomena that is being described is somewhat accurate. There is a feeling of disenfranchisement amongst men. It was captured very well in film Fight Club. Various factors contribute to this feeling in men, some captured by the film and some not. In the movie, men recapture a primal sense of purpose by unleashing their repressed manhood in underground boxing clubs or secret subversive activities.

It is somewhat ironic, but I believe the roots of this disenfranchisement are biological. It is ironic, as this is the standard modernist line on homosexuality. But I don't believe that it is merely biological, there is a spiritual element also. Whatever the limits of the issue, there is something in men that wants to lead, to fight, and to struggle. We are wired to be heroes, and there are so many things in modern life that suffocate this desire.

I once saw a statistic that positively correlated the occurence of erectile disfunction with education level. Alienation from masculinity, both intellectual and physical, leads to both intellectual and physical impotence.

The rise of feminism is concurrent with the rise of this disenfranchisement. I think that contemporary liberals are correct to feel threatened by this, as the two are directly opposed. But in their alarm, I think they are mis-diagnosing the problem. It would seem that many are imagining the solution as a nation of emasculated men. And they wonder why we are disenfranchised.

On Feminism

2008-09-11T10:14:00.003-04:00

This from National Review Online:
What Was Feminism? by Victor Davis Hanson

And this from Salon.com:
Zombie Feminists of the RNC by Rebecca Traister

Commentary to follow...

On the Bellicose and the Shrill

2008-09-09T21:49:00.002-04:00

Something that has been on my mind lately: Liberal vs. Conservative. The Sarah Palin thing has brought this out quite a bit. You go on some websites and she is absolutely demonized (i.e. Salon.com) and on others she is completely lionized (i.e. TownHall.com). One thing that Palin has brought out in stark relief is how complicated life is. We’re all somewhere between the lion and the demon, some of us more demon and some more lion.

The point is not the merits and faults of Ms. Palin. It is the relative intensity with which the extremes are pursued. I’m also not seeking a mitigation of passion. What I’m seeking is understanding and civility, for a multitude of reasons.

I don’t have a problem determining which side of the divide I am on. I am a liberal in the classical sense, but in today’s environment I find myself consistently on the conservative side of things. My interest is how to relate to society as a politically involved person. I want to be civilly involved while remaining civil. I want to maintain the end of promoting virtue and values without resorting to the means of being mean.

Not only that, but I want to encourage this spirit universally.

This all sounds a bit like whining, but I’m not sure. The defenses have become a bit too bellicose and the complaints have become a bit too shrill. Is this the business of politics? Could it be that resilient cotton, with which to stuff one’s ears, is a necessary tool in the political arena?

Sometimes the shrill voices can be exhausting. It makes you want to take up balsa modeling or gardening.

As I think about it, the more “virtue” jumps out at me. It’s easy to be upset by the multitudinous peccadilloes of various pundits and politicians. The difficult thing is to remain cool and rational amongst the shrieking. Also, it takes some measure of hope in people, that they really are trying to reach the truth and that they are doing the best with what they have. Also, confidence in yourself that you can explain your point of view and that your point of view matters.

Also, practicality. Principles are important, and on some sides principles are over-riding. But if you truly care for your principles, you will take care to make sure they are communicated in a way that will be heard. This takes subtlety.

More on Ms. Palin

2008-09-05T14:35:00.003-04:00

Well, thanks to Ms. Palin for reminding us of the complexities of life, political or otherwise.

I don't really know how to feel about the latest news on Ms. Palin, that her 17-year old daughter is pregnant. I would say that preventing your children from becoming pregnant before they are married is one of the goals of parenting. But that goal has always been difficult to achieve. We used to have cultural support for abstinence through the teaching of sexual morality. Now we have birth control and/or abortion. Any of these can fail, I suppose.

It does give me pause, but along with the rest of the conservative base I am energized by Ms. Palin's selection as the vice-Presidential candidate for these United States. For me, and for roughly half of this fine nation, nothing is more important than seeing Roe vs. Wade overturned. That is the hope of the McCain presidency.

It seems to be a theme for this year in my life: practicality. Life is subtle and complex, and often things don't fit into neat categories. That is not a cause to abandon high principles; that would be the way of a coward. But life will continue to challenge us and will do its best to make things confusing.

Let's hope that this election steers us more towards a culture of life. So much depends on it.

On Anna Karenina

2008-09-04T22:19:00.002-04:00

I finally finished Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy. I feel like I've been reading it forever.

It was an excellent book. It seems to me that Tolstoy was a master psychologist. He seems to "get inside" his characters and gives you an eerie feeling of looking through their eyes. He also seemed to have a very delicate soul and presented some very subtle shades of complicated situations.

The story follows the life of an adulteress in nineteenth century Russia. She leaves her husband for a younger man with whom she has fallen in love. She is cast out of polite society. Many feel compassion with her intellectually, but find themselves strangely uncomfortable with her life when placed in close contact with her.

At one point a character goes to visit Anna and her lover, Vronsky, at their country home. Vronsky is quite rich, and they are living in grand style. At first, Anna and Vronsky seem "unspeakably happy". But in time, the visitor senses a deep sadness. She says she feels as if everyone in the house is playing a part, but that everyone else is upset with her because she can't help playing her part badly.

I feel like that all the time.

The book is also a statement of changed times. A woman leaving her husband for a lover is not so strange in society now.

Another prominent character, Levin, is slowly moving towards God and arrives at something like faith towards the end of the book. Levin seems very much like Tolstoy himself. Tolstoy's faith journey was long and strange, and I can't help think of this character is autobiographical. It is a thoughtful and subtle picture of one who is struggling with eternal questions, using the language of his day.

It may take you a while, but I believe Anna Karenina is worth it.

On the Selection of Ms. Palin

2008-08-29T13:33:00.006-04:00

I was just watching McCain's introduction of Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska on the TV at the gym, and I have to admit a little tear came to my eye. My first impression is: wow, she's tough to beat.

A mother of five, a political outsider, solid conservative credentials, pro-life, good looking... and, oh, did I mention she's a woman? Wow.

The thought occurred to me that even if McCain and Palin don't win, there will be a great benefit for America in this campaign. This is really the first time a succesful, intelligent woman who is pro-life has been featured in a high-profile capacity in our country. My hope is that she shatters the image that you have to leave your fertility at the door if you are a woman and you want to be something.

Palin mentioned in her acceptance that her eldest son will be deployed to Iraq next month. Wow, again. This is a moment for the Republicans, and hopefully one that they can capitalize upon. Viva Maverick!

On Tattooing.

2008-08-28T09:52:00.005-04:00

From an article by R. R. Reno on the First Things blog, discussing the modern trend of tattooing:

When we take a sober look at contemporary society, we can see that one of the main results of the cultural revolution of the last half-century has been the demolition of soul-binding permanence. Marriage and family are the most obvious examples...

In a more subtle way, our postmodern culture of irony and critique also works against permanence. The old binding loyalties of faith and patriotism are openly mocked. The ability of truth to compel the soul is reinterpreted by our culture of critique as an ideological ploy to mask and advance the interests of power. Thus we are taught that nothing rightly compels devotion of heart and mind.

So we are free, freer than any people have ever been in the history of humanity. The old bonds of commitment hang loosely about us. How this came about would require telling the complex history of modern western culture, but the current consequences are not hard to identify. A free soul is a slave of desires for success, desires for social acceptance, desires for all the goodies that our wealthy economy so efficiently provides, to say nothing of our primitive passions. Increasingly uncommittedfree from the limits of marriage, children, faith, devotion, and loyaltywe are more purely and more entirely defined by our social roles as productive workers and eager consumers, and by our passing desires for satisfaction and pleasure. Again, I ask myself, is it surprising that in an age with so few binding commitments postmodern men and women seek symbols of permanence etched into their bodies?

It's an interesting take. As a tattoo-ee myself, I can relate to this desire for "permanence". I think so many people are seeking something enduring. "See, I really believe in something - I tattooed it on myself," would be the internal dialogue.

Personally, I wish I didn't have my tattoos. It's kind of like my theory on bumper stickers: you can't really say anything important in that small of a space. Cool pictures and pithy phrases are all that really fit.

Cardinal Egan contra Speaker Pelosi

2008-08-27T13:56:00.003-04:00

A statement from Cardinal Edward Egan of New York, occasioned by recent remarks by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in its entirety:

Like many other citizens of this nation, I was shocked to learn that the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America would make the kind of statements that were made to Mr. Tom Brokow of NBC-TV on Sunday, August 24, 2008. What the Speaker had to say about theologians and their positions regarding abortion was not only misinformed; it was also, and especially, utterly incredible in this day and age.

We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb.

In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons. They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith. Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.

Edward Cardinal EganArchbishop of New York

I haven't heard much from Egan, but that was great.

Good, Bad, and Just Plain Ugly

2008-08-26T15:02:00.004-04:00

Priest robbed at shrine

This story appeared in the MetroWest Daily News. It's hard for me to feel much more than a visceral reaction of disgust for people who would a) rob a priest; b) rob a 76-year-old priest; c) steal money earmarked for good. Who are these people, and how is it possible that they have not a shred of decency?

I'm tempted to mentally write off these people, whom I don't even know, as pigs. It's like another nail in the coffin for particpating in the community at large, and encouragement to develop an insular existence surrounded be people you know, people who are 'good.'

But hope is fortunately provided by the priest, who surmises that if the thieves were people who needed help, "the shrine could have found a way to assist them."

Hm...it's something to think about. What, exactly, would drive those people to rob someone - and a priest, at that? There's a chance that they're just inherently bad. But maybe their lives and thoughts have been shaped by circumstances beyond their control, and their formation has blinded them to the unabashed ickiness of what they've just done. Maybe meeting that priest earlier in life, under different circumstances, could have radically altered life for any one of the thieves. Maybe they still can get the help that the priest thought they could use.

It's people like this priest who keep my pessimism in check.

On the (Worcester) Media

2008-08-26T10:23:00.004-04:00

There was a recent discussion online about political bias in the Worcester Telegram, our hometown paper. From today's Telegram:

Ailing Sen. Edward M. Kennedy issued a ringing summons to fellow Democrats to rally behind Barack H. Obama's pioneering quest for the White House last night in a poignant opening to a party convention in search of unity for the fall campaign.

If you're wondering which direction the Telegram might be leaning, wait for coverage of the Republican convention. I doubt you'll see phrases like "ringing summons", "pioneering quest", or "poignant".

Sometimes they just can't hide their enthusiasm.

On Politics and Abortion

2008-08-22T23:41:00.004-04:00

It occurred to me the other day that I should write something on abortion and politics for the blog. It has been a very hot topic in most of my “circles” as of late. It’s an issue that gets hot every election year. What I tend to see is a lot of earnest Catholics who identify with Democratic ideals (Democratic as in the Party, not as in Thomas Jefferson) wringing their hands over how they can bring their political ethos in line with their religious ethos.

I will say right up front that this is not a problem for me. There was a time when I was a self-identified Democrat and also self-described as “Pro Choice”. Then I realized that people had souls and I became “Pro Life”. I don’t know if I’m a Republican. But I do believe that each and every abortion results in the death of a human being, and that tends to trump pretty much every other political issue out there. It's hard to beat 1.2 million innocent deaths per year with programs to provide organic food for the homeless.

Here’s Barack Obama at the Saddleback thingy the other day, speaking on whether life begins at conception or not:

"I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective," Obama responded, "answering that question with specificity is above my pay-grade." Obama added that he believes "there is a moral and ethical element" to the abortion issue but stressed that he is pro-choice. "I believe in Roe v. Wade, and I come to that conclusion not because I'm pro-abortion, but because, ultimately, I don't think women make these decisions casually," he said.

You don’t have to study philosophy to see some major problems with what Obama is saying here. Usually, when I have an important question for which I do not have the intellect or training to answer, I go to an expert. He provides an answer. I’m sure Obama will have to do this a few times during his presidency, should he be elected. Making an important ethical decision (whether or not abortion results in the death of a human person) without sufficient data is not something a reasonable person does. I hope my president doesn't do it either.

As it has been pointed out, if a hunter sees a rustle in the bushes he does not shoot until he is certain of what he is shooting at. To do otherwise would be irresponsible. If one is not sure, then one gives the benefit of the doubt to life.

I think what Obama thinks he’s saying is that it is impossible to know when life begins. But maybe what he’s really saying that it’s impossible to know what life is at all. If I think it might be a person, then I won't act in a way that may cause harm. But, if a person is just a whole lot of water and $5 worth of cheap chemicals, then it doesn't really matter. That baby doesn’t know it’s alive yet. It hasn’t seen, lived, tasted, touched, or loved. In other words, nobody cares. It goes away, and there’s nobody left to complain. You see, it has no soul. It doesn’t matter. Buh-bye.

But, if you believe in a soul then that baby has a unique being apart from touching, tasting, living, breathing, seeing, and someone certainly does care. I can name two people who care: me and God.

Here’s a fact, 1.2 million induced abortions were performed in 2005. If you really believe that a fetus is a human life, or even admit the possibility, then that’s 1.2 million dead people or potentially dead people. That’s 1.2 million people that me and God care about.

Really, it comes down to the soul. You can’t see it, touch it, or taste it. If nobody knew that I ever existed, would I matter? What is real? What matters?

Hopefully something. Especially if you’re going to be president.

On Jesus of Nazareth

2008-08-18T14:41:00.001-04:00

I'm the through the better part of Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict XVI. Of the books I have read by Popes, I have always been surprised and impressed by the quality. Perhaps the pagan in me still disbelieves that the right man can be in a position of power and authority. I am still looking for incompetence.

All of the books and encyclicals of John Paul II left me impressed. Benedict XVI has done the same. And I don't just mean good. I mean, wow, this is a really important book.

Jesus of Nazareth is no exception to this phenomenon. The book begins with the Holy Father remarking on trends in biblical scholarship of the last hundred years that have focused inordinately on the historical critical method. These criticisms of the critics are nothing new. I've read them before and understand the arguments. The Pope also discusses the tendency towards a "liberal" interpretation of biblical meaning, with liberal in this case meaning the type of liberalism characterized by secular humanism. Again, nothing new.

Reading the Pope's book, you can visualize liberal theologians and liberal biblical scholars as the schoolyard bullies of Christian scholarship. They have been taunting and berating the schoolyard with skepticism and doubt. Just like with your run-of-the-mill bully, you know they're not really that tough. Often enough someone will challenge the bully's authority and they will quiet down for a little while, only to start up again when their victims forget the last challenge.

Continuing with the schoolyard analogy, Benedict XVI in Jesus of Nazareth is the equivalent of bringing a Navy SEAL to school who systematically eliminates the bully threat by liquidating any enemy combatants.

I highly recommend the book. Even if you're not going to be engaging in any theological debates in the near future, it is important to have as clear a picture of Jesus as possible. Ideas are powerful and diffusive, especially ideas about who God is and how He behaves towards His creation. Books like Jesus of Nazareth bring clarity. And seeing is a good thing.

On Not Being Politically Correct

2008-08-13T11:39:00.000-04:00

A short list of areas where I am way outside of the P.C. comfort zone:

1. I don't believe in Global Warming.

I'm sorry. I'm a scientist. When I first got a job after college I was shocked when I was asked to perform experiments to determine that our product was the best, whether it actually was or not. I got a feel for shoddy science.

Scientists are just like everybody else. There is this mystique that science is untouchable and data is sacred. It's not. Scientists fudge stuff all the time. When I see data on a politically hot issue such as global warming, I usually assume that nine out of ten scientists are lying. This is also true of research on homosexuality, race studies, mental illness, smoking, and gender. Oh, and to be fair, I usually assume data concerning a commercial product to be suspicious. Simple fact, data sets are manipulated all the time.

Listen, complex systems are very hard to model. The human brain is an example. We have very foggy ideas of what is going on between our ears. Many, if not most, treatments for mental illness are the result of trial and error. The global environment is another example of a very complex system. It is effected by so many factors that it is impossible to reliably predict the impact of a single stimuli. It is the very certainty that pro-Global Warming scientists claim that instantly labels them, to me, as liars.

After all, how many opportunities do scientists get to be sexy? Not many.

2. I don't like Martin Luther King, Jr.

The media, and the culture in general, lionizes Martin Luther King, Jr. He's a national saint. Listen, the guy was a philanderer. It's pretty well-established fact that he used money from church donations on prostitutes.

Second, he was a huge fan of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood. He saw abortion as a legitimate means to advance the cause of Black America. I can't, in good conscience, celebrate a guy like that.

3. I don't think women and men are exactly the same.

Yes, I think men and women are different. I think that women are in general more sympathetic, more patient, and more understanding than men. On the whole, I think men are more aggressive, more decisive, and more impartial than women. I don't think this is so in every case, but I do think it is a good rule of thumb.

This has all kinds of trickle-down effects that make me very un-P.C. For example, and this is one that drives my wife crazy, I don't think that women should speak in Church. In my own defense, I think the reason women shouldn't speak in Church is due to the weakness of men more than the sly motivations of women. Admittedly, it's complicated.

Proverb of the Day

2008-08-08T15:42:00.000-04:00

Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.
-Jewish

From the Wild West

2008-08-07T11:42:00.002-04:00

I'm out in Colorado on business for the better part of this week. I arrived on Monday morning and drove from Denver to Colorado Springs. I have been in Colorado Springs all week and I've been a little disturbed by a social phenomenon that I have experienced out here.

My first day here I was on the road travelling to Colorado Springs. It was past lunchtime, and those who know me can tell you how grouchy I am when I'm hungry. I saw a sign for Chipotle on the highway. I'm a big fan of burritos, and Chipotle was the first of the fresh burrito restaurants that I had ever experienced. So when I saw the sign I veered across three lanes of traffic to get to the exit dreaming of the burrito that would soon be in my belly.

Getting off the ramp, I saw I sign with the Chipotle logo, an arrow pointing left, and "0.25m". I followed these directions, still dreaming of my delicious burrito. To the left, I saw a shopping center about a quarter of a mile up. I figured that the restaurant would be in there.

I drove around the shopping center for twenty minutes and never found Chipotle. And when I say I drove around for twenty minutes, I don't mean in a circle around a parking lot. The shopping center was the size of a large sub-development and every building looked exactly the same. I didn't find Chipotle, so I went to Qdoba, another burrito joint partially owned by McDonalds.

When I got to Colorado Springs, I found a shopping complex that made the first look like a strip mall. The main complex in Colorado Springs is about two miles long and contains virtually every retail chain that you could imagine: Wal Mart, Kohl's, Target, Outback, Circuit City, Best Buy, TJ Maxx, etc., etc.

When I was driving by an Outback Steakhouse something occurred to me. It was the unbelievable size of these chains. Those who manage these chains at the highest level have no idea what is going on at the Colorado Springs location. These restaurants are a data point and they are governed by general principles and not by personal attention. What I mean is that someone decides that people like rough wood furniture, so every Outback gets the same pieces of fake handmade furniture. There is no personal attention.

This isn't something that is hard to notice. But to see the juggernaut-like size of these chains is staggering.

There is much more space and much more new construction out here than in New England. But it seems that things are moving this way. Most new developments in New England are of this type. I think of the Blackstone Shops in Millbury, Massachusetts and the proposed Loop development in Northborough, Mass.

I could get into the reasons why this is bad, and I probably will in a future post. But wandering around these consumer villages, I experience two sentiments. First, I'm hungry and I want my burrito. Second, I am concerned for a generation raised in an impersonal consumer atmosphere where everything is the same and nobody knows anybody.

Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn, 1918-2008

2008-08-05T18:15:00.003-04:00

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn died yesterday. He was 89.

Solzhenitsyn has been a hero of mine since I discovered his books about five years ago. His meaning to me has been somewhat proverbial. To me, he is the artist standing in defense of truth against perversions coming from several directions.

When he was in his twenties, Solzhenitsyn was an artillery officer in Germany during World War II. A letter he wrote to a friend while he was serving in Germany, in which he obliquely criticized Josef Stalin, was intercepted by Russian intelligence agents. As a result, Solzhenitsyn served eight years in the prison camps of Siberia. This experience became the grist for many of his subsequent novels which described the hardships of life in the camps, but also decried the hypocrisy and utter insanity of the communist system.

After being released from the camps, Solzhenitsyn enjoyed a brief period of acclaim in the Soviet Union. He was exiled from the Soviet Union in 1974 after the publication of The Gulag Archipelago. He made his residence in Vermont during his exile. After the fall of the communist regime in Russia, he returned to his homeland as a hero.

I’ve read The First Circle, August 1914, and parts of the Gulag Archipelago. I’ve always found Solzhenitsyn to be dedicated to telling a story though art and letting the reader draw his own conclusions. This is how people want to learn, and it’s how most people do learn. He put his art at the service of truth without letting it cease to be art, and made the world a little better as a result.

A good introduction to Solzhenitsyn is his 1978 Harvard University commencement address. Solzhenitsyn had received the Nobel Prize for literature in 1970 and was widely regarded as an authentic social critic of the Communist system. During his Harvard address, Solzhenitsyn touched on the faults of the Communist system and then offered his assessment of the cultural and social faults of capitalism in the West. Chief among these faults was the effeminacy of the intellectual elite and their defection from belief in objective truth. The folks in Cambridge were a little miffed.

The full text of the address can be read here.

I will remember him as an artist who was a man, and vice versa. He was dedicated to truth, and never let a partial issue divide his attention or his vision of where society (or his nation) should be going. Solzhenitsyn fought against the misconceptions of personhood that were the foundation of Communism by being a whole man. It is the same spirit that will help us combat the misconceptions that are the foundation of our Western consumer culture.

So, requiescat in pacem, Aleksandr Isayevich.

Memorial of St. Alphonsus Liguori

2008-08-01T11:13:00.002-04:00

God is ready to heal those who sincerely wish to amend their lives, but cannot take pity on the obstinate sinner. The Lord pardons sins, but He cannot pardon those who are determined to offend Him. He who receives pardon is pardoned through the pure mercy of God, and they who are chastised, are justly punished. God is not obliged to wait for your repentance..

– St. Alphonsus Liguori

Proverb of the Day

2008-08-01T08:57:00.000-04:00

After three days without reading, talk becomes flavorless.
-Chinese

I'm Voting for Maverick, and So Should You

2008-07-29T15:29:00.006-04:00

This blog has officially come out to support Maverick for President. I've never really entertained any other options in the matter, but I believe that it's time to start speaking out about it. Realistically, Maverick is our only hope of preserving some type of restraint on judicial activism.

However you feel about the war, or about the economy, or about his haircut, President Bush has done this country an enormous service by appointing two top-notch judicial conservatives to the Supreme Court. Despite his wanderings, Maverick presents a solid hope of appointing at least one more judicial conservative during his tenure. And have no doubt about it, Barack Obama will appoint the most extreme of judicial activists to the court. And he may not appoint just one, but two such judges to the court if he is elected.

So, you may ask what is judicial activism and why is it so important? Great question.

Judicial activism is using the power of the judiciary to frame and promote legal philosophy rather than interpreting existing legal precedent. You will remember from Civics that we have three branches of government: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. The executive executes laws, the legislative creates laws, and the judicial interprets laws.

Judicial activism takes place when judges take liberties to interpret existing laws in a manner not intended by the legislators who passed the law. This took place in the Roe vs. Wade decision where the Supreme Court created a privacy clause in the constitution that was just not there. Judiciaries in Massachusetts and California have promoted the gay "marriage" agenda through judicial activism. In all of these cases, arguably the most important legal developments of the last fifty years, a judiciary was the primary actor in developing the law in question. State and/or federal legislatures had little or nothing to do with the formation of these laws.

Judicial activism creates two problems. The first is that the formation of laws is arguably the most important function of government and it has been entrusted to democratically elected offices. The usurpation of law-making powers by an elite judiciary takes this decision making out of the hands of the American people. In their written judicial opinion mandating gay marriage in Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Supreme Court dictated that opposing viewpoints to their own were outmoded and bigoted. Also spracht das Gericht.

The second problem is the agenda that these judges are advancing. It is universally in the mold of the most radical far-left agenda. And you know what? That's exactly the agenda that Barack Obama has been promoting in his career as a legislator.

And that's the other reason you should vote for Maverick. Barack Obama is the most extreme far-left candidate that has been given a major-party nomination in the modern era. His agenda is a laundry list of far-left action items: unlimited abortion liscence, gay unions equivalent to heterosexual marriage, huggy-kissy foriegn policy, agressive gun control, and immigration amnesty. And the list goes on.

I've always liked Maverick. Even back when I identified more with the Democratic party, I considered working for his campaign. But today, his election is all but essential. The magnitude of difference between McCain and Obama is staggering. It really is the extreme left versus a kind of kooky Arizona conservatism. This kookiness is hard to get a handle on sometimes, but Obama's agenda is as clear as day.

Nuts and bolts, Roe vs. Wade is really one president away from being overturned. Gay marriage, it's also one president away from becoming federal law. That's why I'm voting for Maverick, and it's why you should, too.

Proverb of the Day

2008-07-28T15:45:00.001-04:00

Success and rest don't sleep together.
-Russian

On Humane Vitae

2008-07-25T11:30:00.013-04:00

Humanae Vitae was released forty years ago today. I was going to write an article endorsing McCain today, and about how if we don't get him elected we will destroy any progress made under the Bush administration for pro-life causes. But then I saw several articles on an idiotic public letter written to the Holy Father protesting Humanae Vitae. The letter was written by a "more than 50 Catholic dissident groups", but Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC) was the most prominent. So I decided to write on Humanae Vitae and protests thereto, directly.

One claim that the authors of the letter make is that the Church's anti-contraception policy "has had a catastrophic impact on the poor and powerless around the world, endangering women's lives and leaving millions at risk of HIV." This, as usual, is quoted without comment in the mainstream media and is probably taken in without a thought by most readers, as well. The visual here is millions of Africans dutifully avoiding the use of contraception and passing HIV to their wives and girlfriends.

South African Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier recently commented on this perception during WYD in Australia. He pointed out that this perception is itself a subtle form of racism. Quoted from the AAP:

Napier, who is opposed to the use of condoms to prevent HIV, said that although South Africa has one of the highest condom distribution rates worldwide, it also is one of the countries most affected by HIV/AIDS. He added, "You expect that because people are hearing from bishops, 'You must use a condom,' that they will do what the bishops say?" According to Napier, Uganda has been able to reduce its HIV/AIDS prevalence through a program that includes abstinence, fidelity and condom use only for married couples.

According to Napier, the church has had faith in people to control their own lives and avoid HIV transmission. "At the moment, if you go on a policy of condom distribution as the only solution to HIV and AIDS, you are telling people that they cannot take control of their own lives," Napier said. He added, "[T]herefore, I think you are doing them an injustice by saying: 'You are so stupid. Even though this disease is a killer, you cannot take control of your own lives'"

This decline in AIDS transmission in Uganda and corresponding increase in other parts of Africa is discussed more in depth in this article from the April issue of First Things.

The second point I'd like to address is the Catholic identity, or lack thereof, in groups such as CFFC. I found a great article by Joel Mowbray of National Review on CFFC. He points out that CFFC's donors are not listed as donating to any other Catholic organizations other than CFFC, with the exception of billionaire George Soros' Open Society Institute. The list of donors for CFFC is very similar to the list of donors for NARAL and NOW. Heavy hitters include Warren Buffet's Buffet Foundation, charitable foundations set up by the families of the founders of Hewlett Packard, and the MacArthur Foundation. But by far the leading contributor during the period covered by the article (1996-2000) was the Ford Foundation, set up by the founding family of Ford Motors. It contributed $4.3 million to CFFC during this period.

What this amounts to is a political advocacy group, bankrolled by wealthy left-wing activist groups who are anything but Catholic, labelling itself as Catholic and agitating against the Church. This is at best dishonesty, at worst it is religious bigotry and interference. In my opinion, it is Big Brother at its finest, buying religion for political gain.

Another pang of despair resounded when I saw a major news wire service report that the Catholic Church only permits adherents to use the "rhythm method" of birth control. The media is committed to keeping the public in the dark about Natural Family Planning (NFP). Despite its effectiveness and foundation in scientific research, NFP has remained a complete enigma for the public at large. And it's not just the media that is either ignorant, malicious or both in its communication on NFP. I've heard stories of women being told by board-certified OB/GYN doctors that NFP is only 67% effective. Since a woman is fertile approximately 33% of the time, that's basically the same as no birth control at all.

I don't know who to get mad at here. It was funny that the ABC news site carried the story of the Catholic dissident groups on a page with a side bar ad for photos of "Selma and Sizzling Single Moms". You can't buy that kind of irony.

When it comes down to it, it's just silly. There are people out there who are committed to the idea that people just can't control themselves. For them, the answer does not lie in calling people to accountability but in removing the idea of accountability itself. Reality is persistent, however, and life is more complicated than that. The idea that we aren't really responsible for what we do is as old as the Apple, the Garden, and the Serpent. But here we are in the Fall and answers are few and hard to come by. There is one answer that has worked for a while, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." We have to believe that we can live by this principle and that others can, too. But for some reason, we just can't.

The world is full of double beds

2008-07-23T16:10:00.003-04:00

The world is full of double beds
And most delightful maidenheads,
Which being so, there’s no excuse

For sodomy or self-abuse.

-Hilaire Belloc

Feast of St. Mary Magdalene

2008-07-22T14:40:00.003-04:00

Happy Feast of St. Mary Magdalene, patroness of the interior life. Click here for the Catholic Encyclopedia article.

On WYD

2008-07-22T08:52:00.003-04:00

This year's World Youth Day was celebrated in Australia, and was just wrapped up this past Sunday. It was an amazing picture of how disconnected the media can be from people in general.

I have set up RSS feeds that search for news on the Catholic Church and Pope Benedict. The news stories coming out of Australia the week before WYD were just horrible. It was all news about groups protesting the Pope, or about the public's reaction to sex abuse scandals, or about this or that bishop's mishandling of Church affairs. Bad, bad, bad.

So then the Pope comes. The stories coming out of Australia were typical of every other WYD: thousand of pilgrims, people standing and walking for hours to see the Pope or to listen to him speak, friends being made, hearts being converted, etcetera, etcetera. They actually had the largest gathering of people ever in Australia for the Pope's Sunday mass. That's right: ever. More people attended the Pope's mass than attended the Olympics in Sydney in 2004.

This would seem to indicate a populace that is interested, and maybe even a little enchanted, with the Holy Father.

It's not the job of the press to tell people simply what they want to hear, but nor is it their job to magnify the concerns of a disgruntled minority from isolated complaints into "news". I suspect that the news media in Australia, as in many other Western countries, is often made up of members of this disgruntled minority. It may behoove them, the next time the Pope is in town, to walk to the streets and to get a feel for what everyone is so excited about. They may find it to be newsworthy, as well.

For a Catholic perspective on WYD, check out Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston's blog: http://www.cardinalseansblog.org/.

Memorial of St. Lawrence of Brindisi

2008-07-21T10:53:00.008-04:00

From New Advent:

It was on the occasion of the foundation of the convent of Prague (1601) that St. Lorenzo was named chaplain of the Imperial army, then about to march against the Turks. The victory of Lepanto (1571) had only temporarily checked the Moslem invasion, and several battles were still necessary to secure the final triumph of the Christian armies. Mohammed III had, since his accession (1595), conquered a large part of Hungary. The emperor, determined to prevent a further advance, sent Lorenzo of Brindisi as deputy to the German princes to obtain their cooperation. They responded to his appeal, and moreover the Duke of Mercœur, Governor of Brittany, joined the imperial army, of which he received the effective command. The attack on Albe-Royal (now Stulweissenburg) was then contemplated. To pit 18,000 men against 80,000 Turks was a daring undertaking and the generals, hesitating to attempt it, appealed to Lorenzo for advice. Holding himself responsible for victory, he communicated to the entire army in a glowing speech the ardour and confidence with which he was himself animated. As his feebleness prevented him from marching, he mounted on horseback and, crucifix in hand, took the lead of the army, which he drew irresistibly after him. Three other Capuchins were also in the ranks of the army. Although the most exposed to danger, Lorenzo was not wounded, which was universally regarded as due to a miraculous protection. The city was finally taken, and the Turks lost 30,000 men. As however they still exceeded in numbers the Christian army, they formed their lines anew, and a few days later another battle was fought. It always the chaplain who was at the head of the army. "Forward!" he cried, showing them the crucifix, "Victory is ours." The Turks were again defeated, and the honour of this double victory was attributed by the general and the entire army to Lorenzo.

Proverb of the Day

2008-07-21T10:24:00.000-04:00

A lie travels round the world while truth is putting her boots on.
-French Proverb

On the Papal Olympics

2008-07-16T15:28:00.011-04:00

Erin and I had the opportunity to attend a Wednesday audience with Pope Benedict XVI in Rome this past month. There is a special section for newlyweds during the audience. Erin and I were granted tickets to this special section for the Audience of June 18, 2008. If we were one of the first four couples to be seated at the audience, we would be introduced personally to the Holy Father and have the chance to shake his hand. This is our story.

Day 1 - Monday

Erin and I arrived in Rome on Monday afternoon, having flown out of Boston Sunday evening at about 6PM. It was hot. Our first order of business was getting Erin's dress and my tuxedo pressed so that they would be ready for the audience on Wednesday. Oh, yeah, that's an important point - if you want to meet the Holy Father you have to wear your "nuptial attire".

So once we got into the hotel we asked the guy at the front desk where to find a dry cleaners. He didn't speak very good English. Italy doesn't speak very good English. People who tell you that everyone in Europe speaks enough English to get by, they're wrong. We pantomimed someone ironing a shirt and he seemed to get it. He marked up a tourist map with a couple of locations and we were off.

The streets in Rome are windy, narrow, and paved with cobblestones. They were perfect for navigating with a large suitcase full of clothing. We went up and down the street the hotel guy had indicated three times; no laundromat. We went into a few more stores and repeated our pantomime performance. Oh, yeah, they knew where we could find what we were looking for. And, by the way, it's called a "tintoria" in Italian. Why that is, we never found out.

More searching, no tintoria. It turned out to be on a one-way street that we had already walked up and down twice. It was kind of like a half-storefront, with the simple sign "Tintoria" over the door. Guess what, they didn't speak English.

Actually, they spoke enough English to tell us that it would be 120 euro to iron our clothes for the next day. That's 180 USD - good business to be in. We tried to bargain, but I think they knew they had us by the blankety-blanks. We reluctantly agreed. How much is it worth to look good for the Pope?

Day 2 - Tuesday

We didn't have too much Audience-related work to do on Tuesday. We actually got to do a bit of sightseeing on this day. We went to the Tintoria extorsionists in the AM to pick up our clothes. In the afternoon we went to the North American College to pick up our tickets. The North American College is where American seminarians live while they are studying in Rome. They were helpful folks.

At the N.A. College we got the inside track on what we'd need to do to be one of the lucky couples that would be greeted by the Pope. "Be one of the first three or four couples," the nun coordinating the visits told us. "You'll have to be there about an hour before the gates open at 8:30." She also told us to bring water and sunblock, as the Roman sun could be very hot.

We got to bed early that night. Our goal was to get there for 7AM, meaning a wakeup call of 5:00 to get to St. Peter's Square on time.

Day 3 - Wednesday

We awoke at 5:00 and quickly showered and donned our nuptial attire. We were at the collonade outside of St. Peter's by 7:15. We hustled across the square (we had requested to be dropped off on the left collonade; we were dropped off by the right) and made it to the line. There were three couples in front of us - a good position, hopefully good enough for the front row.

We queued up behind the already forming line. We talked to some of the other couples in line, some of whom were eyeing our position enviously. Soon, other groups were arriving. One was a group of Philipino nuns who were absolutely adorable. They wanted to take pictures with us in our wedding clothes. A giant group of Central American women in native dress were also arriving. They were scary. They had their faces painted, and one particularly large woman with tatooed arms looked very much like Vincent Wilfork, the nosetackle for the New England Patriots.

A curious thing began to happen. We began to notice that people who had definitely arrived after us began to appear in front of us in line. We were witnessing the phenomenon of Italian queuing. Vincent Wilfork was suddenly directly in front of us in line, when he had arrived about an hour after us.

This technically wasn't a problem. We weren't competing with Vincent for seats, as there were special seats for the "sposi novelli", as we were called. But we also began to see other couples quietly edging their way through the crowd. It was on.

I told Erin to be ready to book it as soon as the gates were open. I had the luggage. She hiked up her (ample) skirts and made ready to bolt. "Don't be afraid to play the helpless bride," I advised.

The gates opened. The crush wasn't that bad, but bad enough considering who we were going to see. Erin and I made it through in reasonable time and headed for the Sposi Novelli section. We were still fourth. The front row of the section had eight total seats - enough for four couples. We looked good. But at the last minute an Italian-speaking bodyguard ushered us to the second row with no explanation, or at least none that we could understand. We sat down in the second row deflated, but still hopeful that we would be able to greet the Pope.

We still had about two hours before the audience actually began. We got to know some of the couples around us. One couple was from the Southwest. He was Texan, she was Mexican. They met online. Another couple was from Tennessee and were moving to Arlington, MA - small world.

It was hot. I mean Mediteranean hot. Yes, we brought sunscreen and water. But that wasn't enough. If not for the kindness of the couple from Texas/Mexico, who loaned us an umbrella, we would not have made it through the audience while maintaining consciousness. I drank about two and a half liters of water during the course of the audience and sweated it all back out - mmmm.

The audience went on for about an hour and a half. In the heat, it seemed longer. The Pope gave a talk in Italian and then greeted Italian pilgrims. Then French. Then English. Then German. I hoped he was done here. Then Spanish. Then Portuguese. Oh, my goodness. Then Polish.

I hate to say it, but I was in danger of losing my enthusiasm for the papal audience. It might have flashed through my mind once or twice that I might have rather been somewhere else just then, maybe in a swimming pool or deep freezer.

And all this time, Erin and I were not sure that we would actually get to greet the Pope. We had been very much hoping that we would meet the Pope, and that we would have a picture to memorialize the occasion. Since we were in the second row, it was possible that we would be able to worm our way to the front to shake his hand. But it was anything but certain.

So as the Pope was wrapping up his Polish greeting, security guards began to move through our seating area. They didn't speak English (like everyone else in Italy), and we weren't sure at first what they were doing. Then they pointed at us, and pointed to the third row and it was clear. It was the universal language of "you don't get to meet the Pope". Oh, well. But wait. A second security guard in a different uniform approached, looking at the first guy and speaking the international language of "you don't know what the hell you're doing, you idiot". He started speaking in Italian, because he was from Italy. It wasn't clear at first, but we quickly realized he was asking "who was second?".

We were second! That is, next in line. But hold on, three or four other couples were also claiming that they, too, were second. Some of them were claiming this very loudly and some of them were obviously not second, at all. In fact, I had noticed one of them elbowing their way into empty seats towards the front after being seated in the seventh or eighth row. Again, prospects seemed bleak. But a third security guard appeared, whose cause I have submitted for canonization. He spoke the international language of "Shut up you poseurs, Tony and Erin were second", and he pointed at us. Our victory was at hand.

We floated to a position at the end of the first row. The heat seemed to blow away on a cool breeze as we waited for the man in white to move down the line towards us.

It took a while. He was spending a lot of time with each person he greeted. Soon, though, he was only one person away. Then he was shaking my hand. I had thought of a few simple things to say, which I managed to blurt out in a confused manner. "We're so happy to be here, Holy Father. We're from Worcester, Massachusetts." He replied "Ah, Worcester". Someone told me later that "Ah, Albequerque" is the standard response in greeting lines. But at the time, I was convinced that Worcester would now have a special place in the Pope's heart. Erin was after me, and then that was it. The Pope moved on to the next line of pilgrims.

We were shuffled out of our section. I felt like a reporter could come up to me and say, "Now that you've made it to Rome and met the Pope, what are you going to do now?" To which I would say "I'm going to Disney World!" while pumping my fists. It was a huge rush. I'm not sure you're supposed to, but I felt victorious.

Of course, that wasn't all. I felt fortunate. I felt very fortunate, to have touched and seen the living symbol of unity for Catholics all over the world. I had met the Holy Father, my advocate and guide. And I had defeated all of those other losers who were trying to beat me to him.

For Erin and I, the day would continue to be a bit of an obstacle course. We went to DHL, Fed Ex, and the Italian Post Office trying to mail back her dress and my tux. We had to go back to the Vatican to get the photos of her and I shaking the Holy Father's hand. Then we had to catch a train to our next destination.

But after meeting Benedict XVI, everything was worth it. The trial of the Roman Sun, the Roman streets, and the Roman audience all seemed small in the light of what we had been given. We will carry that moment in our hearts and on our wall.

Hopefully some day Erin and I will meet the Holy Father in Heaven. And, hopefully, he'll look at me with recognition and say, "Hey, Worcester!".

Feast of St. Bonaventure, the Seraphic Doctor

2008-07-15T07:52:00.003-04:00

"But if you wish to know how such things come about, consult grace, not doctrine; desire, not understanding; the Bride, not the teacher; darkness, not clarity. Consult not light, but the fire."

-St. Bonaventure

On Europe

2008-07-11T16:01:00.004-04:00

My new wife and I just got back from our honeymoon in Europe Saturday. We had a great time. Our trip brought us to four major European cities: Rome, Paris, London, and Dublin with various stops along the way.

A recurring impression in the larger cities was the pervasive lack of local culture. A friend of mine referred to London as "New York with an accent". It is indicative, I think, that the most authentic and enjoyable meal that Erin and I enjoyed in London was Indian. It was delicious. In Rome, Paris, and London the people that served us food, drove our taxis, sold us tickets, and checked us into our hotels were from Eastern Europe, Africa, the Middle East, or Asia. Another memorable occurence, again in London, was getting off a subway and emerging into an outdoor market where Erin was the only woman for three blocks not wearing a veil.

It was ironic that the first English language paper I got a hold of on the trip, the International Herald Tribune, had an opinion piece on the popluation implosion in Western Europe and the Americas.

The import of this, for us, was that the trip was intended to be a cultural tour. We chose Rome, Paris, and London because they are the "capitals" of Western culture, so to speak. There's still a lot to see in these cities and they're still a must-see for a cultural tourist. But the "culture" is not local anymore. It's almost like a cultural theme-park, where you are guided around a museum of the cultural past. It had a Disney-like effect at times, with the cultural "attractions" curiously isolated from their context.

Ireland was the shining exception to this phenomenon. Actually, the Vatican is also an exception. As much as the Vatican is (and always has been) the domain of tourists and their predators, the Vatican is a breath of fresh air in so many ways. Perhaps because it is intended to be "universal" and hence not tied to any nation or people, it didn't seem culturally artificial in the way that other cities did. But it was also free, as in it didn't cost any money. The line for St. Peter's Basilica stretched across the piazza and the basilica itself was full of tourists, but I wonder if any of them realized that no one was asking them for money. There were voluntary contribution boxes all around the basilica, none of which had very long lines for access.

I'm loathe to say that the pictures, to date, remain on the memory card of our camera.

Oh, by the way, we met the Pope. Erin and I both shook hands with him. I brought him greetings from the Diocese of Worcester. I decided that we wouldn't post that picture online. If you want to see it, come to our house. I don't want it isolated from its cultural context.

By every measure, the trip was a success. But I don't know where to tell people to go who want to see the cultural center of the world. It's probably Facebook, or something. It is disconcerting, however, for a devotee of Western culture to find it without a home. I imagine it's kind of like a Cub's fan visiting Chicago and finding that they've turned Wrigley Field into a soccer stadium. He's probably still a Cub's fan, but he's probably left with a curious sense of isolation. That was me in Europe.

I don't plan on learning to like soccer.

Whew, it's been a long month

2008-07-11T15:11:00.003-04:00

I'm back. It's been a long, and very good, month. Erin and I were married on 6/14, departed for our honeymoon on 6/15, travelled Europe, returned 7/5, and have been moving her into our home since then.

Things that have been on my mind:

Shifting cultural sands in Europe, witnessed firsthand by yours truly,
The complexity of historical tourism,
Recent divisions in the Anglican Church,
and Married life in general.

I would love to start writing soon, and I will.

France

2008-06-24T17:32:00.004-04:00

Erin and I arrived in Paris on Saturday morning. We flew bargain airline Ryanair, which was like no other airline I have ever travelled. Suffice to say that the seats did not recline and every square inch of the plane was plastered with advertisements for cheap flights. Flight attendants asked if you wanted a beverage, and if you stopped to consider, they were already on to the next person. It was interesting, in a not terribly pleasing way to fly.

France has been great. We've been to the Louvre and to Versailles. The Louvre is humongous, and it is crammed with people. Erin and I went to the section with the Mona Lisa, which was filled with loud tourists on their way to see the famed DaVinci masterpiece. Once there, the most popular thing to do was apparently have your picture taken with the Mona Lisa in the background. The crowd was about eight to ten persons thick in every direction around the picture. Erin and I just peeked to say that we saw it and moved on. We found the least populated portion of the Louvre and spent the rest of the afternoon there.

We've both been able to read a ton of books. I read a good history of London, a history of England by Chesterton, and I'm currently in the midst of Brideshead Revisited by Waugh. I highly recommend Brideshead for travel reading.

Tomorrow we're going to take it easy and see some more sights in Paris. It's tough to upload pictures, though. I'm sure it would make the post more interesting.

Looking forward to seeing you all. Best.

Europe Post

2008-06-23T05:58:00.002-04:00

6.15 Departed.
6.16 Arrived in Rome, had to learn how to say "dry cleaner" in Italian; apparently it's Tintoria. Got Erin's dress pressed for Papal Audience.
6.17 St. Peter's.
6.18 Met the Pope. Shook his hand. Said "hey" for everyone in Worcester. Pictures to follow.
6.19 Ostia. The beach.
6.20 Ostia Antica. Ruins.
6.21 Paris.
6.22 Mass at Notre Dame. Tour of the city.
6.23 Off to the Louvre.

Sorry I haven't been posting as much as I would like. Internet access (and time) is limited. The trip is going great. Travel has been smooth, and the weather perfect.

Thanks to all of you who helped us celebrate the wedding. It was a great time.

Thinking of you all.

On Getting Married

2008-06-10T09:11:00.002-04:00

Did I mention that I'm getting married in a few days?

I apologize, it is directly effecting my ability to post. The good news, Dear Reader, is that by this time next week my wife and I will be on an exciting honeymoon tour of Europe. With her permission, I will be posting news and photos at every opportunity.

In the meantime, your prayers for our wedding and our guests would be greatly appreciated.

On Wise Blood

2008-06-02T07:25:00.002-04:00

I recently finished Flannery O’Connor’s Wise Blood. It was very good, if not excellent. It is one of two books that I have read in my life that read like a papal encyclicals. The other is The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky. By reading like an encyclical, I mean that they communicate theological ideas as effectively and as profoundly as any Church document.

Wise Blood is the tale of a young man, Hazel Motes by name, of Christian upbringing recently released from the Army. Hazel wants to find freedom, and doesn’t want anything to do with Christ. He begins The Church Without Christ to help others (or maybe just himself) stay far away from Him.

There is a great passage towards the beginning of the book, when Hazel is taking a cab to a woman’s house after seeing her address on a bathroom wall. The cab driver thinks he looks like a preacher, and tries to let him know that this woman doesn’t have much to do with preachers. Hazel tries to explain that he is not a preacher. The cabbie says he’s not sure, but there’s something about Hazel that looks like a preacher. Hazel Motes makes it absolutely clear that he doesn’t believe in anything at all. The cabbie then replies that that’s what’s wrong with preachers these days, that they don’t believe in anything.

The book is an interesting reflection on the idea that the worst things are good things that have been corrupted. Hazel Motes is supposed to be a preacher, and his attempted rejection of Christ leads him to some despicable behavior. But, like most of us, he just can’t get away.

I highly recommend Flannery O’Connor’s Wise Blood.

On Whole Persons

2008-05-30T15:41:00.003-04:00

Most people would agree that theres a problem with men today. I recently saw a statistic that said that more children are being born out of wedlock in the U.K. than are being born to married couples. I havent heard specific numbers for the U.S., but I wouldnt doubt that we are far behind.

I dont think that people ask unwed mothers for their opinions often enough, but if they did I think they would be nearly unanimous in saying that it is very hard to raise children alone. As much as it is possible for these mothers to give their children what is required, these children are certainly missing out in not having a happy, secure, and peaceful home. Not to mention the psychological damage to both boys and girls that comes from the feeling of abandonment by a male father figure.

So what is the solution to our man problem? How do we make men step up and take responsibility for families? Or, perhaps we should ask why dont men want to stay with one woman?

Is anyone really wondering?

The other day I saw a makeup advertisement that prominently featured a womans cleavage. It certainly provoked the reaction that was intended. But I wondered to myself, looking at this picture, if the woman to whom the cleavage belonged had one man that was completely her own. She probably had the partial attention of many thousands of men, but did she have one completely?

Our culture has taught a strange arithmetic to both men and women. It is the one that says a thousand partialities are better than one whole. This is often the case with dollars, or shares of stock, or cookies, but not with persons. Men prefer thousands of virtual women to a single real one. Women, who are harder to fool, are taught that it is safer to attract many men than to be reserved for just one. Women are captured by their pragmatism, men by their appetite.
Persons are of infinite value. You cant take a fraction of infinity. When you try to steal a little bit, you always end up losing. Just ask those single moms.