Signposts for uncertain times.

I've been thinking--if obviously not writing--a lot lately about the future of Catholicism in America and what role we as Catholics can play during these times. With an overweening Caesar (oh, hai, NSA!) walking in tandem with atomistic individualism (the latter deluding himself that he's striking blows for freedom against Caesar, never noticing how the latter grows ever larger), we are in for a rough ride.

Being a lawyer and a history nerd, I naturally starting casting about for precedents, starting with the Catholic experience in America. It was at that point that it hit me, and I hung my head in shame: I know precisely bupkis about the American Catholic experience. Oh, sure--the Saints come to mind: Elizabeth Ann Seton, John Neumann, Katharine Drexel, saint material like local icon Solanus Casey...then it peters out. Sure, the Irish Potato Famine, and the K of C also leap to mind, partially formed, as emblems of the American Catholic experience. But...as a coherent whole, I'm embarrassingly at sea.

But wouldn't they have examples for dealing with a hostile and uncomprehending fellow citizenry? I knew enough, however vague, that it was far from a love feast when mackerel snappers arrived on these shores. But it was--and still is--vague.

I'm also acutely aware that current political debates between American Catholics have an embarrassingly short-sighted ring to them, largely agreeing that the world began in 1965, privileging continental European models as objects of discussion, and sounding as a whole disconnected--"Americanism!" "The Founders were Deists!" "Encyclical X/European Catholic philosopher Y settles your CINO hash!" Extremely unsatisfying-to-offputting, and sometimes with a flavor of bad scholasticism mixed with stale casuistry, all larded with a sense of detachment.

Aren't there faithful American examples to call on? Writers who spoke forcefully and clearly to the American experience without sounding like they just cleared customs on a flight from the Continent, here to deal with the half-barbarians?

Well, yes there is and are. As is my wont, I started digging through books (older, mostly, as they are divorced from the current toxic partisan environment) and am happy to offer them up.

Being a convert myself, I stumbled across In No Strange Land: Some American Catholic Converts, by fellow Methodist convert Katherine Burton. Focusing on 19th Century converts, I had heard of precisely two of the persons memorialized in this fine anthology: Orestes Brownson, and Fr. Isaac Hecker. None of the rest, and that's a shame. You'd have thought that the first Protestant bishop to convert to Catholicism since the Protestant Reformation would be worthy of note, but I'd never heard of Levi Silliman Ives. Nor any of the rest. But there is a fascinating common thread: they all converted to a faith that was regarded as an alien, irrational intruder, little more than an Italian mission in the New World catering to immigrants. And they had to deal with the hostility of their family and friends, along with clerics who were often none too deft, uncomprehending or unable to offer more than moral support--the Church was a poor institution Stateside. Still, they persevered and offer examples on how to persevere, with Ives being an icon of charity and humility, gladly working part-time jobs after losing his episcopate. It is definitely worth your time, and is available from reprint houses.

Philosopher Orestes Brownson towers over the 19th Century American Church, but if there was any justice, he'd tower over Emerson and Thoreau, having been a fellow Transcendentalist but a far more incisive writer and philosopher. If you want to talk productively about American politics from a Catholic perspective, get this post-haste: The American Republic: Its Constitution, Tendencies and Destiny. Insightful and incisive, Brownson speaks to the American experience (through the end of the Civil War) as a patriotic Catholic son, albeit one not shy about offering fair criticism. It's a salutary tonic for what ails Catholic political punditry in America.

But wait, there's more: Bradley Birzer's biography of the Catholic founder Charles Carroll, entitled American Cicero. Birzer deftly explains how the devoutly Catholic Carroll had no difficulties participating in what too many of my contemporary brethren deride as a misbegotten deist enterprise. Carroll's discomforts with the excesses of mass democracy are also explored, and appear prophetic. It's worth reading as a snapshot of the dismal state Catholics in Maryland had been reduced to by the eve of the Revolution, but fortunately Birzer has much more to offer.

Finally, the Rev. John Cronin's Catholic Social Principles, despite being more than 60 years old, still has a lot to offer discussion of American economic issues. If for nothing else, the extensive bibliography is a goldmine. But what is especially helpful about Father Cronin is that he takes care to faithfully explain Catholic social teaching in a way that is sensitive to how it will be heard by Americans--to ensure that it will be heard, and not waved away. It's a difficult balance, and one too often blown today by glib partisans given to slogans like "the Church condemns capitalism and communism/statism equally!" Well, no.

Anyway, that's the start, with more to come as I try to set my intellectual house in something resembling order.

After trying to sever my finger the day after my birthday...

...I've found it awkward to type.

You see, it's my left middle finger (a/k/a "the auxilliary talking finger," "I-think-you're-#1-and-I-really-want-you-to-see-it finger," "the tall finger of fellowship"). What letter does that finger access most often?

The "E."

Oy.

So, yeah, typing.

I had something of a mishap with my electric hedge trimmers, he says with English understatement. Fortunately, I still have the entire digit, but it's broken and has 2-4 more weeks before it heals entirely. More fortunately, none of my children saw it happen, nor did they see me bleed like a killing floor. I remained fairly stoic, or at least did so in my mind. It could have been much, much worse.

Before that, I had the Annual Kids Activities Schedule Blitz, which turns May into a disorienting swirl of travel, recrimination and shared misery. So, of course, we'll do the same thing next year. But that puts the kibosh on writing and pontificating (but I repeat myself).

Heather's fine, the kids are fine (even if Kamikaze Louis is shaving hours off my lifespan every day), and even my 10% pay cut (speaking of "shared misery") hasn't been as gruesome as feared.

Not sure what I can promise, posting-wise, but at least I'm still alive-ish and largely unmaimed, which allows for the possibility. Random short reviews from the library has a certain manageable appeal.

Notes toward a diagnosis of our times.

"'What happens next?'

We shattered the family and called it 'liberation.' We elected grifters and called it 'self-government.' We pillaged the future and called it 'prosperity.' We lionized theft and called it 'commerce.' We scorned our heritage and called it 'education.' We disposed of the helpless and called it 'freedom.' We laughed at virtue and called it 'enlightenment.'

You really want to know 'what happens next?'

That's easy: what we deserve."

The Narrative Patrol.

Media row at the Kermit Gosnell patient and infant murder trial.

There is no area of American politics in which the press is more activist or biased or unethical than social issues, the so-called culture wars. And the culture of permissive abortion they favor has consequences, which they would rather not look squarely at, thank you very much.

[Quote from here.]
Here's some unsolicited advice for social conservatives: never, ever speak to large-circulation newspapers or television networks.

Why not? Because they our enemy, that's why. They have concocted a narrative of breath-taking mendacity regarding us: we're authoritarian haters, patriarchal tyrants straight from the pages of The Handmaid's Tale, and/or killers of "providers of women's health services." Period. Stock villains, to be quoted briefly, if at all, and subject to well-poisoning adjectives like "strident," or "militant," or "inflexible." And if there is a story that indicates social conservative arguments have merit, or threatens to move the ball in that direction--it gets downplayed or embargoed.

This will never end--they will never quit doing this--until the entire edifice of fraud goes bankrupt.

Exhibit A: the news embargo on the hellish millionaire abortionist Kermit Gosnell, alleged murderer of a 41 year old Asian immigrant, Karnamaya Mongar, and seven infants. One of the local reporters, someone who takes his profession seriously, says simply:

Sat through a full day of testimony at the Kermitt Gosnell trial today. It is beyond the most morbid Hollywood horror. It will change you.

The usually-wobbly Conor Friedersdorf nails it:

Inducing live births and subsequently severing the heads of the babies is indeed a horrific story that merits significant attention. Strange as it seems to say it, however, that understates the case.

For this isn't solely a story about babies having their heads severed, though it is that. It is also a story about a place where, according to the grand jury, women were sent to give birth into toilets; where a doctor casually spread gonorrhea and chlamydiae to unsuspecting women through the reuse of cheap, disposable instruments; an office where a 15-year-old administered anesthesia; an office where former workers admit to playing games when giving patients powerful narcotics; an office where white women were attended to by a doctor and black women were pawned off on clueless untrained staffers. Any single one of those things would itself make for a blockbuster news story. Is it even conceivable that an optometrist who attended to his white patients in a clean office while an intern took care of the black patients in a filthy room wouldn't make national headlines? 

But it isn't even solely a story of a rogue clinic that's awful in all sorts of sensational ways either. Multiple local and state agencies are implicated in an oversight failure that is epic in proportions! If I were a city editor for any Philadelphia newspaper the grand jury report would suggest a dozen major investigative projects I could undertake if I had the staff to support them. And I probably wouldn't have the staff. But there is so much fodder for additional reporting.

There is, finally, the fact that abortion, one of the most hotly contested, polarizing debates in the country, is at the center of this case. It arguably informs the abortion debate in any number of ways, and has numerous plausible implications for abortion policy, including the oversight and regulation of clinics, the appropriateness of late-term abortions, the penalties for failing to report abuses, the statute of limitations for killings like those with which Gosnell is charged, whether staff should be legally culpable for the bad behavior of doctors under whom they work...

There's even a Nuremburg Defense angle that would lead to discussion, too. Instead, crickets. And they aren't even trying too hard to excuse their decision to embargo the story: that's a Philly crime story, says WaPo reporter Sarah Kliff, and we don't do non-DC local crime stories. Local editor and polemicist Brian Dickerson of the Detroit Free Press sneers similarly.

Which sounds reasonable--except for the part where it's total bullshit. Trayvon Martin, Casey Anthony--and in Dickerson's case, the Kansas murder of abortionist George Tiller--all got plenty of column inches, despite not exactly being in the geographic wheel well of either paper. Here, squat.

Basically, what Dickerson and Kliff are doing is making sure horrifying facts about beliefs they hold dear--e.g., the necessity of permissive abortion laws--do not become widely known. Because if the facts did become well-known, people might start drawing the wrong conclusions, and start asking questions about those deeply-held beliefs. And maybe even asking for changes and restrictions.

And they can't have that.

Good Friday.

The Archiving of Benedict.

Or, a defense of Pope Benedict XVI.

Be warned--I'm having a bad Lent. This post will display some of that.

I have passed my breaking point with the derogatory comparisons of Pope Francis with Pope Benedict. Even those that aren't intended as derogatory can be, by omission. "Pope Francis is so humble! He cares so much for the poor! He's celebrating Mass at a youth prison!" etc.

Fine. You know what? So did Benedict. All of them. How quickly we forget--or never bothered to notice in the first place. I understand the joy of a new pontiff, and trying to get to know someone who wasn't on any of our radars a month ago. I get that. But--if we don't modulate our reactions, we are, however unknowingly, feeding into a nasty narrative that seeks to pit the new Pope against the Emeritus.

And for some Catholics, the nasty motivation is clear. Behold this stink-bomblet, snarking at ermine and ring-kissing. Something tells me she snaps to in the courtroom (hint--she'd better). But the Pope can't throw her in jail, so she discerns that Christ wanted no earthly signs of respect apart from "How ya doin', Yer Popeship?"

"Anonymous commenters with garbled memories of catechism and glitter aren't representative," you might say. Fine.

How about ordained clerics? Consider this example from one of Roger "RICO" Mahony's (the disgraced Cardinal's own tweets merit no further discussion) ordinands, Deacon Eric Stoltz (no, not the guy from Pulp Fiction).

It was posted as a compare and contrast rebuke, obviously. More humility, less attention toward the cleric. Jay Anderson took a righteous swing at this bit of posturing on Facebook, and smacked it soundly.

While we're at it, Reverend: before leading the Humility Brigades into spiritual battle, you might want to tone down the number of references to yourself on the Saint Brendan's website . On the first page, there's a note that the website was designed by...Eric Stoltz! With a link to www.ericstoltz.com!

But wait--there's more! On the "Presider/Preacher [sic] Schedule page, there's a link to "Deacon Eric's Homilies"! Where you can e-mail Deacon Eric! And there's an "About The Deacon" Page (sorry, under construction)!

Do not despair, however: you can hop on over to the Photo Albums page and...eureka! A photo album dedicated to Deacon Eric's ordination nearly nine years ago--and it's the one with the largest number of files! Ah, that I must decrease and Him increase....

Irony: it's a mean bastard sometimes.

Moving on to less tempting targets...

 Unfortunately, I have to call a foul on First Things for this line:

What seems to be on the heart of Pope Francis—the Vicar of Christ and the pastor of the universal Church on earth—is a desire to move out from under a stifling, dull, and technical rubricism toward the Paschal light of Christ’s redemptive charitable love.

No. No. No. Ten thousand times, no. This is slander. Period. It may be inadvertent, but it is slander nonetheless. It indicates that the writer had no idea of what Benedict was saying or doing with the office of Pope and with the liturgy during his pontificate.

Look, Pope John Paul II was a unique, outsized figure in the history of the Papacy. He had a stage actor's ability to magnify his reach and effect. The odds of his successor replicating that charismatic effect were zero. So Benedict didn't try. Instead, he let the office speak more loudly through historical and liturgical symbolism than he ever could as a stage presence. If the previous papacy was Pope John Paul II, his successor was Pope Benedict XVI. As Amy Welborn brilliantly pointed out, it wasn't because Benedict was a vain monarchical clotheshorse, it was because he was a teacher in an office that was bigger than he was, and he was pointing to a profound historical reality embodied in the Papacy. Likewise, in the liturgy, rubrics were emphasized because it wasn't about the priest--even if he happened to be a Pope--but because the rubrics point to a greater, supernatural reality which is dependent upon God.

So, please, stop pitting RIGHT NOW against LAST MONTH, and engaging in what strongly hints at a washing of one's hands of the previous pontificate. The Body of Christ deserves better.

Yeah, I noticed.

We have a new Pope. Welcome, Pope Francis! Ad multos annos!

But beyond that, my thoughts are still in mid-mull. Some random thoughts, though:

I understand the panic fire from places like Rorate Caeli, but can't condone it. As I mentioned years ago, I wander the borderlands between "conservative" Catholicism and the "traditionalist" variant, or as I like to think of it: "The Great Feud Between The Clans."

My children attend the burgeoning Assumption Grotto homeschooling co-op every week, and my middle daughter received first communion there. They are learning Latin, and Rachel can recite the Glory Be and the Hail Mary flawlessly in the mother tongue of the Church. They like learning from Fathers Perrone and Bustamante, and we haven't managed to offend the hell out of everyone, which is a sign of Providence.

I'm not "there" in traditionalist Catholicism, and may never get there. I understand the centrality of traditionalist concerns regarding liturgy, catechesis, architecture, sacramentalism and the like. I even share it for the most part. But the ready FIRE! aim... mindset wears. Heavily, in fact. It's usually the product of bitter experience at the hands of the loonies unchained by the Second Vatican Council--I get that, and have experienced it myself. But not everyone wearing the tartan the wrong way is some Bolshevik looking to get his Constantine V on. [The capital A Asshole at Assumption Grotto who gave my mother grief for soft talking before Mass when I wasn't present, please take note.] Thus, while I think it is legitimate to wonder about why Buenos Aires couldn't support a TLM under SP if then Abp. Bergoglio was really in favor of it, such does not authorize the shrieky, hysterical meltdown at Rorate Caeli. The man appears on the balcony and people are sounding the alarm klaxons--or worse. That's not productive. In fact, it's more reminiscent of something I'd expect to see from the progressives.

Likewise, conservative Catholics need to quell the tendency towards a Papal-centric reading of all things Catholic. Which is not to be read as some silly National Catholic Reporter-ish I'm-so-wonderfully-well-educated-why-won't-the-Pope-admit-my-middle-class-or-better-progressive-white-American-concerns-are-correct-and-universal? crappola.

But...no Pope is Tradition. He is always and ever its custodian, expounder and occasional definer. But he's not an oracle. If he downplays or seemingly ignores a legitimate part of the collective patrimony, that is worth mentioning, and--yes--charitably questioning.

Thus, let's not forget all that Benedict did, symbolically as well as in writing, simply because we're gaga for the new guy. We can't be a Church of novelty, and the Papacy is bigger than its current occupant. It has to be.

More thoughts later as the mulling continues.

In 1989, during my lapsed-Methodist days, I was turned away from a tour of the Cologne Cathedral because I was wearing khaki shorts.

I changed into long pants, returned, and enjoyed the tour.

Get. Over. Your. Self.

Note the seemless segue from Sally's terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day at the Vatican into pom-pon shaking for Garry Wills' shrieky arguments against the priesthood and sacraments.

What a twit.

Yes, both of them.

America, the Kingdom of Pathological Narcissists.

[Hat tip to Chris for the find.]

Rotavirus--yay.

Tommy enjoyed an encounter with this on Saturday, and decided to share it with Louis and Elizabeth.

Dad's French-Army-In-1940 immune system decided to join in the Fun!™ yesterday. Whee.

How I knew I was sick: they wanted to watch the Bubble Guppies, and I had no objection.

We're getting better, but yeesh. I'll say this--Louis is tougher than a box of roofing nails. He had it the worst, and griped not at all. Amazing kid.

To be fair...

After slagging the editors of America, it behooves me to offer praise where warranted. It is certainly warranted for this blog post about the remarkably nasty (and I know nasty) Garry Wills comments on The Colbert Report.

Read it all.

As an aside, it's important to note that Wills is reflexively unpleasant to people who don't share his views.

That their grief may not be compounded.

At long last, the editors of America endorse a constitutional buttress to the culture of life.

Supporting the Human Life Amendment? Surely you jest. Politics is strictly about the art of the possible when it comes to abortion.

No, no--one must be realistic about such things.

Instead, we need to repeal the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

The reason: something must be done so that urban, left-leaning Jesuits can feel better about themselves:

The disturbing feeling that we have failed to do everything in our power to remove the material cause of their deaths, however, will no longer compound our grief.

For some reason, there are exceptions:

This does not require an absolute ban on firearms. In the post-repeal world that we envision, some people will possess guns: hunters and sportsmen, law enforcement officers, the military, those who require firearms for morally reasonable purposes.

As an aside, please, please, I beg you: stop pretending you give a rat's fanny about hunting. Deep down, we know you hate it, but somehow you feel compelled to offer insincere boilerplate respect. You can stop now. Besides, hunting firearms are more devastating than ones that make you queasy. Just flop your cards on the table and admit you don't approve of any significant private ownership of firearms. Dialogue requires openness, don't you know?

Anyway, there's a yawning logical inconsistency here: why should an off-duty approved firearm owner be allowed to keep it when he is off the clock? At the end of the day, such individuals should turn them in to a secure area until they punch back in. Even soldiers aren't toting weapons around all the time outside of combat zones. As the editors note, original sin (!) ensures bad things will happen, and cops are quite capable of misusing firearms, as we have been recently reminded. Thus, in Americaworld, there is no reason anyone to own a firearm off duty.

Go after violent media? Nah. That's Legion of Decency, Catholic-ghetto stuff. Shudder.

Revisit our oft-idiotic drug war? Piffle. Nope.

What it boils down to is that nobody at America owns a firearm or likes anyone who owns one. In policymaking, this is known as the It's Time We All Start Making Sacrifices, Starting With You, Of Course! manuever.

Did it ever occur to them to, you know, actually talk to an actual gun owner before promulgating this un-papal bull? Apparently not. Dialogue's only for people the Catholic left respect, I guess.

Nope--it's time to tear an Amendment out of the Constitution and unchain Caesar to kick doors in to remove unapproved firearms from our midst. If you like the drug war, you'll plotz over the gun war.

However, to be fair, there is a moral upside to the proposal: should, in this post-Second Amendment dream world of the America editorial board, your family or friends be harmed by a criminal who could have been stopped by a firearm, at least the editors' grief will not be compounded by the knowledge that unapproved citizens owned guns. That’s a comforting thought for hospital visits and/or the funeral Mass, don't you think?