Historical Cleansing.

Reminders of Jahiliyyah can be quite stressing to the hothouse flowers of jihad.

Tom McDonald directs our attention the newest outburst of piety, the destruction of priceless Assyrian artifacts in newly-ruined Syria.

Of course, the phenomenon is also imposed on the holy places and objects of other "Abrahamic" religions, too. Like the Aya Sofia church in Trabzon (formerly Trebizond) Turkey. There's a court battle over this one, with an initial injunction, but the Age of Erdogan means that this is likely to be a temporary speed-bump.

"America's Colleges and Universities: Where Our Future Leaders Take Hideously-Expensive Vacations from Reality, Common Sense and Adult Responsibility."

University's "weapons policy" bars fencing club from campus: 

[North Dakota State University's] Police and Safety Office Director Ray Boyer cited the school's policy manual and Code of Student Behavior, saying sabers and swords are prohibited on campus:

"They are deemed weapons, and as such, possession or use on University owned or controlled property is prohibited," he says.

Club members who are trained to properly use the equipment say they don't think an epee is much worse than a baseball bat. "In fact, I think it's less dangerous. If you look up like statistics, fencing is an incredibly safe sport," says the club's President Winfield Brand.

Glenn Reynolds puts the culture of academic idiocy into a handy nutshell:

 As Twitter wag IowaHawk japes: "If I understand college administrators correctly, colleges are hotbeds of racism and rape that everyone should be able to attend."

That sums it up pretty well. Though the claim that one in five women on campus is sexually assaulted is pretty clearly bogus — as Bloomberg's Megan McArdle notes, it includes things like sexual touching over clothes, which hardly constitute rape — it's widely repeated, and that surely makes young women a bit less enthusiastic about attending. Then all the responses — involving, basically, kangaroo courts that strip male students charged with sexual assault of all due process protection — don't make campuses more appealing to male students, who are already an under-represented minority on most campuses.

Then there's the race hysteria. Just last week, students at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota canceled a "Hump Day" celebration featuring a camel because someone thought the camel signified racism against Muslims. (Yes, Muslims aren't a race, but that doesn't matter, apparently.) We make fun of Victorians for substituting the term "limbs" for the too-racy word "legs," and for supposedly covering table legs with cloth, but our own era is prone to similar over-delicacy, and campuses — supposedly centers of critical thought — seem to be the worst offenders.

Dartmouth cancelled a charitable fund-raising "fiesta" because one student complained that the word "fiesta" was racist. And going beyond race, commencement speakers, ranging from Condi Rice at Rutgers to Christine LaGarde at Smith, have been turned away by rabid student protests, mocked here by Yale Law's Stephen Carter.

From the economics to the politics, colleges and universities are looking less like serious places to improve one's mind and one's prospects, and more like expensive islands of frivolity and, sometimes, viciousness. And that is likely to have consequences.

Can you say "bursting bubble"? 

I knew you could!

Well, maybe not after four years of college, but you get my drift.

The Clericalist Mindset.

My favorite Cardinal has it. And he just revealed it today in imitation of the Hagan Lio style of his boss:

"That’s a real problem. I’ve spoken to the pope himself about this, and he said he believes that 50 percent of marriages are not valid. Marriage is a sacrament. A sacrament presupposes faith."

Leaving aside the ridiculous imprudence of Kasper revealing such, there's another serious problem. Namely, that statement is wholly, purely clericalist. Yet neither Commonweal's interviewer nor "Best-educated laity ever!™" commenters even noticed it.

How so? 

"Oh, so it's only the sacrament confected by the *laity* that's invalid half the time--but you *clerics* nail it every single time? How happy for *you*!"

Really. I mean, if we're going to indict the laity for defective sacramental intention, then we'd better worry about the clerics that the same frivolous, dork laity have produced, right? They didn't emerge from some pristine dimension unsullied by the culture, correct? If you're not willing to consider such, then why not? That's one of the places that unfortunate assumption leads. 

Yet another problem with this mindset is that it's an assault on natural marriage, as commenter Danielius points out below:

Hilarious. There goes the tradition that natural marriages are real marriages. Then what about amending the Canon Law, to make some additional rules about entering a marriage? Because if indeed 50% are not valid then how is that not a mockery of the Holy Matrimony to allow this to continue? Oh well, that would be unmerciful, wouldn't it? So instead, lets delegate the power of annulling marriages to the same priests that didn't bother to check if all is in order in the first place. That will work.

The last is crucial: nowhere in Kasper's meanderings is there a hint of clerical negligence in the marriage crisis. If you genuinely believe half of marriages are invalid, that should prompt serious soul-searching on your part, a mea culpa and admission of gruesome failure. But, nope. Vague waving at "bureaucratic" presentations, and that's it. 

Again, how convenient.

No. Half of marriages being null also suggests that this is not exactly the golden age of the church we're told it is, nor is all remotely well. A 50% failure rate is only spectacular in the batting box. And a true church of mercy shouldn't be so sanguine with souls.

Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. At least it shouldn't.

Just a reminder: Make sure to check the batteries on your smoke detectors at least once a year.

On a related note, two Church-y items:

Item No. 1.

The Walter Kasper Victory Tour is in full swing, touching down in New York yesterday for some riotous fun, starting with hot new cuts from his latest opus, Jesus, What's With All These Rules?:

First, he undercuts his German confrere in the CDF:

“If you have a problem with the leadership of the women’s orders, then you have to have a discussion with them, you have to dialogue with them, an exchange of ideas,” he said. “Perhaps they have to change something. Perhaps also the Congregation (for the Doctrine of the Faith) has a little bit to change its mind. That’s the normal way of doing things in the church. I am for dialogue. Dialogue presupposes different positions. The church is not a monolithic unity.”

Second, he compares Elizabeth Johnson to the Angelic Doctor (ISYN):

Asked about Johnson and another feminist theologian, Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, whose views have also been disputed by the hierarchy, Kasper said that he has known them both for years and added: “I esteem them both.”

Kasper — often a sparring partner with his fellow German theologian, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who later became Benedict XVI — said that critiques are part of academic discourse but said that the CDF sometimes “sees some things a little bit narrower.”

He said that the criticism of Johnson “is not a tragedy and we will overcome,” and he noted that St. Thomas Aquinas, the medieval theologian now considered one of the greatest minds in the church, was condemned by his bishop and lived under a shadow for years.

“So she is in good company!” Kasper said of Johnson.

Esteem for Dr. Schussler-Fiorenza's work is also...fascinating...because of the, how shall I say it...ah, yes: the WTF Factor.

But don't worry--as he correctly notes, he has the Pope's Seal of Approval:

In many ways, Kasper may better reflect Francis’ outlook than the crackdown on U.S. nuns launched by the Vatican’s doctrinal office. Just as Francis has downplayed the focus on rule-following and hot-button issues in an effort to widen the church’s appeal, Kasper has pushed the importance of pastoral flexibility and realism in walking with Catholics throughout their imperfect lives.

Kasper is in the U.S. to discuss his book, “Mercy: The Essence of the Gospel and the Key to Christian Life.” It includes a blurb from Pope Francis, who has made mercy a cornerstone of his ministry since he was elected last year.

On Monday, Kasper told the audience that after Francis praised him by name just days after his election, “an old cardinal came to him and said, ‘Holy Father, you cannot do this! There are heresies in this book!’ ”

As Francis recounted the story to Kasper, he said, the pope smiled and added: “This enters in one ear and goes out the other."

Oh, and the Cardinal may have just done the following to Humanae Vitae:





Item No. 2.

Or: Jesus, What's With All These Rules? Vol. II.

The guy the Pope appointed to be Secretary General for the Synod on the Family is stoked for some big changes:

In an exclusive interview with the Christian weekly magazine Tertio which appears this Wednesday, Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops, says it is time to update church marriage doctrine, for example in connection with divorce, the situation of divorcees and people who are in civil partnerships.

"The Church is not timeless, she lives amidst the vicissitudes of history and the Gospel must be known and experienced by people today," says Baldisseri.

"It is in the present that the message should be, with all respect for the integrity from whom the message has been received. We now have two synods to treat this complex theme of the family and I believe that these dynamics in two movements will allow a more adequate response to the expectations of the people", says the Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops.

Which should be a surprise to precisely no one, as he loudly hinted at this last year. Timeless Church? Nah. It's the Church of What's Happening Now, and we have to take our cues from the zeitgeist. 

Eh. It's probably OK.

Cheering for the jersey.

Michael Brendan Dougherty launches one into the cheap seats today, weaving together with considerably more verve and skill themes I've taken at a scattershot level. Before you dismiss him as a hater (as about 50% of his commenters have), note the respectful tone and careful framing of the issues (emph. added):

Pope Francis has a funny way of naming and shaming certain tendencies in the church, using insults that are inventive, apposite, and confounding. His ear is finely tuned for the way the Catholic faith can be distorted by ideology. And I'd like to imitate his example when I say this: Most Catholics are completely unprepared for a wicked pope. And they may not be prepared for Pope Francis either. They are more loyal to an imagined Catholic party than to the Catholic faith or the church....


The near omnipresence that the modern papacy achieves through media makes me worry that the institution of the papacy would have already hit upon a grave crisis if it weren't for the unusual theological ability of Joseph Ratzinger, first as cardinal and later as Pope Benedict XVI, acting as a ballast. Modern media, especially the modern Catholic media, has brought the pope into our homes, across the radio, in television, and into our niche media world. He's in the browser of many Catholics every day. And conservative Catholic media relies heavily on the inflated imaginative role of the papacy, just like British tabloids rely on the royals. The pageantry, mystery, and fame attached to the office are a great way of selling magazines, getting clicks, or raising funds. He is the worldwide celebrity that represents "us." He's the reason the Faith gets talked about by others. 

When you add to this the fact that the cultural formation of most engaged Catholics is primarily the ideological combat of political and cultural factions, they tend to treat the pope as their "party leader," and to treat "the world" as an opposing party.

Dougherty also notes that the rhetorical "defensive crouch" is a real problem, given the facts on the ground:

The Catholic Party eclipsing the Catholic Church has a distorting effect on the world's perception too. If the loudest and most prominent orthodox members of the church in the media treat the pope like a party leader and are so quick with clever-dick rationalizations of the massive changes to the practice of the Faith over the past 50 years, why should they be surprised that the world conceives of the doctrines and dogmas of the Faith as mere party planks or mutable policy, to be exchanged, updated, or abandoned as the times change?

And why should they be surprised that even their co-religionists fail to understand the Faith? In truth, the most salient fact of contemporary Catholic life in the West is the way it is pervaded by the pattern of saying things and then acting as if something else were true.

Catholic parishes teach their catechumens that people must be absolved from their mortal sins in sacramental confession before presenting themselves for Holy Communion, yet priests serve communion to packed churches just hours after tiny lines for confession. They say one thing, but act another way. Catholics teach that the Holy Eucharist becomes the body and blood of their Lord, yet the ad-hoc nature of their revised liturgy, the disappearance of genuflection as a Catholic gesture (it's now Tebowing!), and the behavior of priests and extraordinary ministers says that we are as unmoved by consecrated host as Pentecostals.

That about stretches fair use to its limits: tolle, lege--and ponder it. I will just add a huge "AMEN!" to the historical amnesia which fails to inform our discussions and thinking these days. We relish the Newman quote that "to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant," deploying it with saturation-bombing frequency in spats with the sons of the Protestant Reformation. But how many of us--self-included--really have a passable grip on the entirety of Catholic history? I don't. Yet most of us readily appeal to that history without really knowing it.

I think that may be some of the fuel for the infighting. We're in the eternal now--this present moment--without any but the most tenuous grip on the past, save for apologetic sore-spots that require regular applications of topical (rimshot!) cream. That leads to lazy thinking, slogans and catchphrases that substitute for thought. I really need to do better on that. 

As the wind builds to a gale.

Ches offers some sage spiritual advice, suggesting St. Francis' example. If nothing else, he certainly captures the mood:

 So, what is the relevance of all this? Only that I sense that so many of my readers are probably feeling a little like Theoden at the moment. Hardly a week goes by currently without yet another crazy papal phone call, yet another nutty cardinal promising more madness, and yet another kick in the teeth for simple people of faith. I read today of the suppression of Protect the Pope by the Bishop of Lancaster. Paradoxically, the news arrives twenty-four hours after we read of the rehabilitation of Fr Sean Fagan, a priest whose views were so embarrassingly unCatholic his order bought up remaining copies of his nastiest book. The medicine of mercy would appear to be available but not for the likes of Deacon Nick Donnelly. How did it come to this?

The Fagan release would have been unremarkable had it come with a recanting of his errors. I mean, it was just five years ago that he was deriding and dismissing church teaching. Apparently, "mercy," too, means never having to say you're sorry. 

St. Francis is never a bad example, but I'm not sure the times are analogous. Francis (and Luther, whom Ches also discusses) faced venial clerical corruption, not an attempted revolution from above. Don't get me wrong--I think proposals like Kasper's are objectively-corrupt attempts to reach a concordat with debauched modernity, to hell with the consequences. You can assign him points for good intentions if you like, but recall:

My point is not to deride his advice--it is excellent--but rather to suggest that medieval/Renaissance analogues don't quite fit. The one that does fit best is the post-1965 hurricane, which much of our leadership seems to want to reboot. (And I thought we were going to get a reform of the curia--oops.) I don't think we've canonized anyone yet who offered a counter-example to the clerical ineptitude (and worse) of that era. Nor are we likely to, either, as long as nostalgia for that time of discord and confusion remains strong. 

But I think seeking out a Saint and emulating the way he or she imaged Christ is a good idea. 

As is having him or her help you batten down the hatches before the red-and-black square flag goes up. 

Rest in peace, Bob Hoskins.

The superb actor died today after a battle with Parkinson's and pneumonia.

Like most people, I first recall seeing him in Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

Not only was he more than able to hold his own as straight man Eddie Valiant in an animation festival (remember--it was not CGI), his line reading in this exchange is a personal favorite:

Roger Rabbit: Yeah. Check the probate. Why, my Uncle Thumper had a problem with HIS probate, and he had to take these big pills, and drink lots of water.

Eddie Valiant: Not prostate, you idiot--PROBATE!

After WFRR?, if I stumbled across a film with him in it, I made sure to watch his scenes at least. A real talent, and one who will be missed.

"A Rival Good to God's."

Tom Piatak explains why Cardinal Kasper's divorce proposal is anything but serene and prayerful theology:

Cardinal Kasper’s proposal does more than denigrate the sacrifices of those who have struggled to remain faithful to Christ’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage and the impossibility of remarriage after divorce.  By signaling the Church’s acceptance of divorce, Kasper’s proposal would create more divorces, just as liberal “reforms” of civil divorce laws created more divorces.  We now know how damaging divorce is for children, even adult children.  We also know that changing Church practice would increase divorce because, as the invaluable 1964 blog affiliated with the Center for Advanced Research in the Apostolate noted in September 2013, American Catholics still have a lower divorce rate than other groups. Belonging to the only Church that does not allow divorce still discourages divorce, despite the paucity of sermons on the indissolubility of marriage in recent decades.  If Church teaching in this area were watered down, we could certainly expect the Catholic divorce rate to catch up to the general divorce rate, and then remain at that same high rate for the foreseeable future, with all the disastrous consequences this implies for the children whose parents divorce and for society as a whole.

Read it all.

A very interesting infrastructure project.

Actually, substitute "insane but admirable" for "interesting": a transcontinental tunnel under the Bering Strait.

Yes, it's an older story, but it's news to me. Leaving aside the engineering issues, I have only one question: did we green-light it at our end, or will it just be that one of these days Pootie-Poot is going to emerge from the ground near Nome shirtless and shovel in hand, to the adoring applause of the Russian press?

American approval seems to be a rather significant bit of data the article is lacking.

Orwellian group-think comes to real-world science fiction writing.

A little recondite, but instructive: the Hugo Awards and SFWA are the latest (if minor) institutions to have succumbed to the left's jackbooted tolerance enforcers. The issues have risen to the attention of USA Today, so it's newsworthy instead of merely nerdworthy.

Larry "Monster Hunter" Correia explains part of the problem (the Hugos) in a link within the USA Today column.

Then there's just the general stupidity of demanding that one simply must incorporate PC tropes in one's speculative fiction.

Finally, Sarah Hoyt (not exactly a charter member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy herself) and John C. Wright both lower the boom.

The Left: You'll Have Their Worldview and Like It, H8R!™

Misery loves company.

At the risk of erecting/strengthening the walls of an echo chamber:

I know of a few people who are experiencing unusual discomfort with this papacy, but I was brought up short by Dr. Mabuse's comment yesterday, having crossed paths with her on the World Wide Web over at Chris Johnson's place.

I'm not asking--much less expecting--people to agree with me, but a quick poll: if you've been having more problems with Francis than you did with his immediate predecessors, would you kindly indicate this in the comment box below? I'm not asking you to explain the nature of it (though you can if you want), or even to ID yourself (though you can if you wish to as well). You don't even have to be Catholic--one of my wife's cousins isn't, and he's found PF questionable of late.

It's a show of hands thing. And yes, it's partly to reassure me that I haven't been slipped crazy pills.