Monday, June 29, 2015

Strangers in a Strange Land

Rod Dreher recommends what he calls“the Benedict Option.” “build resilient communities within our condition of internal exile”

Fine as far as it goes. Let’s call it necessary but not sufficient. Dreher writes, “Benedict of Nursia, a pious young Christian who left the chaos of Rome to go to the woods to pray, as an example for us.” 

The local communities of lay faithful who had to battle to keep their families together and faithful while continuing their occupations in the World continued outside of the monasteries. They suffered but survived.

  It seems, after the last week or two, that the speed or momentum of the Left’s assault on American culture has accelerated. As I thought about this, I remembered a couple of things: the term Iron Fist and the fact that as a grip closes, it gets stronger. We have been surrounded and are being crushed from all sides. History, morality, economy, the very concepts of identity all are collapsing in on themselves and on those Americans who merely wish to live their lives according to their Faith and to the principles that first made this country exceptional.

Dreher continues, “LGBT activists and their fellow travelers really will be coming after social conservatives. The Supreme Court has now, in constitutional doctrine, said that homosexuality is equivalent to race. The next goal of activists will be a long-term campaign to remove tax-exempt status from dissenting religious institutions. The more immediate goal will be the shunning and persecution of dissenters within civil society. After today, all religious conservatives are Brendan Eich, the former CEO of Mozilla who was chased out of that company for supporting California’s Proposition 8.”

I’m sure the briefs are already being delivered to the court houses to enforce the new regime on the recalcitrant. Bakers, florists and photographers have no leg to stand on now. KofC reception halls are an obvious target. The preliminary work to remove tax exempt status has also begun. It will probably follow the same route as SSM has: localities like San Fran, Berkeley etc will take action at the local level. A publicity campaign will proceed with the MSM and opinion shaping information gateways shaping news and information to push popular opinion in the preferred direction. Court cases will be initiated in friendly districts. Bills will be introduced in Congress with little immediate hope of passing, but in order to get people used to the idea, get the ‘correct’ arguments out at the national level and to position opponents as defenders of bigotry. The IRS may start investigating some more fringe-looking independent churches. Cardinal Dolan will be presented as equivalent to Westboro Baptist Church. I don’t know how long it will take them to get everything in position, but sooner or later, either an Obama-esque executive decision or a Supreme Court decision will remove the tax exempt status for religious organizations. If going directly against churches seems like too big a jump, they will start with schools and charities. In each case, the squishier ones have already gone over. If there are any Methodist or Episcopalian schools and hospitals left, I’m sure their policies are already in line with the current fad. Progressive Catholic institutions will fall easily. Large organizations will also fold because to lose tax exemption would be fatal and they are too big to fail. Georgetown, Notre Dame etc. will make headlines and remove any vestige of cover for smaller orthodox schools and organizations. Catholic Charities will fold like a card table. Catholic schools will fold or close. The parishes will probably be the last to go, but they will not be allowed to remain outside the control of the State’s new orthodoxy. But whatever havoc that causes to non-state, religiously motivated organizations and churches won’t satisfy their urge for total surrender. Any organizations or churches that manage to survive without tax exemption will then be hit with discrimination suits and violation of civil rights laws. They won’t be satisfied until the Archbishop of New York is a married homosexual or the Catholic Church is totally suppressed.

Actually, they won’t be satisfied even then because that is the nature of the Progressive beast.

Think I'm paranoid? I wish!

That didn’t take long…


But, First Amendment! Religious Freedom!




Not for you, you filthy Christian!


“When,” Mr. Shaw, not “if.”


Of course, we really have no real choice. Recognition of reality, our duty to our Creator and to our fellow souls demand that, “We are obliged to RESIST! “Clear and emphatic opposition is a duty””

The CDF, has a much much more coherent argument than the USCC majority. Just sayin’.

Oh, and as the dissenting justices and every other sane human being saw coming for the last 10 years, 
SSM isn’t the end, it is just the beginning:


Incest will follow like clockwork.


Abnormal is the new normal. Making normal seem very strange.

Decline is a choice. This country has chosen.

Utopias, literally, “No Place” are promised in the Brave New World envisioned by the totalitarian Progressives. Distopias are all too real. Gird your loins, folks.

Did I mention publicizing self-identified Catholics exhorting all of us to be tolerant, loving and go along to get along? How could I forget that old saw-horse?

I just kind of have a feeling that the game plan for all of this was laid down about 20 seconds after this had taken place:

And lest we forget that this is more than merely a catastrophe for our culture, our public morality and the freedom of citizens to peacefully live out their faith, it is also a catastrophe for our Constitutional republic and the rule of law. Bonus!

Nothing good, I don’t think. At least not if you aren’t enthusiastically with the program. Oh, yeah. That’s another aspect of Progressivism (shared with Communism and Fascism): it isn’t enough for them that you refrain from dissent. You have to be enthusiastic. You have to be “for” what they are “for” and against what they are against with emotion.

As compared to Justice Kennedy’s gobbled goop (use Scalia’s phrase).

A bit of good news by way of intermission amidst acts 1 and 2 of doom and gloom:

Sure, it’s a publicity stunt and sure it’s Japan, but nothing this side of the chick who married a bridge and a building (was it the same woman?) indicates better the dissolution of the very concept of Marriage as a particular thing.

Kennedy says something about defining our own realities, Well, Bruce/Caityn Jenner has exercised his/her right to do that – and radical feminists object. Donezal has her racial identity and Blacks protest. The DoD has tried to follow the old RadFem line that gender is a construct and yet Ranger School among other inevitable experiences continue to flout the attempt.

It's not nice to fool Mother Nature, and there is no fooling your Creator.

Might the term, "Landmark" also describe a sign reading, “Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch’entrate!”?

A lot of digital ink has been spilled since the Supreme Court released the Obergfell decision. This article from National Journal pulled some of the juicier quotes from the 4 dissents. I don't think anyone has done a better job critiquing Justice Kennedy's loopy justification than his four colleagues have.

The majority wrote "The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality."

Recalling the article that I will post as soon as I overcome a technical error) about the inevitable effects revisions of their cannons by the Anglican Communion to recognize so-called SSM, the USCC has confirmed those predictions.

Justice Thomas’ dissent included this rebuke:
Kennedy and the Court's liberal wing are invoking a definition of "liberty" that the Constitution's framers "would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect."

Which was foretold in Solicitor General Verrilli’s response to Justice Alito’s question.

“I don’t deny that, Justice Alito.  It is –it is going to be an issue.”

In a choice between the First Amendment and “a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity." The imaginary one will trump the objective one every time with this bunch.


Thursday, June 18, 2015

First Thoughts on Laudato Si

18 June 15
Today the much discussed, eagerly (or fearfully) awaited, scandalously leaked encyclical on stewardship of the environment was released.

Up until today, I have intentionally avoided reading commentary about it. It has all been conjecture and spin. Today I tried to access the Vatican web site, but it is timing out. I can only assume that a whole lot of people on the east coast of the United States are trying to get their eyes on it. Hopefully (but doubtfully) for their own good. Probably to advance their own opinions and agendas. Such is it with fallen Man.

I being no less fallen than my brother, will have to check my own prejudices as I read it and try my best to read it with an open and generous heart.

This reminder by Rebecca Hamilton is a useful corrective in that regard. 

“This time in which we live is every bit as much satan’s hour as that night in the garden.
“Satan will use any doorway into us, including what we think of as our faithfulness to Him. One clear sign that we can use to discern that we are on the wrong path is when we begin to base our righteousness on the sins of other people.
“That is the first sin of cafeteria Catholics, of the red and the blue, the left and right. They are forever attacking one another and claiming righteousness for themselves based on the sins of the other.”

When I read the Bible, Church documents, and other reliable spiritual works, I try ask, “WHY does it say that?” rather than “Why does it say THAT?” Seek to understand before seeking a riposte or objection.

Going in, my position is:
  1. Yes. The climate changes. Yes, the activity of nearly 7 billion people will affect how it changes. Undoubtedly, human activity can have a direct and adverse impact on the local and perhaps the global environment.
  2. Yes, people, organizations, companies, governments should adopt procedures that consider the impact of their activity on the environment and should make every reasonable effort to act in ways that moderate any adverse effects.
  3. No. Climate science is not “settled.” It is obvious to me that too many of the efforts and reports in that area of study have been politicized. As a result, prudence demands any pronouncements be looked at closely with a critical eye.
  4. No, the earth and its systems are too complex and too interdependent for scientists to have even a superficial understanding of it. As a result, computer models cannot be dispositive, if they can be meaningful at all when they are based upon questionable and insufficient data; designed by scientists with preconceived outcomes, political agendas or financial stakes; and trying to not only describe but PREDICT a system which they do not sufficiently understand.
  5. Yes, globally, mismanagement, selfishness, excess by the “have” has exacerbated the impact of environmental changes on the poor. Charity and good stewardship go hand-in-glove.
  6. No, global governance will not solve the problem. Concentration of power tends to amplify bad decisions, create greater opportunities for abuse, and crush potential creative solutions in favor of bureaucratically created ‘plans.’

Here’s the AP’s blatantlyanti-Capitalist, anti-growth take. I only read the first couple of lines before I realized I needed to read the source before this stuff totally skewed my opinion. Of course, AP stories are reprinted or rewritten around the country, so this is the sort of thing most Americans will read about the encyclical.


This looks like it might be more balanced and better informed.


This is an interesting take from someone suffering from drought in California.



And no survey would be complete without an angry rant from an anti-Catholic hater.

More to follow as I read the encyclical for myself and continue to scan the commentary on it.