Klavan's Confession

 "I'm an American" were the first words out of Andrew Klavan's mouth in response to Daily Wire's newest host, Matt Fradd, when asked why he's not Catholic. I admit to a moment of triumphalism when I heard this. It's exactly what I've thought about Protestant Christian anti-Catholicism (Catholicism-reluctance?) for many years -- what I call ABC: Anything But Catholic. Protestants don't seem to mind if a brother moves from Methodist to Baptist to Presbyterian to Anglican to non-denominational evangelical. . . just so long as he doesn't become Catholic! God forbid! 

But I don't think Drew Klavan realizes just how revealing his statement is. It gives a whole new meaning to "America first." After all, America was born in rebellion. I suppose in some way we could credit Martin Luther with the American Revolution. I doubt, though, that many Protestants know he called himself a "schismatic," which is a grave sin requiring repentance and a firm commitment to "reform." Ahem.

Why? Because Jesus prayed "that they may be one." Oneness is essential so that "the world might believe." The disunity brought about by the refusal to submit to any authority other than one's own (and, not sorry, but that's what the Bible-and-me Christianity comes down to) leaves people groping in the dark. Who has the answers? Who settles disputes on the essentials of the faith? Why, it turns out, it's whoever agrees with me! How fortuitous. Unfortunately, this inhibits the spread of the Gospel as Jesus indicated it would by his High Priestly Prayer.

Klavan then indirectly accused Catholics of "casuistry," although he used the actual word. To which I literally guffawed. He's speaking to Matt Fradd, the host of the Pints with Aquinas podcast. As in Saint Thomas Aquinas, probably the greatest thinker of his age and in the top five of any age. He is not only a Doctor of the Church, but a 13th century theologian capable of marrying ancient Greek philosophy with Catholic theology and spirituality in a way that still speaks to us today. While I consider Andrew Klavan a gifted writer (just started reading his book The Kingdom of Cain and can recommend it), he's no Thomas Aquinas. 

This always astonishes me as an argument from Protestants -- this ignorance of what it means to submit to Church authority (on faith and morals). Some of the smartest, most capable people with the strongest faculty of reason I've ever known in my life and in public life are Catholic. In history, besides Saints Thomas Aquinas and Augustine:

Science: Gregor Mendel (genetics), Georges Lemaitre (Big Bang theory), Louis Pasteur (microbiology), Galileo Galilei (astronomy) -- and, no, he wasn't locked in a dungeon for his science, he was placed under house arrest for being a jerk to his friend the pope and potentially causing church scandal, which the Church rightly took more seriously back then.

Writers: Dante Alighieri, William Shakespeare, Evelyn Waugh, G.K. Chesterton, J.R.R. Tolkien, Hilaire Belloc, Graham Greene, Flannery O'Connor, . . .

Some of the most intelligent, influential Catholic Americans of my lifetime include Wm. F. Buckley Jr., Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Bishop Robert Barron among others. Bishop Barron is particularly good on the subject of the marriage of faith and reason in Catholicism. Casuistry? Not by a long shot. 

Klavan goes on to say that all human institutions are corrupt because they are made up by humans. On this we agree. 

It reminds me of the old joke about the Jewish merchant and his friend the Catholic bishop. The bishop has been evangelizing the merchant, trying to bring him to the fullness of the faith. The merchant is moved to be baptized, but first he has business that will take him to Rome. The bishop pleads with him to be baptized before he goes, knowing the mess of humanity he'll witness at the Vatican. But the merchant insists on waiting and goes to Rome anyway. Upon his return he approaches the bishop and says, "Ok, I'm ready to be baptized." The bishop is astonished and asks, "Didn't you see the corruption of the Church in Rome?" The merchant replies, "Of course, but I figure any institution that can be run that poorly and survive fifteen hundred years [as I said, it's an old joke] must be divinely inspired!"

And there's the distinction. Catholics don't submit to the authority of the Church because we're convinced of the holiness and righteousness of its human leaders -- even (and at times especially) the pope. We are docile to the teachings of the Church (which is not the same as unquestioning) because we believe it is the First Church of Christ, guided to the fullness of the truth by the Holy Spirit. It is a matter of obedience and trust -- one might say the very definition of faith. 

We believe that Christ left us a Church to help bring us to salvation, not a Bible, although we believe the Bible to be inerrant and necessary in addition to Tradition. The thing is, every appeal to scripture is an appeal to interpretation of scripture. And then we're right back to the question, on whose authority?

If I could speak to Andrew Klavan directly, I'd point out to him that, if you first claim your American identity over your Christian one, there might be something to reconsider. Being an American is good -- it's even a blessing. But Jesus didn't give the authority to bind and loose on earth and in heaven to Americans (someone inform our politicians and government officials). He gave it to the apostles and their successors. And there's one church that lays claim to apostolic authority going back to Peter. That's why I'm Catholic.

"Unless you turn and become like little children. . ." obeying and trusting in your Father who has gifted you a church, are you really being faithful? Food for thought.

Stop Trying to School the Libs

 First off, they're not libs. There's nothing quite as illiberal as today's American and European leftists. They insist on censorship of dissenting opinions in case it might offend one of the powerful. They're making advanced nations energy poor -- and therefore economically poorer -- to supposedly save the planet. (Side note: funny, although not "haha" funny, how "greening" the environment involves carpeting vast swaths of forest and farmland with manmade solar and windfarm monstrosities.) They're deeply racist as evidenced by any human achievement of something good, true, and beautiful as being labeled "white supremacy" (how about that moon landing? or even math!), and by lowering the bar of entry to high-skill professions (MDs, pilots, soldiers. . .) based solely on immutable characteristics such as race and sex. 

What they're not is stupid. . . or even ignorant.

Margaret Brennan knows full well the holocaust wasn't the effect of uncensored speech. Puhleaze! She isn't that stupid. Don't fall for it. These apparatchiks of the Deep State and its useful idiots among us (and they are legion) know full well MAGA voters aren't "extreme right" Nazi sympathizers. Heck, most the of antisemites these days are on the Left! They know we're not racists, sexists, Islamophobes, homophobes, and every other kind of bigot for the most part, although I admit to being biased against corporatist globalists and leftists, but I repeat. They even know that not all criticism of Barack Obama or Kamala Harris is racism. But they use these discrediting labels because they work. 

The Left is about narrative-building because they're not beholden to the truth. Their interest is in power. 

This is why charges of hypocrisy by conservatives fall flat. Ooh, Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, and Liz Warren are worth gazillions of dollars even though they've been "public servants" for decades. Meh, are we trying to appeal to their consciences? Now who's stupid?

Do leftists actually believe the planet is going to be destroyed by a degree or two Celsius rise in average global temperature over a hundred years? If we believe they believe that we're the fools. Why do we suppose every "solution" they propose to the climate change "catastrophe" involves more power concentrated at the highest levels of government?

Do leftists really think the rich are rich because they've taken from the poor? Zero-sum economics? I very much doubt it. The obvious, in-your-face increase in wealth and resources available to all over the course of history gives lie to the claim. Even royalty didn't have access to hot showers a 100 years ago. Lefties know this.

The lie is thing, not their stupidity or ignorance. The lies they tell are both to give themselves a sense of moral superiority and increased status (sin of pride) and to concentrate their power over the rest of us. Don't try to educate them. They're not interested and they already know what you're going to say. Call out the lies for what they are. They're in service to the devil and his humanity-destroying agenda.

 Lets stop wasting our effort trying to educate or inform leftists. They're not playing that game -- they're not even on the same ball field. As someone once said -- they're not stupid, they're evil. Or, at least, their lies are evil. 

Truth wins in the end, but it requires us to be truth-seekers and truth-tellers. Confront leftists with the truth. They can't handle it, but they can't ignore it forever.

Is this mic on??

 Check, check. Testing, testing. . .

"The rich he sent away empty"

I'm just a Catholic out here with an opinion on Eucharistic coherence, which has been in the news lately. At their recent conference, the American bishops agreed -- although not unanimously, sadly -- to have a discussion about whether public figures who profess the faith (Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Lieu, Joe Manchin, . . .) yet remain in obstinate and very public disagreement on fundamental teachings of the Church maybe sorta kinda should be denied Holy Eucharist. It seems pretty obvious anyone not in communion with the Church should not receive Communion (that's why non-Catholic Christians are denied Eucharist after all). Simple. What's to discuss? A basic requirement of being a Catholic in good standing is to submit to what the first Church of Christ teaches. All of it. Whether one knows and understands all the whats and whys, or not. We are called to obedience -- to seek understanding in faith -- to trust that Christ established His Church and has protected it from the gates of Hell prevailing over it for more than two thousand years.

Catholic apologist Trent Horn has a good video on the tactics used by pro-abortion Democrat politicians (but, I repeat) to elide and obscure their heretical positions. 

The six tactics he identifies, in brief:

1. They double-down on professing their Catholic faith (invalid argument from authority) while denying the Faith's core tenets. 
2. They express false humility with the "I can't impose my views on others" lie. They would impose their views on the death penalty by abolishing it, if they could. They believe (hopefully) that infanticide should be illegal, etc.
3. They accuse pro-lifers of having double-standards by not opposing the death penalty, for example. But, would they submit to the Church's teachings if it prohibited the reception of Communion for both pro-abortion and pro-death penalty public figures?? To ask is to answer.
4. They bring up the "ensoulment" canard. I agree with Trent that the soul is the animating principle of life and, therefore, when a living body exists a soul exists. A precious, God-created, unique and unrepeatable person exists at conception. Personhood is science.
5. They appeal to "free will." But, they can't possibly believe it. My free will says we should outlaw abortion, but they don't believe my free will is correct, do they? I know with an uncommon certitude that their free will is malformed by the belief that it's ever morally acceptable to set out to kill innocent human beings, wherever they're located (in the womb, for example). 
6. They argue from the "primacy of conscience," but they don't believe that either. They believe pro-lifers' consciences are mistaken. 

But, I have a gripe with most apologists arguing this issue as well. They seem to argue from the philosophical/legalistic point of view while completely missing the pastoral aspect of denying someone in grave error Communion (with one exception being a woman over at CRISIS Magazine, who writes passionately on the subject). The bishops' vocation is to guide the flock to heaven. Why, then, for Pete's sake (irony alert), would they even think for a split second of allowing someone to eat judgment upon himself? Even a Democrat politician? It is deeply unloving.

And, so, I come to Mary's Magnificat, where she says, "the rich he sent away empty." If one were to interpret this as an uncaring and indifferent God who favors the poor at the expense of the rich, one would have an erroneous view of who God is. He sends the rich away empty because He loves them! It is meant as a corrective, and a call to conversion. Our decadent culture is a sure sign of what happens when we become too rich and comfortable (in Old Testament parlance: we have too many horses, too many wives, and too much gold). God doesn't want us to be comfortable; He wants us to be holy. 

Whenever I pray the Magnificat, I place myself in the role of both the sinner and the saint, because I have had the experience of God in both ways in my life. Try it for yourself:

My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord,

my spirit rejoices in God my Savior

for he has looked with favor on his lowly servant.

From this day all generations will call me blessed: 

the Almighty has done great things for me, 

and holy is his Name.

He has shown the strength of his arm,

He has scattered the proud in their conceit.

He has cast down the mighty from their thrones,

and has lifted up the lowly.

He has filled the hungry with good things,

and the rich He has sent away empty.

He has come to the help of his servant Israel

for He has remembered his promise of mercy,

the promise He made to our fathers, 

to Abraham and his children for ever.

Do you sometimes (daily) proclaim God's greatness in His Goodness, Truth, and Beauty -- in His infinite Perfections? Do you oftentimes rejoice in being a precious child of God, for whom He was willing to humble Himself to suffer and die for your salvation? Has He looked with favor on you in your lowliness? Do you call yourself, "blessed?" Has God done great things for you? Has He scattered you in your conceit? Has He cast you down when you attempt to exalt yourself? Has He lifted you up when you're suffering? Has He filled you with good things? Has He sent you away empty? Has He come to your help when you are in need, and shown you mercy?

Yes, yes, the bishops should deny the Sacramental Presence of Jesus to those who bring scandal upon the faithful. But, these dissenters should be sent away empty because God loves them. He wants them to come Home to Him, and to do that, they need to repent and to correctly form their consciences in Christ, with the moral guidance of the Church He established. And mostly they need to stop advocating for and enabling the killing of God's other precious children. 

Amen. Alleluia!

Gay Rights Advocate Has Trans Regrets

Author and expat gay rights advocate, Bruce Bawer, has written a lengthy lament on the history of gay rights advocacy turned queer activism and, finally, transgender ideology in The Great Consonant Shift over at American Greatness. I skimmed the history parts to get to his main complaint because, frankly, I don't care about the minutia of how we got here -- only that we're here, at the end of western civilization. I'm more of a big picture gal when it comes to my love for the West.

Mr. Bawer is upset that "transgenderism" was attached to his noble pursuit of "equal" rights for gays by queer activists, since sexual appetite isn't the equivalent of gender identity. He acknowledges that leftwing queer activism was always about tearing down the longstanding institutions of the West and argues . . .

. . . indeed, that the gay-rights movement and the transgender movement are utter opposites: while the former is rooted in the objective reality of homosexual attraction, the latter asks the general public to acknowledge an objective impossibility -- namely, the fanciful notion that subjective feelings alone can determine gender. The moment a person declares that he's now a she, or that she's now a he -- no hormones or surgery required -- one is supposed to respond with immediate and absolute affirmation.

Oh, dear. I think Mr. Bawer has missed the forest for the trees. Respectfully. His "equal" rights advocacy (of which he was an early promoter of SSM) has asked something very similar of the public. Namely, that we "acknowledge" the objective impossibility that two men or two women can be married to one another. In fact, gays insist on overthrowing reality, they don't just "ask." Because "equality" -- 'er something.

I've long argued that SSM advocates weren't asking for "equal" rights for gays. Persons who are same-sex attracted always had the "equal" right of legal and social acknowledgement of marriage to someone of the opposite sex. Heck, they even had that right within the Church! And the union of two men or two women isn't the equivalent of a married man and woman. What homosexual advocates laid claim to with SSM was a special right -- the "right" to overthrow the reality of marriage.

To recap: marriage has the dual purpose of 1) unifying a man and a woman for the (hopefully) intended purpose of 2) procreation. The unity piece is so essential not just for the couple's happiness, but because of the procreation piece. When mothers and fathers divorce, they "blow up their kids' planet," as Andrew Klavan says. And you should see what happens when homosexual couples with kids divorce! It's doubly confusing and tragic. This is no way to form a happy and healthy society.

While gays may find unity in a homosexual relationship (although the rates of promiscuity among gay men and domestic violence among lesbians as compared to heterosexuals would seem to suggest a problem), their relationship is intrinsically sterile. In short, marriage wasn't made for them either by nature or nature's God. If it's discriminatory to say so, it's discriminating an objective truth, which Mr. Bawer seems to be passionate about when it comes to transgenderism coopting his pet cause.

All of this societal degradation was totally predictable and was, in fact, predicted by opponents of the SSM cause. The slippery slope argument isn't always fallacious. Once we insist on lying about fundamentals such as what marriage is, it follows pretty naturally that we'd lie about other basic truths such as gender identity. 

When I was a lefty I used to complain about conservatives wanting to "get into our underwear" on sexual morality. Now I wish gays had gotten out of their own underwear long enough to see the big societal/cultural picture. 

My advice to Mr. Bawer? Never ever side with the Left -- not on feminism, not on economics, not on nationalism, not on social causes -- not even the ones you think are in your self-interest. That way leads to destruction. It always does, as that's the Left's objective and competence. The Left is very good at destroying, and I'm of the opinion it's too late now for the West. What we will have is anyone's guess, but I'm confident in saying our society will be neither free nor respectful of human dignity, as the one very much depends on the other, and we can have neither when we're lying to each other on the essentials of human anthropology. 

Extraordinary Suffering, Amazing Grace

The spiritual advice often given to Catholics is "to unite your suffering to Christ's." I've struggled with  the Church's theology of redemptive suffering through many years of my children's, my husband's, and my own suffering. I've had a shallow understanding of our "participation" in Christ's suffering until recent news about someone else's suffering cast new light on the subject for me. 

I haven't allowed myself to think of my nuclear family's suffering as "unfair," although it clearly has been extraordinary (that is, out of the ordinary) compared to most families I know. Not many families deal with two children with rare conditions causing life-long travails. It's painful to contemplate the (possibly) lost potential of my beautiful, brilliant girls. 

Nor do many people live a charmed life with little suffering, although it's better for everyone's character to be grateful for our blessings rather than bemoan our curses (Jordan Peterson says "better to think of yourself as a perpetrator than a victim). We're friends with three couples who have also experienced extraordinary suffering through the tragic loss of their children. But, something about this recent example allowed me to "go there" and to finally see how unjust suffering changes the world for the better, and how the sufferers really do participate in the redemptive suffering of Christ. It's one of those mind-blowing paradoxes of the Christian faith.

Let's face it. No one is moved by the suffering of people who get their well-deserved comeuppance. Can anyone say they feel compassion for Hitler in a burned out bunker with a bullet in his brain? Or Mussolini shot and hung upside down from a girder over a service station? Or does anyone have a conversion experience because heartless bastards like Mao and Fidel Castro die peacefully in their beds at a ripe old age? We may feel angry toward God for the temporal injustice of such undeserved endings, but we have some consolation in believing God will have the final say about these killers' eternal destinies.

But, it's unjust suffering that changes hearts, both for the sufferers and those who love them. I write this on Good Friday, when Christians observe the Passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ. As part of the Liturgy of the Word, Catholics will recite the Passion narrative, with the congregation taking the part of the crowd shouting, "Crucify him! Crucify him!" It's terrible -- my least favorite observance of the liturgical year -- and it's meant to be. It's meant to finally impel us to turn away from sin and be faithful to the Gospel, as we were instructed upon receiving ashes on Ash Wednesday at the beginning of Lent. Because anyone of good conscience who participates in the re-presentation of the Passion will be heartbroken about his sinfulness leading to the torture and slaughter of the Innocent Lamb of God. It's painfully apparent to me, God wants us heartbroken, because that's how He finds His way in and redeems us. 

I've been heartbroken by my little family's suffering. So has Mr. Chauvinist. And the softening of our hearts has drawn us closer together -- and closer to God. Sometimes I'm startled by how tenderhearted Mr. C is toward others who suffer. It's not unmanly -- in fact, it's a sign of being more fully human. More Christ-like. 

I finally appreciate Saint Paul's rejoicing in  his suffering for the sake of souls. My pastor once told us that we "are at the very heart of the Church" because of our suffering. Now, because of this other innocent's suffering, I can see how he is united in Christ's suffering -- how his suffering will move hearts toward God -- for the sake of the whole world. Pope Saint John Paul II once said, "suffering unleashes love." My loved one may not know it yet, but he's been privileged to share in Christ's suffering -- and so have we. 

Let us bear all things thankfully, be it poverty, be it disease, be it anything else whatever: for he alone knows the things expedient for us. . . Are we in poverty? Let us give thanks. Are we in sickness? Let us give thanks. Are we falsely accused? Let us give thanks. When we suffer affliction, let us give thanks . . . Affliction is a great good. "Narrow is the way," so that affliction thrusts us into the narrow way. He who is not pressed by affliction cannot enter. 

-- Saint John Chrysostom 

(Corrupted) Words of the Day

I suppose we should first define what we mean by "corrupt." This is what I intend when I say these words are "corrupted:" debased or rendered impure by alterations or innovations (from etymoline.com). My selection of these (corrupted) words of the day is based on the change of their meaning from something originally intended by their definitions to something now used as a slur. I'll be working my way backwards in time based on how recently these words were corrupted. Let's begin.

nationalism (n.)

1844, "devotion to one's country, national spirit or aspirations, desire for national unity, independence, or prosperity;" 

"Nationalism" has gone from a positive good (willing the good of one's fellow countrymen in a free and prosperous country) to something even conservatives use in a derogatory way (Jonah Goldberg). It used be okay to be a fan of America back when America was the land of opportunity and not "systemically" hateful and hated, whatever that means. But, now, to be an American nationalist is to be inordinately and unjustifiably proud of one's homeland, at best. At worst, and now that "whiteness" is a thing (and totally not racist -- /snark), "white nationalism" is implied. Never mind that Donald Trump's policies did more for black and Latino employment and wage increases than has been seen in my lifetime. He's such a terrible racist (meaning the opposite). 

discriminate (v.)

1620s, "distinguish from something else or from each other, observe or mark the differences between," from Latin discriminatus, past participle of discriminare "to divide, separate," from discrimen (genitive discriminis) "interval, distinction, difference," derived from discernere "to separate, set apart, divide, distribute; distinguish, perceive," from dis- "off, away" (see dis-) + cernere "distinguish, separate, sift (from PIE root *krei "to sieve," thus "discriminate, distinguish").   

Back in the day, when someone was described as "a discriminating man," it was considered a compliment. It meant he showed good prudential judgment. Now we're not even supposed to notice differences as fundamental as those between men and women. Unless it's a trans-woman and then she/he/they is totally different from a man! And if you deny it, you're a bigot. That's some fancy lexicographical footwork. Try to keep up.

cult (n.)

1610s, "worship, homage" (a sense now obsolete); 1670s, "a particular form or system of worship;" from French culte (17c.), from Latin cultus "care, labor; cultivation, culture; worship, reverence," originally "tended, cultivated," past participle of colere "to till" (see colony). 

The word was rare after 17c. but it was revived mid-19c (sometimes in French form culte) with reference to ancient or primitive systems of religious belief and worship, especially the rites and ceremonies employed in such worship. Extended meaning "devoted attention to a particular person or thing" is from 1829.\  

As Catholics, it's not unheard of that we're accused of belonging to a cult. To which I say, "Indeed! I belong to the cult of Jesus Christ and his one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church!"  Which puts a whole different spin on the second paragraph describing a cult as an "ancient or primitive system of religious belief and worship." Ah-yup! Catholics have an ancient system of religious belief and worship, although I doubt most honest critics would call Catholicism "primitive" -- read Augustine and Aquinas through John Paul II and Benedict XVI for non-primitive Christian thinking and belief. In fact, Catholicism goes right back to Jesus Christ and his apostles, thank you very much. But, even some Catholics are susceptible to the misuse of the word "cult" and become defensive about it. They shouldn't. It's similar to the message of the cross being a sign of foolishness for some. Being a member of the cult of Jesus Christ and the church he founded is no shame. It's just the opposite. 

That's all for today. I encourage everyone to start using words correctly according to their intended meaning and take back the language from the Left.