Manners in the presence of others and in the Real Presence: "Zeal for Your house ..."

Fr. Eduard Perrone, "A Pastor's Descant" (Assumption Grotto News, May 6, 2018):

Zeal for Your house consumes Me.

Walking along outdoors on one of those fine sunny days of the past week, discreetly saying my rosary the while, I caught sight of a young woman approaching me from the opposite direction. Quickly letting go of the beads concealed in my pocket, I readied myself to tip my cap (visor worn forward, mind you) in a gesture of respect I had often seen my father make to women in similar circumstances. To no avail. The young lady, perhaps fearing an untoward glance, kept her eyes firmly riveted to the ground.

Many courtesies once commonplace are now passé. The aforementioned baseball cap reminds me how youth are generally unmindful of what a breech of good manners it is for men to wear hats indoors, a fortiori at the table. Equally vanishing from the scene are young couples walking together on the sidewalk with the male on the outside, that is, on the street side, indicating chivalrous protection of his consort. The drinking of water, in full view of others, from plastic bottles flared high, with one's throat strained crane-like towards the heavens is perhaps beyond the capability of people in our time to consider as discourteous, however so mildly it may be so. Discourtesies so ubiquitous as now to be regarded as benign if not fully accepted may include the public picking of one's teeth, cutting or painting the nails, the yawn full agape. Needless to add are certain bodily noises -- amongst which I confine myself to belching and spitting -- which are best discharges in private chambers or, at best, in the seclusion of familial quarters.

My subject matter is the coarsening of good manners as representing a diminishing respect for others. (Manners, let it be said, can be overdone, even unto a fastidious prissiness, unbecoming for a man -- dare I invoke the outmoded phrase, for a gentleman?). As desirable as it is for rational beings to cultivate good habits respecting the presence of one's fellows, yet my primary motivation in writing on this rare, perhaps indignifying subject, is not in the hope of rekindling polite conduct towards one's "fellow man" (a contrived, feminist faux pas) but rather to bring attention to the indifference if not ill-treatment by Catholics in our time towards His Majesty in the tabernacles of our churches. Vanishing is the genuflection, that posture whichuniquely evidences both faith in the Real Presence and adoration of Christ's divinity. Even the less satisfactory curtsy or nod of the head towards the place of His reposition has become scarce. The general rule is to disregard God sacramentally in-residence and to carry on coram sacratissimum Sacramentum (in the presence of the most holy Sacrament) as if He were not there. Whether this is do to malice, to disbelief, or to the wide-embracing ignorance of right doctrine and practice by Catholics is hard to determine. But the resulting insult to a God who did not disdain to endure the crucifixion for the salvation of mankind cannot be denied.

Recently I visited a Catholic church where people were gathered to hear a concert -- a thing permitted under certain conditions, among which is the removal of the Blessed Sacrament and Its telltale sign, the sanctuary lamp. These prescribed measures were, to all appearances, not observed. As a result, not only was there the ordinary, moderate-tones chitchat of the audience before a performance but even the inducement to chaos by the evening's MC, as is now the prevailing custom in many a parish church, that everyone should turn to greet his neighboring pewsters on all sides. I was heartbroken as I thought of the Lord in His self-induced imprisonment to beckon a voluntary profession of faith in and respect for His divine Presence. While surely not all attendees of the musical event were Catholics, yet by no outward sign of theirs was witness given of their belief in the Divine Presence. Or, is that the point, namely, that faith in the Real Presence of Christ -- Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Holy Sacrament -- is absent? Have we come to this state?

Zeal for Your house consumes Me," our Lord lamented, when He ousted the money-changers from the Temple (Jn 2), abridging words of the psalm (68:9) which adds, "and the insults of those who insult You have fallen on Me." I too have some of Christ's "zeal," and I feel embarrassment and sorrow that my Lord is treated dismissively by His own. "Be silent before the Lord, all flesh, for He has roused Himself from His holy dwelling place" (Zech. 2:13) -- that admonition was made in reference to God's rather vague manner of presence in the Jerusalem Temple. Yet what have we in our churches but the very Incarnate Son of God under sacramental signs?

I insist that in our parish church the Lord not be abused by "outrage, sacrilege, and indifference" (to quote the familiar prayer). Avoid talking to your neighbor in church or, if the matter warrants it, in a whisper. The Lord has "zeal" for the sanctity of His house.

"Be still before the Lord!" (Ps. 36, Vulgate).

Fr. Perrone

"Sex-drenched"

Thus reads another missive from our underground correspondent, Guy Noir - Private Eye, sent yet again by carrier pigeon from God-knows-where. Unfolded and spread on the table, it read:

Ding ding ding! Read this (but kids, please be safe…)

Rod Dreher, "Cheap Sex = Dying Christianity" (American Conservative, September 5, 2017), who quotes Mark Regnerus, "Christians are part of the same dating pool as everyone else. That's bad for the church." (Washington Post, September 5, 2017):

Cheap sex, it seems, has a way of deadening religious impulses. It’s able to poke holes in the “sacred canopy” over the erotic instinct, to borrow the late Peter Berger’s term. Perhaps the increasing lack of religious affiliation among young adults is partly a consequence of widening trends in nonmarital sexual behavior among young Americans, in the wake of the expansion of pornography and other tech-enhanced sexual behaviors.

Cohabitation has prompted plenty of soul searching over the purpose, definition and hallmarks of marriage. But we haven’t reflected enough on how cohabitation erodes religious belief.

We overestimate how effectively scientific arguments secularize people. It’s not science that’s secularizing Americans — it’s sex.

About which, Noir noted that decades ago Frank Sheed also wrote on sex, as one finds here in this beautifully arranged post entitled "Let's Talk about Sex" (September 9, 2017).

In answer to which, sent back to Noir via carrier pigeon the following reply, folded up in a paper:

This is good stuff from Sheed. As always. I've run into several things on the topic lately, and one thing I'm gathering is that (ironically) the actual practice of sexual intercourse has dropped off precipitously since the advent of pornography. In Japan they're apparently no longer interested in getting married. It seems that actual relationships with real human beings are too much trouble. People are too busy having sex with themselves to trouble themselves with having it with others.

Sad.

Steve Sailer reviews film, Detroit

Steve Sailer, "Riot Acting" (Taki's Magazine, August 2, 2017).

AIM Report: Did Mueller Know Hoover’s Dark Secret?

Another underground agent, let's call him "Guy Rouge - private eye," writes:

The republicans know this but they will not fight against the establishment which hired Mueller to take Trump out.

Politically, Trump is a dead man walking and his executioner is man whose hands are covered with the same blood that Irish Mobster, and rifleman man Flemmi, spilled in Boston with the knowledge and assistance of the FBI.

Mueller knew....

"AIM Report: Did Mueller Know Hoover’s Dark Secret?" (Accuracy In Media, April 14, 2002):

It may be the worst scandal in FBI history: Joseph Salvati spent three decades in prison for a crime he didn’t commit. He was put there by uncorroborated, false testimony from an informant under the protection of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. There is compelling evidence that the Bureau knew Salvati was an innocent man and then conspired to keep him in prison for more than three decades. Knowledge of the Bureau’s actions seems to have gone right to the very top; documents uncovered recently show that then-Director J. Edgar Hoover monitored the case from Washington.

The FBI scandal was investigated for two years by the House Government Reform Committee, then under the chairmanship of Congressman Dan Burton (R-IN), who introduced legislation to remove Hoover’s name from FBI headquarters as a result of what he learned.

But the scandal gets worse than that. When Burton tried to acquire official records on the case from the Justice Department, he was stonewalled, and Attorney General John Ashcroft persuaded President George W. Bush to invoke “executive privilege” to block the committee’s subpoenas. This was President Bush’s first, and thus far only, use of executive privilege to withhold information from the Congress. Some think Bush is trying to protect current FBI Director Robert Mueller, who was in the U.S. Attorney’s office in Boston during part of the relevant time period. The confrontation with Burton prompted columns on the controversy by William Safire and Robert Novak.

Read more >>

“No Enemies to the Left” [pas d’ennemis à gauche] — Still!

By Kenneth D. Whitehead

In July-August 2001, Kenneth D. Whitehead, R.I.P., a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education, was a writer living in Falls Church, Virginia, and a Contributing Editor of the NOR. His latest book was One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic: The Early Church Was the Catholic Church (Ignatius, 2000).

Ed. Note: Throughout 2017, in commemoration of our fortieth year of publication, we are featuring one article per issue from the NOR’s past. This article originally appeared in our July-August 2001 issue (volume LXVIII, number 7) and is presented here unabridged. Copyright © 2001.

Ideological slogans might not always seem to be very important. Sometimes, however, they can reveal basic and persistent mindsets. This is the case with the slogan that originated in the French Revolution, “No enemies to the Left.” Students of European politics will recognize that this slogan has persisted, and that the ideas behind it still apply to today’s politics.

In his 1928 classic, The French Revolution: A Monarchist History, Pierre Gaxotte describes the inexorable logic of revolutionary “progress”:

The revolutionary period was characterized by allowing successive avant-garde parties or factions to take political power while riots and disturbances in the streets dictated the actual government policies that were adopted. Against the royal court and the privileged classes, the members of the National Assembly appealed to the turbulent sectors of the capital. Even while privately deploring the excesses committed from July 13 on, they closed their eyes to them because they wanted to hold in reserve the power of the clubs and of the streets. Thus they became prisoners of the alliance they had made; they became prisoners of the formula “no enemies to the left” (pas d’ennemis à gauche).

The relative moderates initially responsible for getting the Estates General convoked in order to deal with the financial crisis of the French monarchy were very soon shunted aside by the more radical elements, who quickly resorted to extra-legal means to convert the Estates General into a National Assembly. These revolutionaries in the Assembly soon fell from power, however, giving way to yet more radical elements. Each successive party or faction that came to power faced the same ongoing, volatile revolutionary situation.

Continuing agitation in the country at large, but especially in Paris, kept the streets, the press, the factions, and the clubs in constant ferment. What was taken to be public opinion marched relentlessly forward. Yesterday’s impossible, unthinkable measure became today’s “idea whose time has come”; yesterday’s progressive Assembly member became today’s reactionary, if not traitor to the cause. The revolutionary mechanism ground mercilessly on.

Gaxotte correctly identifies one of the reasons why the more radical revolutionary elements were repeatedly able to displace the successively outmoded “progressives”: In a revolutionary climate, where events are thought to be leading ineluctably to human “liberation,” a “better world,” and the perfecting of the human condition, the more radical forces not only exhibit more consistency and determination toward attaining these ends, they also come to occupy the perceived moral high ground — they are the ones who appear truly dedicated to the cause, and thereby usually gain at least short-term popular support. Meanwhile, those who are more moderate and potentially more reasonable become awed or intimidated by the zeal of the zealots and tend to yield to them.

If, by definition, the Revolution is going to usher in freedom, eliminate oppression and injustice, and create a better world, then those who are more committed, energetic, and intolerant of any kind of compromise with injustice and oppression acquire a considerable psychological and moral advantage — while those who are or have become more lukewarm about the cause, or who, at the very least, have become concerned about their jobs or careers, can no longer effectively oppose the zealots and the true believers.

It is true that power relationships and the abilities and opportunities of individuals, as well as a host of other factors, play important roles in how a particular revolutionary situation develops; but if the whole aim of the Revolution is to clear away the obstacles on the road to human liberation, progress, and a better world, then those least deterred by moral or other considerations in the face of the obstacles encountered will be out in front of others who might have second thoughts, or even scruples, or who are otherwise deterred by various obstacles.

These are among the reasons why, in a revolutionary situation, there are “no enemies to the Left.” For it is the Left, after all, that by definition represents where the Revolution is supposed to go.

Shapiro: some excellent debate points on transgenderism and abortion

Note: I didn't say every one of his points was good. He doesn't understand the arguments against contraception. But he's got some terrific points on transgenderism, in particular.

On leftist hyperventilation over change in administration

"Tom Cotton: Media, Democrats ‘Astonished’ Federal Government Still Working" (Breitbart, February 11, 2017):

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) this week ripped into critics of President Donald Trump who predicted a world of “chaos” under the new administration, and defended his muscular foreign policy stance.

“Some people, especially in the media and the Democratic Party, are astonished that we’re 18 days into the Trump administration, yet the federal government is still functioning,” he said in a wide-ranging speech on foreign policy at the American Enterprise Institute.

“World War III hasn’t broken out. America is still standing,” he said. “Perhaps our Constitution is more resilient than some believe, our people built of sturdier stuff than sugar candy, to borrow from Churchill. So resilient and sturdy, in fact, that our system can withstand the shock of a Republican presidency—even if the media can’t.”

Cotton cited one senator as saying Trump’s penchant for tweeting is “going to lead to chaos in our international relations.”

“I hate to break this to you: The world already is in chaos. The world already is unsettled. And I have more bad news: Barack Obama was the president for the last eight years, and it’s his actions that unsettled the world and spread chaos, not Donald Trump’s words,” he said.

Cotton, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was a vocal critic of the Obama administration’s foreign policy, particularly in the middle east, where he served as a soldier in Iraq.

He listed a litany of what he characterized as Obama’s missteps:

Barack Obama quit Iraq, sacrificing the gains we’d fought so hard for and leaving that country to fend for itself against Iran and the Islamic State.

Barack Obama conciliated with Iran from the first days of his presidency, ignoring the Green Movement and tolerating Iran’s imperial aggression across the Middle East, all in pursuit of a fatally flawed nuclear deal.

Barack Obama reset relations with Russia and promised more flexibility after his reelection. In return, Russia invaded Ukraine, destroyed Aleppo, harbored Edward Snowden, teamed up with Iran in the Middle East, and shot a civilian airliner out of the sky .

Barack Obama said al Qaeda was on the run, handcuffed our military and intelligence officers, and refused to call the jihadist enemy by its name, resulting in more and more complex terror threats than anything our nation has ever faced.

Even when he used force, he did so half-heartedly. He surged troops into Afghanistan—but not as many as his commanders requested and only with an explicit withdrawal date. He toppled the Qaddaffi regime in Libya with neither a plan nor any interest to stabilize the country.

“I would challenge you to name one country where America enjoys a stronger position than we did eight years ago—or one country that’s better off because of American policy. President Obama’s legacy is a legacy of ashes from the smoking ruins of a world ablaze,” he said.

Not to be missed: Pieter Thiel on Donald Trump

Maureen Dowd, "Peter Thiel, Trump's Tech Pal, Explains Himself" (New York Times, January 11, 2017).

Let others tremble at the thought that Donald J. Trump may go too far. Peter Thiel worries that Mr. Trump may not go far enough.

“Everyone says Trump is going to change everything way too much,” says the famed venture capitalist, contrarian and member of the Trump transition team. “Well, maybe Trump is going to change everything way too little. That seems like the much more plausible risk to me.”

Mr. Thiel is comfortable being a walking oxymoron: He is driven to save the world from the apocalypse. Yet he helped boost the man regarded by many as a danger to the planet.

“The election had an apocalyptic feel to it,” says Mr. Thiel, wearing a gray Zegna suit and sipping white wine in a red leather booth at the Monkey Bar in Manhattan. “There was a way in which Trump was funny, so you could be apocalyptic and funny at the same time. It’s a strange combination, but it’s somehow very powerful psychologically.”


At the recent meeting of tech executives at Trump Tower — orchestrated by Mr. Thiel — the president-elect caressed Mr. Thiel’s hand so affectionately that body language experts went into a frenzy. I note that he looked uneasy being petted in front of his peers.

“I was thinking, ‘I hope this doesn’t look too weird on TV,’” he says. Read more >>

Related: Maureen Dowd, "Confirm or Deny: Peter Thiel" (New York Times, January 11, 2017). Hilarious.
[Hat tip to Sir A.S.]

Trump, Republicanism, conservatism, & populism: Larry R. Arnn speculates

Trump does not always speak in complete sentences. His language is sometimes coarse. He is not a smooth-talking politician. He knows, however, how to play a crowd. He sizes up personalities and situations instinctively. He is impulsive rather than reflective. He comes from a business background where he is used to making deals autocratically and intuitively, not by consensus. These characteristics lead many of us to worry about demagoguery.

Is this, however, all there is to Trump? Is Trump simply an unprincipled opportunist and demagogue? Larry R. Arnn, who comes from circles very much involved in thinking about political principles and constitutional law doesn't seem to believe so. Are his ideas about Trump's instinctive conservatism anything more than wishful thinking? One would like to believe not. Time will tell. In any case, Arnn suggests there is a great deal we can learn from this election and from President-elect Trump about political conservatism, liberalism, and populism if we reflect on them in a principled way.

Larry P. Arnn, President, Hillsdale College, "A More American Conservatism" (Imprimis, Vol. 45, No. 12, December, 2016):

The astonishing political campaign of 2016 involved much debate about whether Donald Trump is a conservative. He was not always facile with the lingo of conservatism, and he pointed out once that he was seeking the nomination of the Republican, not the conservative party. Yet there is a lot we can learn from him about conservatism.

What is conservatism? It is a derivative term: it refers to something outside itself. We cannot conserve the present or the future, and the past being full of contradiction, we cannot conserve it entire. In the past one finds heroism and villainy; justice and injustice; freedom and slavery. Things in the past are like things in the present: they must be judged. Conservative people know this if they have any sense.

What then makes them conservative? It is the additional knowledge that things that have had a good reputation for a long time are more trustworthy than new things. This is especially true of original things. The very term principle refers to something that comes first; to change the principle of a thing is to change it into something else. Without the principle, the thing is lost.

If American conservatism means anything, then, it means the things found at the beginning of America, when it became a nation. The classics teach us that forming political bonds is natural to people, written in their nature, stemming from the divine gift they have of speech and reason. This means in turn that the Declaration of Independence, where the final causes of our nation are stated, and the Constitution of the United States, where the form of government is established, are the original things. These documents were written by people who were friends and who understood the documents to pursue the same ends. Taken together they are the longest surviving things of their kind, and under their domain our country spread across a continent and became the strongest nation on earth, the bastion of freedom. These documents do not appeal to all conservatives, but I argue that they should, both for their age and for their worthiness.

It follows then that if Donald Trump helps to conserve these things, he is a conservative in the sense that matters most to the republic of the Americans. Will he?

Two good stories ... Read them to the end. You'll know what I mean.

Two good stories

STORY NUMBER ONE

Many Years ago, Al Capone virtually owned Chicago.  Capone wasn't famous for anything heroic.  He was notorious for enmeshing the windy city in everything from bootlegged booze and prostitution to murder.

 Capone had a lawyer nicknamed "Easy Eddie."  He was Capone's lawyer for a good reason.  Eddie was very good!  In fact, Eddie's skill at legal maneuvering kept Big Al out of jail for a long time.

To show his appreciation, Capone paid him very well.. Not only was the money big, but Eddie got special dividends, as well.  For instance, he and his family occupied a fenced-in mansion with live-in help and all of the conveniences of the day.  The estate was so large that it filled an entire Chicago City block.

Eddie lived the high life of the Chicago mob and gave little consideration to the atrocity that went on around him.

Eddie did have one soft spot, however.  He had a son that he loved dearly.  Eddie saw to it that his young son had clothes, cars, and a good education.  Nothing was withheld.  Price was no object.

And, despite his involvement with organized crime, Eddie even tried to teach him right from wrong.  Eddie wanted his son to be a better man than he was.

Yet, with all his wealth and influence, there were two things he couldn't give his son; he couldn't pass on a good name or a good example.

One day, Easy Eddie reached a difficult decision.  Easy Eddie wanted to rectify wrongs he had done.

He decided he would go to the authorities and tell the truth about Al "Scarface" Capone, clean up his tarnished name, and offer his son some resemblance of integrity.  To do this, he would have to testify against The Mob, and he knew that the cost would be great.  So, he testified.

Within the year, Easy Eddie's life ended in a blaze of gunfire on a lonely Chicago Street.  But in his eyes, he had given his son the greatest gift he had to offer, at the greatest price he could ever pay..  Police removed from his pockets a rosary, a crucifix, a religious medallion, and a poem clipped from a magazine.

The poem read:

"The clock of life is wound but once, and no man has the power to tell just when the hands will stop, at late or early hour.  Now is the only time you own.  Live, love, toil with a will.  Place no faith in time.  For the clock may soon be still."

STORY NUMBER TWO

World War II produced many heroes. One such man was Lieutenant Commander Butch O'Hare.
 

He was a fighter pilot assigned to the aircraft carrier Lexington in the South Pacific.

One day his entire squadron was sent on a mission.  After he was airborne, he looked at his fuel gauge and realized that someone had forgotten to top off his fuel tank

He would not have enough fuel to complete his mission and get back to his ship.

His flight leader told him to return to the carrier.  Reluctantly, he dropped out of formation and headed back to the fleet.

As he was returning to the mother ship, he saw something that turned his blood cold; a squadron of Japanese aircraft was speeding its way toward the American-fleet.

The American fighters were gone on a sortie, and the fleet was all but defenseless.  He couldn't reach his squadron and bring them back in time to save the fleet.  Nor could he warn the fleet of the approaching danger.  There was only one thing to do.  He must somehow divert them from the fleet.

Laying aside all thoughts of personal safety, he dove into the formation of Japanese planes.  Wing-mounted 50 caliber's blazed as he charged in, attacking one surprised enemy plane and then another.  Butch wove in and out of the now broken formation and fired at as many planes as possible until all his ammunition was finally spent.

Undaunted, he continued the assault.  He dove at the planes, trying to clip a wing or tail in hopes of damaging as many enemy planes as possible, rendering them unfit to fly.

Finally, the exasperated Japanese squadron took off in another direction.

Deeply relieved, Butch O'Hare and his tattered fighter limped back to the carrier..

Upon arrival, he reported in and related the event surrounding his return..  The film from the gun-camera mounted on his plane told the tale.  It showed the extent of Butch's daring attempt to protect his fleet.  He had, in fact, destroyed five enemy aircraft.  This took place on February 20, 1942, and for that action Butch became the Navy's first Ace of W.W.II, and the first Naval Aviator to win the Medal of Honor.

A Year later Butch was killed in aerial combat at the age of 29.  His hometown would not allow the memory of this WW II hero to fade, and today, O'Hare airport in Chicago is named in tribute to the courage of this great man.

So, the next time you find yourself at O'Hare International, give some thought to visiting Butch's memorial displaying his statue and his Medal of Honor.  It's located between Terminals 1 and 2.

SO WHAT DO THESE TWO STORIES HAVE TO DO WITH EACH OTHER?

Butch O'Hare was "Easy Eddie's" son.

 (Pretty cool, eh!)

Snopes.com

Fund-raiser update! Thanks to our latest donors!!

I want to update you on our fund raiser for our sister-in-Christ who needs funds to help buy an operable used automobile to get to and from work. See more details HERE and HERE.

So far, after two days, we have had a total of eight generous donations and two pledges from individuals and families as far away as Ireland. Not all donors give out their addresses, but so far we have donations from: Ireland, Utah, North Carolina, Michigan, Kansas, and several of unknown origin. I would like to thank our most recent donors, who include Tim and Karla Dorweiler, Rob Mercantante, Teresa Grindlay, and Danielle Blosser; and two pledges -- one from Daniel Graham Clark and another from Ben Lafayette.

For the convenience of anyone else who would like to help out this friend-in-need, we've placed a donate button right on the bottom of this page.

Remember: Hilarem enim datorem diligit Deus ("God loves a cheerful giver")!!

Please give generously.

If you cannot give money, please pray for the success of this fund-raiser; and pray for Tonya and her family.
Thank you!!

Fierce

Reading Peter Wehner's "George Orwell's Fierce Modesty" (First Things, September 7, 2016), our underground correspondent we keep on retainer, Guy Noir - Private Eye, comments:

OK, and I have thought similar thoughts. A needed word.

And Orwell actually wrote a very appreciative review of Frank Sheed's Communism and Man.

But "fierce" modesty? Where on earth did that word come from, and how does it fit at all? "Sober," maybe, "measured," "admirable," "honest," "consistent." But "fierce" ? Sounds like a Bro Country album title.

You know what we really need? A fierce resistance to defaulting to intense words to try pump up our relevance and vitality. I saw a sign for "The Surge Church." We need "robust interior lives." We have to be "Gospel centered," there is the "New" evangelization, and Orwell was "fiercely" modest. It is exhausting enough to make you want to yawn. I know every age has its phrases, but have we peaked and overshot, in an era when new books routinely come out with a page of seven to nine book blurbs hyping a little known author, and even article titles have to have so.... much ... zing!

Hillary's Hammer ...

Amateur Brain Surgeon, "Hillary's Hammer" (Mick Jagger gathers no Moss, September 5, 2016). Referencing this bit of news, ABS offers the following delightful little ditty, a parody of Peter, Paul and Mary's once beloved ballad, "If I Had a Hammer":

Hill had a hammer,
She hammered in the morning,
She hammered in the evening,
Avoided taking the stand;
She hammered out evidence,
She hammered out guilt,
She hammered out the lawlessness between,
Her cash for access with Dictators and Sheiks
All over all land.

If I had a bell,
I'd put it on that cow,
It'd ring it in the evening
, All over this land,
It'd ring out danger,
I'td ring out a warning,
It'd ring out love between,
Conspirators and collectivists,
All over all land.

If I had a song
I'd sing it in the morning
I'd sing it in the evening
all over this land
I'd sing out danger
I'd sing out a warning
I'd sing out a conspiracy between Commies
and the libs all over all land

Well, Hill’s got a hammer
Hill's got a bell
and she had access to sell
all over all lands;
It's the hammer of no jail
It's the bell of more cash;
It's a song about access deals between State
and dictators

in forlorn foreign lands

Christ of the Andes: a post Olympian reflection on Rio's South American icon

Jim Davis, "Rio's Christ statue: Washington Post adds a delightful angle to the Olympics" (GetReligion, August 10, 2016). This is a very stimulating and uplifting post: worth reading. The statue was built to combat secularism in the 1920s, when Brazil was solidly Catholic. Even in 1970 92% identified as Catholic. Which gives special meaning to the need for renewed evangelization today, as St. John Paul II saw in his day (each generation is faced with the need to appropriate its faith for itself):

The Olympics in Rio have already thrilled millions with the gold medal performances of champs like Michael Phelps and the Final Five gymnastic team. But the Washington Post takes the occasion to look even higher: at the statue of Christ who stretches his arms out over the city.

This delightful newsfeature, by the Post's veteran religion writer Michelle Boorstein, captures several sides of what she calls "the most recognizable Christian image in Latin America": the history, the sheer size, and the many meanings behind it.

Yes, meanings, plural. As Boorstein says, "Christ the Redeemer" stands high in that class of national symbols standing for many things to many people. And yes, religious and spiritual elements are on her list.

Her story smoothly blends background, color, humor and informed sources....

Read more >>

[Hat tip to JM]

What enables Obama to play the race card so effectively: white guilt and therapeutic alienation

"Catching Up" (Old Life, August 30, 2016) observes that conservative Christians frequently believe that they have opened a new chapter on race relations. Mark Galli, for instance, suggests that conservative Christians have been "slow to hear what the black church has been telling us," and now finally begun to see how "racism is embedded in many aspects of our society, from business to law enforcement to education to church life."

The author of "Catching Up," however, notes that he used to "hear a lot about how evangelicals were always about 10 to 15 years behind the times"; and so he wonders when conservative Christians like Galli "will get around to reading John McWhorter whose book, Winning the Race, came out ten years ago." Back then, McWhorter wrote:

It’s not that there is “something wrong with black people,” but rather, that there is something wrong with what black people learned from a new breed of white people in the 1960s. . . . The nut of the issue is that [people who see racism everywhere] want neither justice nor healing. What people like this are seeking is, sadly, not what they claim to be seeking. They seek one thing: indignation for its own sake. . . .

Two new conditions were necessary for alienation among blacks to so often drift from its moorings in the concrete and become the abstract, hazy “race thing” that whites just “don’t get.”

One condition was that blacks had to be prepared to embrace therapeutic alienation, and ironically, this could only have been when conditions were improved for blacks. When racism was omnipresent and overt, it would have been psychological suicide for blacks to go around exaggerating what was an all-too-real problem.

Second, whites had to be prepared to listen to the complaints and assume (or pretend) that they were valid. This only began during the counter cultural revolution, within which a new openness to blacks and an awareness of racism were key elements. . . . Many whites were now, for the first time, ready to nod sagely at almost anything a black person said. And in that new America, for many blacks, fetishizing the evils of the White Man beyond what reality justified was a seductive crutch for a spiritual deficit that we would be surprised that they did not have. It was the only way to feel whole. Even blacks less injured were still injured enough to let the loudest shouters pass, as bards of their less damaging, but still aggravating, pains. (4, 5, 7)

[Hat tip to JM]

Tiptoeing through the Catholic tulips

The underground correspondent we keep on retainer in an Atlantic seaboard city that knows how to keep its secrets, Guy Noir - Private Eye, sent us a message by courier pigeon today, which read as follows:

Like Ann Coulter, MM can be an articulate ass.

So what, so can I! And so can be every single cleric we are forced to humor, including or especially the popes.

And so, let's agree that sometimes she makes her points.

Twice here...

First (regardless of the rust of the piece, this)

"Oh, please! There comes a time to grant a bit of credit to Mae West: “Between two evils, I always choose the one I haven’t tried before.”

http://studiomatters.com/catholic-case-donald-trump

(see graphic of HC on ice)

And then this beauty, which partially explains the popularity of a blowhard like Trump. I mean, how much Vatican II-like crap can any real man or woman stomach, anyway?:

"All the tiptoeing, the pussyfooting, the if-you-please-your-Majesty gets in the way of the truth of things."

Quite.

http://studiomatters.com/speak-nice-power

Sigh. O Tempora, O mores!

#blm

This just in from Guy Noir - Private Eye:

What believers might consider amidst the colors of wind.

A seasoned word from an African-American minister (Hampton U and Westminster grad!) about witness and cultural relevancy:

the original “BLM” ideology, which started as a rally cry and grew into an entity, has given rise to a cult with its own doctrines and demands for faith. It now extends beyond the original entity, blending with other belief systems in a syncretistic manner as it exports its own iconography, its own language, and its own heroes for veneration. Honestly, I am more concerned about this syncretistic subculture than I am about the original “BLM.” It is an infection that is finding its way into Christian communities.

"Reflections on Black Lives," (Prophets of Culture, July 16, 2016).

Contradicts President Helter Skelter's irresponsible 'narrative': "blacks commit homicide at 8 x the rate of whites & Hispanics combined ..."

Heather Mac Donald, "The Fire Spreads" (City Journal, July 17, 2017):

Perhaps it will turn out that the latest assassination of police officers, this time in Baton Rouge, is unrelated to the hatred fomented by the Black Lives Matter movement. Perhaps the gunmen were members of militia groups aggrieved by federal overreach, say. But the overwhelming odds are that this most recent assault on law and order, taking the lives of three officers and wounding at least three more, is the direct outcome of the political and media frenzy that followed the police shootings of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge and Philando Castile in Falcon Heights, Minnesota, less than two weeks ago. That frenzy further amplified the dangerously false narrative that racist police officers are the greatest threat facing young black men today.

President Barack Obama bears direct responsibility for the lethal spread of that narrative. In a speech from Poland just hours before five officers were assassinated in Dallas on July 7, Obama misled the nation about policing and race, charging officers nationwide with preying on blacks because of the color of their skin. Obama rolled out a litany of junk statistics to prove that the criminal justice system is racist. Blacks were arrested at twice the rate of whites, he complained, and get sentences almost 10 percent longer than whites for the same crime. Missing from Obama’s address was any mention of the massive racial differences in criminal offending and criminal records that fully account for arrest rates and sentence lengths. (Blacks, for example, commit homicide at eight times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined, and at about 11 to 12 times the rate of whites alone.) Instead, Obama chalked up the disparities to “biases, some conscious and unconscious that have to be rooted out . . . across our criminal justice system.”

Then five Dallas officers were gunned down out of race hatred and cop hatred. Did Obama shelve his incendiary rhetoric and express his unqualified support for law enforcement? No, he doubled down, insulting law enforcement yet again even as it was grieving for its fallen comrades. In a memorial service for the Dallas officers, Obama rebuked all of America for its “bigotry,” but paid special attention to alleged police bigotry ... The irresponsible zealotry of [his] rebuke was stunning. Obama was fully on notice that the hatred of cops was reaching homicidal levels. And yet his commitment to prosecuting his crusade against phantom police racism trumped considerations of prudence and safety, on the one hand, and decent respect for the fallen, on the other. Read more >>

[Hat tip to Sir A.S.]

American Me

From Guy Noir- Private Eye:

An unstable nutcase is untouchable by the FBI: "For The Record: Omar Mateen, G4S Armed Security Guard" (June 12, 20106). [You gotta be freakin' kiddin me!!!]

But a good, Scripture-spouting, soldier is problematic according to the Marines. "A danger at her desk job, your honor, sir." - "Highest military court considers limits of religious liberty in uniform" (World, April 29, 2016).

Are you kidding me?

Meanwhile, we focus on the really important questions, like...

• Can Caitlyn Jenner use the guys' bathroom?
• Can Hillary have her own private server?
• Is Trump truly racist?
• Will Beyonce release another unreleased song?
• Can we maybe outlaw guns and also legalize drugs?
  or, most emotionally,
• How many people will attend the next candlelight vigil?

Who cares and Whatever.

Gotta go now, and download the latest single from Kanye West.

Dr. Anca-Maria Cernea calling out the dark spirits in society and the Church

Wow! One courageous woman!