Is best demonstrated by its almost knee jerk tendency to assume malice in anyone who strives for what common sense once said was good. Here, NPR swoops in to suggest the sudden concern over our dangerously low birthrates could be - you guessed it - thinly veiled white nationalist white supremacy racist Naziism. Because of course. Apparently anyone thinking more babies are good must be motivated by wickedness. Which speaks volumes about the NPR mentality, if you think on it.
As a bonus, I love how the above artwork displayed in the piece has a white family, which obviously is suppose to elicit panic and visions of Nuremberg rallies on the part of the reader. The idea that a white family is supposed to suggest something evil purely by being a white family is hilariously demonic. But it shows how far the Left has come in its apparent conclusion that the only problem with the Nazis was that they race hated and mass exterminated all the wrong people for all the wrong reasons. Remember kids, if you ever and only reference an ethnic group, skin color, or other demographic based on accident of birth purely in negative, accusatory or pejorative ways, then you're a racist.
Naturally the content of the article is of no importance. It's the usual building a false molehill by ignoring a mountain of inconvenient facts and suffering and human experiences. In other words, contemporary journalism. I seriously doubt that science can possibly invent an instrument able to gauge the utter worthlessness of the modern media.
There will be time in the future to unpack the issues I had. But on the day of his funeral, I think it appropriate to look at the positive contributions he made to his time in this most famous of world offices. I wouldn't say this is all the positive I could think of, but they were the main ones I noticed and never stopped thinking on.
Focus on evangelism. We won't quibble over just what message he was wanting to spread, but at least the focus was there. Catholics are not known for their evangelistic zeal. While like most things, Pope Francis sent mixed messages, seeming to come down like a hammer on proselyting to the point where you wondered if just mentioning the Faith was wrong, at least he kept the idea out there. It wasn't as clear as Pope John Paul II's emphasis on evangelism, though that doesn't seem to have yielded the fruits many were hoping for either. But in Catholicism, mentioning the E-Word in any capacity I'll take as a win.
Focus on our consumer, throw away age. He was right in this. Most of our society is throwaway, being a godless, secular age that makes the Tin Man seem heart filled by comparison. Nothing is real and nothing to get hung about as they wise man said. You're born if you're lucky, you live, life sucks and you die. This isn't something corporations, institutions and much of our leadership today seem to dislike. In fact, seeing everything as expendable and throw away - including people when they and their situations don't benefit the agenda at large - has come to define our time. The same goes for truth, principles, and values. I think it's tough for us, especially younger folks, to imagine there was a time when this wasn't true for most of humanity. No matter how many corporations there were, or vast institutions, or elites in leadership rolls, there was an understanding of intrinsic worth of things that they had to pander to, if not believe in. Not today. And it shows.
A fighter. One reason liberals win is because they fight. They earn it. They fight on the beaches, on the landing grounds, in the fields and streets, in the hills, and as long as it's not bad weather, they will fight again and again. Conservatives score one victory and then go back to watching the game. Pope Francis, by his grit and determination to keep going to fight the fight, embodied a grit and determination that our modern age isn't always associated with. But he did it to fight for what he cared about, which is a very liberal thing to do. Would that conservatives demonstrate a portion of his dogged determination to see the job through and the agenda achieved.
Exposed his progressive Catholic supporters. Perhaps unintentionally, he gave his 'we're not leftists' Catholic supporters a big reveal. While he was often confusing, inconsistent and sometimes troubling in how he framed things, when it came to calling out the horrifying movement of transgender activism and its terrible impact on young people, he didn't hold back. Nor did he minimize what he said with an 'ah shucks, it's still not a big deal, no judging here.' That was one thing he blasted with both barrels in ways that would make Jerry Falwell proud. What an opportunity for his 'not leftwing Catholic' supporters to stand up to that element of the modern Left, knowing they had the pope at their backs! Yet did they? Was that when they said 'Hey, in keeping with our dear Pope Francis, we too much condemn this horrible movement!'? Nope, not that I saw. Most simply ignored it altogether. Or they pulled the old 'well it's complicated but I love the transgender community, not like those transphobic bigots who only say they disagree because there are people who want to torture gay people', or some such. Nope. As far as the individuals I saw, not one used this to take a bold stand against transgenderism. Which, to me, was more than telling.
Again, I'm not saying there were only four things he did that were worth something, three that he planned to do. But already the criticisms have been flying, and that's fine. I have a hard time believing he is the one to illicit a dogged insistence on traditional behavior in any situation. Nonetheless, I'll leave others to go there. I'm just one who appreciates the olden days approach of waiting to critique him until a little down the road.
Fun reference. Here is a very early post I did when Pope Francis became pope. Most I knew at the time were happy to see him become pope. There was very little in the way of problems. It was his supporters who made it a case of total obedience to the pope or else, setting back a thousand years the Catholic insistence that Catholics don't just mindlessly and blindly bow before the papacy.
He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death
shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more,
for the former things have passed away. Rev. 21.4
And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the
mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, so that they might go and anoint
him. And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb
when the sun had risen. And they were saying to one another, “Who will roll
away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?” And looking up, they saw that
the stone was rolled back; for it was very large. And entering the tomb, they
saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they
were amazed. And he said to them, “Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of
Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where
they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you
to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you.” And they went out and fled
from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them; and they said
nothing to any one, for they were afraid.Mark 16.1-8
I sometimes wonder if we aren't properly afraid, given the immensity of what our Faith claims. Just a thought.
In one brief clip. I'm thinking of this scene from A Fish Called Wanda.
Be aware, some language here.
I love that. The shock. The panic. The hysterics. And then - somebody just called! Not even a fake name.
That's the press right now. Take anything - the economy, tariffs, Ukraine, deportations, cabinet shake ups, dogs and cats - you name it. Just act like Jamie Lee Curtis. Panic, hysteria, floods, fire famine, doom, defeat, despair! Doesn't matter the topic, just repeat the hysterics with every report. You don't even have to sweat details.
Not that I'm not worried of course. Trump is taking a big risk. There are three things that can happen. This all works, very few are hurt and in a year or two the economy is roaring back in real life and not on media teleprompters, while other problems have been fixed and we're moving forward with a renewed hope for the future and love for our past. I see a President Vance in that future scenario.
Or, the tariffs and the upheaval do the job, but in the meantime millions are so damaged by the tactics that they will be left far behind the benefits, and in two and four years will vote accordingly.
Or, it blows up in Trump's and our faces, accomplishes nothing, causes endless damage and plunges things into far worse conditions than they were (which can always happen no matter how bad things are). In which case, VP Vance can look for other employment in 2028 and we'll be looking at President Whoever-Isn't-a-Republican.
That's about it. Nonetheless, I'm certainly not stupid enough to buy into the manufactured hysterics and fearmongering that, for some reason, isn't being condemned by the usual sources that are often so quick to condemn such tactics. Especially when compared to the 'forget about it all is well' from a year ago. We all know why this is and why trusting the modern press is for fools and nobody else.
In 2017, after weeks of protests, riots and violence, it became all about Trump and Putin having corrupted our democracy and stolen our election. The election was fake, illegal, stolen, and every other week we heard stories of the latest scandal or leaked memo that was gong to topple Trump once and for all and undo the 2016 election.
This time, however, Trump's victory and, more to the point, the Left's defeat was far too decisive. So now it's go straight to perpetual panic, the way they did in 1981 when Reagan took office. I remember that well, as I was old enough to understand what was going on by that stage in life. I remember the way they told us the only good thing about the Great Depression redux Reagan was about to plunge us into was that he would provoke the Soviets into a nuclear holocaust before it could ever happen.
Having failed to experience such a depression or nuclear annihilation of humanity because of ol'Ray-gun Ronnie, I've learned that when it comes to being told to panic, the last ones I'll take seriously are journalists. So we'll just wait and see and pray for the best. Oh, and do ourselves a favor and ignore anything the modern press has to say about life.
And that's that for topical posts this week. Again, it's a week for loftier things than concern about the obvious.
As we bundle up against yet more April evidence of Global Warming, I must admit it's been a whirlwind couple weeks. Sometimes you must think we live in a circus. I would not say it was all bad. Some of the developments have been wonderful. But, alas, we've also been hit with a couple broadsides, including in the health department, and that has drained the days and hours from me being able to put thoughts together. I started a post a few days ago and will try to finish it before next week, which I think is more properly spent not fussing about trivial matters like geopolitical events, the global economy, and the latest hellish tricks to trip up the faithful remnant. Thinking on the victory seems the better way to go. I'll probably get back to musing on those conversion stories after Easter and all the celebrations thereof. Otherwise, I hope all are doing well and enjoying the last Lentin push until that glorious day I've learned to love more than I did Christmas as a child. Till then.
A two year investigation of the Covenant School Shooting, the shooter's manifesto never having been officially released to my knowledge, has come to an end. Apparently the school, the traditional, conservative Christian school, was just a random target. Yes, the investigation found much rage and hatred aimed at targets that could be argued to identity with that particular school. But apparently the school being targeted was just random and not for any other reason than dumb, blind luck.
Remember, George Floyd was killed by a racist cop because of American systemic racism. The protests, riots, court case, condemnation of America as a 400 year old racist state, were all based on that verdict as soon as the story broke. And how did we know it was racism? Derek Chauvin is white, that's why. That's all we needed to know to not only immediately label it a racist hate crime, but then move to tarnish by association everything up to the whole of Western Civilization.
Yet time and again we'll see cases where something like the Covington shooting happens, and contrary to similar standards in other cases, it looks like it was just random fortune. Or a shooter with reams of rage hate against religion in general or Christianity in particular opens fire on a church - and authorities are unable to pinpoint a reason for it. Maybe a mental health problem? Or a black man kills multiple white people and is found to have endless posts hating on white people, but can we ever know why? A card carrying Democrat and leftwing activists opens fire on a group of Republican politicians, but we can't really speak to motives can we? Or a Muslim goes into a bar and murders multiple people because, according to the gunman, he is outraged at America's policies in the Middle East. So perhaps it was homophobia?
I'm no lawyer, but I recall the argument against the concept of hate crimes - and yes, youngsters might be shocked to discover that this was a debate in the 90s and not something universally agreed upon - was the pure subjective nature of it. That it could be driven by very shallow, and trendy, opinions, narratives and nothing more. Or it could be based on social prejudices or biases or ideological activism and not actual proof. Of course there were other arguments, such as the severity of the crime being based on the demographic identity of the victim. The implication that a white man raping and murdering a white woman might be bad, but nowhere as bad as if he does the same exact thing to a black woman purely because of the victim's skin color, had a certain ick factor for some people. Assuming, of course, that saying a white or black person has anything to do with skin color.
But on the whole, the argument I remember repeated often was that the idea of 'hate' is just too darn subjective, and too apt to be based only on theoretical fashions, trends, and the latest talking points in a college bar rather than objective fact based assessments. Nowhere is this more clear than here, or any one of dozens of cases where motives never seem able to challenge the dominant leftwing narratives of who will or won't forever be guilty based on oppressor or oppressed status.
For my part - again, no lawyer here - that is the problem. That it seems almost a stealth way of preemptively judging or exonerating people based on their particular identities and allegiances, only with legal teeth.
The response is copied from his Facebook page below. Ironically, I had blocked the good deacon some time ago because I grew tired of his playing fast and loose with honest discourse. I hated to see him slip into the same pit I've seen far too many, especially to the left of center, slip. That 'words speak louder than actions' trick that defines so much dialogue with those who tack progressive gets under my skin color.
Nonetheless, I thought better of it. I'm not a fan of blocking or banning people. Especially fellow believers. It makes me think of retreating into a room in the church basement and locking the door to keep 'those other believers' out of our hipster church club. I concede it must happen sometimes. But it should be done like it was in the olden days of the Internet - rarely and only because of the worst cases (threats, calumny, personal attacks without stopping after multiple warnings). So I unblocked him, only to have him block me. That's because I finally called him out on his 'good cop/bad cop' tendency of threatening to block people who even challenge a leftwing mantra, saying he only wants the best behavior on his pages, while standing back and letting people like Shea and Rebecca Weiss and other leftwing readers rip into anyone challenging their leftwing sympathies with endless name calling, accusations and personal attacks. So that was the end of me.
Nonetheless, there are others I know and follow who haven't been banned, and other sources that still follow him. So from those sources this came to me, which I thought was every bit as telling as Mr. Lewis's piece (that's why no link, BTW). What think you? Do you notice what I notice in his reasoning?
Apparently someone challenged the 'only those MAGA types are the real problem' template. Deacon Greydanus's response is to that comment. First the comment:
All of this irritates me to no end. Fine, people on the
right are too factional. So are people on the left. Every single Catholic group
my wife and I ever been involved in (including breastfeeding groups,
homeschooling groups, and pro-life groups) fall into the same trap of
constantly pointing at someone else and saying “They’re factional!” The devil
knows its a perfect trap: Factionalism is really bad, and to constantly
complain about factionalism only deepens factionalism. It would be much better,
I think, to spend time promoting the good that Jesus Christ offers the world
and how that instantiates itself in various proposals. We never get to do that
because we always say, “First of all, look what a jerk the other guy is. Now
let me tell you about Jesus.
And his response:
I have something to say about this. I don’t think your
response is adequate. I don’t think you’re entirely reckoning with what this
discussion is really about.
Here’s what I think you may be missing: People like Mike and
me (along with many people in this thread, as you can see for yourself) are not
just angry or upset about “factionalism,” or people being “jerks.” We are
wounded souls processing trauma and grief over the loss of one-time heroes and
friends whom we watched in dismay and disbelief as they turned against us, and
against, so it seems to us, the heart of the faith we thought we shared with
them, in the process of building a militant, powerful Catholic subculture
organized around entrenched resistance to the pope (if not to Vatican II), a
string of culture-war shibboleths (e.g., knee-jerk repudiation of anything
associated with “wokeness”; deep hostility regarding any attempt to treat
people who identify as LGBTQ with respect and welcome), unfettered enthusiasm
for the hardest possible line on immigration, and, ultimately, uncritical,
quasi-religious support of Trump/MAGA.
We have heard these things said from pulpits, from episcopal
offices, and in Catholic media spaces. We have been told—by people we respected
and cared about, whose words we used to hang on—that we are not really Catholic
if we see things differently.
I’m not saying progressive, dissenting Catholics can’t be
factionalistic. I’m saying we who don’t (or, in some cases, who once didn’t)
dissent from the Church never expected progressive dissenters, or any
dissenters, to model Christian unity and integrity. We did expect that of our
heroes and friends. Their betrayal—compounded by their accusation that *we* are
the traitors—is an open wound from which we continue to suffer.
Cardinal Burke was one of my great heroes, a rock star of
fidelity, erudition, and sober judgment in my eyes. To see him brought low by
so absurd a rightwing canard as Covid vaccine microchip conspiracy theories was
bad enough. Worse was his violence to basic canon law principles—Cardinal
Burke, doing violence to canon law!—by redefining “apostasy” to include
Catholics like President Biden whom he considers to have “publicly and
obstinately violated the moral law,” and his quite literally scandalous “just asking
questions” engagement with sedevacantist speculation about Pope Francis being
invalidly elected (in discussion with Patrick Coffin, who has repeatedly
platformed the likes of E. Michael Jones, among other gross things).
That’s just one example—and I don’t even know Cardinal
Burke. I’ve been insulted and attacked in every way imaginable by people I once
called friends. I am a fallen and flawed human being who has made many
mistakes, and not every ugly word flung my way has been undeserved or
incomprehensible. But some of them are simply because I believe God is doing
good things in the Church through Pope Francis. Because I believe my Black
neighbors and brothers in Christ when they say racism is still a significant
problem. Because I believe in treating people who identify as queer first as
human beings created in God’s image. Because I believe that immigrants who have
lived here for decades have rights that must be respected.
Cardinal Ratzinger, shortly before his election to the chair
of Peter, talked about the danger posed by those who talk about God but live
contrary to him, and how this opens the door to unbelief. He talked about the
great need for people who, by the enlightened faith they live, “make God
credible” in the world. Our crisis, our wound, is that the very people who once
made God credible for us have now turned out to be people who talk about God
but live contrary to him. This has led many to doubt, to struggle with
unbelief, to fall away from the Catholic communion, or to lose their faith
altogether. This is not about mere factionalism. This is about making God’s
love visible in the world, or distorting it in the pursuit, ultimately, of
political power.
