A tale of two conversions

One from a man named Colin Wright, who seems to suggest that he is still the liberal he always was, but the Left has gone so radical that it pigeonholed him into the right side of the debate.  His breaking point appears to be when he, a scientist, was attacked for insisting the science does lean toward the biological reality of a person informing that person's sex.  

The other is from Mike Lewis, former conservative Catholic and current contributor to Where Peter Is, who has abandoned traditional conservative Christians and Catholics when he realized how wrong they are. I'm not sure I can find a breaking point with Lewis, other than the conservatives who don't agree with Pope Francis and believe Pope Francis upends historical Catholic teaching. 

In some ways, they both make the same basic argument:  It isn't I who left X, but X left me.  

I was going to comment on some obvious differences, but I thought I'd just throw these links out there for now and see what others notice.  I'll toss in my two cents down the road.  

Anyone know anything about Creative Minority Report?

Apparently it hasn't been reachable for several days.  I don't personally know much about it.  But a reader was curious since he wasn't able to reach the site.  I tried and couldn't either.  So any info would be appreciated. 

I've been reading The Latin Right recently

Here is a link.  The blog is at Patheos, and I say more power to him.  I see some of the usuals who tend to wander about Patheos.  Not many of the old trolls, but quite a few who are obviously to the left of center.  As can be expected, some of their positions and rhetoric match the increase in madness we're seeing in the world around us.

Nonetheless, the blog author - one Dennis Knapp - does a pretty good job writing in a fair manner and being willing to engage maturely with those who disagree.  Not an easy trick at a place like Patheos.  

Just thought you might like to know about his site if you haven't stumbled across it yet, and perhaps step in and give a few pennies worth of thoughts here and there.  I resist the temptation to comment, but if others would like to jump in and join the fray, I doubt he'd mind.  

A very Catholic movie?

I wonder.  Over at John C. Wright's blog, he posts a reader who argues that it is.  Yes, it had some pretty obvious Christian imagery.  That doesn't always mean something is filled to the brim with Gospel messaging.  

It wouldn't  surprise me if it was.  Even if Europe and the West were quickly shedding their beliefs in the Christian Faith by the 20th Century, it was still there.  And if belief in the religious message wasn't there, you could still find value in the Faith's teachings and symbolism.

Plus, you have to watch out.  Even if it wasn't steeped in Catholic meaning, that doesn't mean it was some communist socialist agitprop, as I've at times heard it (and other things) described.  In any event, it has been a long time since I watched it.  I'll have to go back and watch it.  The last time I saw it the boys were much younger, but all agreed it lived up to the hype. 

Prayers for Rod Dreher

Rod Dreher has posted that his wife has filed for divorce, and he has accepted.  I can speak no more about the topic, follow the link to his post which has more details. 

I've long said that Rod is a couple hits and a few misses to me.  Like many Orthodox, he doesn't hold back the chance to hash and trash the Catholic Church.  He also epitomizes my rule that at any given moment, modern leftwing activism can count on 1/3 of conservatives to join in with the cause.  

Nonetheless I value his book The Benedict Option, because I think Rod caught what many are denying - that the Christian Faith, in the dead West at least, is about to enter an era we've never experienced.  From the dawn of Western Civilization, Christianity was the big kid in the class.  Now we're not.  We're a shrinking minority in a secular pagan society.  And this new paganism enjoys a growing number of believers who are aligning with it in order to dodge the implications of resisting the new diveristy. 

Rod calling out what so  many, including conservatives, deny is valuable beyond compare.  Rod also is a tireless fighter against our culture of death, debauchery, and assaults on the youngest of these merely to slake our self-righteousness and hedonistic culture. 

All of these things, however, do not a person make.  I know nothing of Rod personally.  I've interacted with him in the comments section a couple times.  That makes me as useless of a source for understanding Rod as you can get.  Much less understanding him, his wife and family, and everything that has happened. 

In fact, true to most cases, despite the thousands of people Rod meets, most know little more about him than I do.  This is the stuff best left to Rod and his wife, his family, and the few inside their circle  of confidants.  

Prayers for him, and his wife.  Prayers especially for his children.  Divorce is a wrecking ball in the life of a child, no matter what the age.  I know few whose parents divorced, no matter what the age, who weren't scarred.  

Rod didn't allow comments to load for this post, fearing some might jump on board and use his suffering for their chance to score a few zingers.  Given my experience on the Internet, I have a hard time believing he's wrong.  

Nonetheless, I also feel many would have liked to post encouragement and prayers for him.  In lieu of posting it there I'll post those prayers here. I pray for him and his wife, and especially his children, that the Lord can reconcile and they can seek some path, however dim, to find their ways back to each other. 

A visit from Sam Rocha

If you recall, I commented on a Twitter post of Sam where he blasted EWTN, Word on Fire, and other Catholic outlets.  He asserted that they avoid discussing the teachings of Pope Francis because they're cowards intimidated by everyone's favorite boogeymen, Republican conservatives.

OK.  I poked fun at how he framed it, and mentioned that it sniffed of the old liberal definition of diversity (that is, anyone right of center is a fascist ready to storm the walls with pitchforks and torches).  Something I've listened to tolerant and open minded liberals claims for decades. 

Anyhoo, Sam visited the comments section to take issue.  Initially his focus was on setting the record straight about his particular job title and educational position.  Fair enough.  A couple of us, however, tried to get Sam to speak to the subject of the post itself.  Sam insisted I had taken the Twitter post out of context from a thread of Twitter posts on the subject.  He also said this existed within the framework of larger conversations he has had about the issue. 

Despite attempts to get him to comment or provide links to the greater conversation, he didn't make further comments or provide links. So I did my best to find what I could to set the record straight.  

I was unable to find any blog posts or articles by Sam that seemed to touch on the subject, though he might have accounts I don't know about or can't access.  With some help I was able to piece together the larger Twitter thread which contained the post I referenced (remember, I personally don't have Twitter, but usually get images of Twitter posts from other sources).   Here is what I found, my comments below:

Maybe it's me, but I didn't see anything in the surrounding Twitter posts that changed my impression of the initial post.  It's mainly saying people are ignoring Pope Francis's teachings, especially referencing Fratelli Tutti, which he sees as prophetically calling the Ukrainian war.  He mentions that individuals refused to read Fratelli Tutti, and then he wades into EWTN and WoF.  After that, he takes a shot at 'post-liberal' Catholics.  

Not sure what he means  by that.  There is such a thing as post-liberal theology.  Go Yale.  If he means the same, but within Catholic contexts, I don't know. Or if he is using it in some other manner I'm likewise not sure.  Nor do I know what he means by coy liberalism.  I guess that's one of those traits of social media that I fall into sometimes - using my own personal terms and assuming everyone knows what I'm talking about. 

The only troubling part I caught was his assertion that WoF doesn't speak to Pope Francis's teachings where they might offend those Conservative Republicans.  With a quick Google search, I found several links to WoF articles and videos where they do cover his teachings, and that includes ones I know that conservatives take issue with.  So that's a case where it's not true they don't speak to those teachings.  Perhaps Sam means they don't speak to them to the degree or in the manner he would prefer. IMHO,  however, that doesn't rise to being called cowards, simply because something isn't done up to a personal standard. 

But there you have it.  Sam provided no links to broader conversations about the topic, so I can't speak to those.  I obtained images from the larger Twitter thread.  I don't know if that was all the context or not.  But unless something big was missing, nothing in the surrounding Twitter posts really changed my assessment of his initial post - a leftwing partisan style swipe at people more or less not on the left side of the tracks, or at least Sam's assessment of what should be the proper side of the tracks.  With scholar talk. :) 

On the other side of the field, John C. Wright looks at the Seven Demonic doctrines of modernity

In contrast to Mark's 'what's wrong with progressive modernity' approach, John C. Wright muses on what's wrong with progressive modernity.  Basically it's the Seven Deadly Sins understood through the prism of modernist sins.  

It's hardly a dissertation, but it does remind us of things that are sinful in light of Revealed Truth, and yet sins we've almost become used to.  For instance, the sin of Materialism, and how it finds itself as Christianity helping the poor for the sake of helping the poor and for no other reason than helping the poor.  Because this world and really only this world. 

It's not a long article, for JC Wright.  But there's a lot to chew on. 

Mark Shea demonstrates modern Christianity's great surrender

Read it here.  I usually don't link to Mark's website for obvious reasons.  As I've said, learning  about Christianity from Mark today is as useful as asking Fred Phelps to explain the Gay Rights Movement. The Mark Shea of 2005 long ago left the building. 

Nonetheless, it's an interesting case study of the approach of forever hiding any part of the Gospel under a bushel when the world demands.  Mark, like so many Christians today, justifies constantly retreating and giving up whenever we're told by insisting we don't know what we know. Mark, for instance, knows full well what CE and BCE mean.  Those who use the terms make it clear what they mean, and why they use the new replacement terms.  

But note the denial.  Denial or compromise that are always wrapped in a Jesus banner of righteous justification.  Or worse, the idea that CE means Jesus to me, but can mean anything to you.  As if somehow Jesus is just a Christian thing, but others are just fine in their own walks.  Not something ever endorsed  by orthodox Christianity that I'm aware of. 

Many Christians don't see the problem with the emerging post-Western  revolution, since they've all but admitted they will acquiesce, compromise and surrender whenever the new modernist world demands.  But those who would resist see the obvious problem and the gathering storm clouds. They can already see the catastrophic body count and endless suffering this revolution has brought. 

Why so many Christians are quickly jettisoning the entire Christian Western tradition, Christian culture, Christian values, and even other Christians, is something I can't guess.  Whether they secretly no longer believe, or they simply weren't prepared for a movement of intolerance and crushing oppression that will happily fire you and ruin you if you don't conform, I don't know.  My guess is that anyone Mark's age or older never imagined we'd be in a nation where people are called upon to be fired for insisting men can't have babies.  

In any event, I just know we're watching a movement making it clear - nakedly, painfully, obviously clear - that it wants the heritage of the entire Christian Faith and Christian West to be burned to the ground.  If it must convince us that all Whites are racists and can only be redeemed by the saving blood of the Leftist State, so be it.  Whatever the reason or whatever the tactics, the goals are more and more apparent.  

What is equally obvious is what has always been obvious since biblical times: Whenever someone comes in with the latest Asherah pole, you can bet the majority of believers will find ways to keep one foot in the Temple, and one foot at the base El's consort. Slick arguments that insist all true believers should bow before Asherah were doubtlessly no different than those thousands of years later. 

John C. Wright reviews the movie Legend

Here is the review.

I saw Legend ages ago, on VCR.  Some friends and I were just curious enough to see how it was, largely because of Tim Curry.  I don't remember much of it.  Again, never much of a fantasy/sci-fi type.  But I remember the visuals, and I remember being somewhat impressed by them.  

Why I couldn't remember the overall plot isn't something I can comment on.  I don't think it was overly complex.  I think I actually saw the movie again some years later.  Like the first time, the story didn't leave a big impression on me.  It wasn't horrible.  I didn't hate it.  I didn't even mind Tom Cruise, an actor I find continually looks worse for being surrounded by crack supporting actors. 

I just don't remember it beyond the visuals.  Mr. Wright unpacks why this might be the case. 

The story of King Wenceslas

And that Feast of Stephen we hear so much about.  Donald McClarey does the heavy lifting so we don't have to.  If I was only allowed to visit five websites, I would make sure The American Catholic was one of them. 

Not that he is writing full historical texts on the subject.  But compared to what passes as historical studies today, his posts about various historical figures and events is practically on the level of doctoral dissertations.  It reminds me of the history as it was commonly presented even when I was a young fellow.  

So enjoy the read and learn a little about someone who comes up in our yearly stock of Christmas carols, but who was so much more. 

Good King Wenceslas looked out
On the feast of Stephen,
When the snow lay round about,
Deep and crisp and even.
Brightly shown the moon that night,
Though the frost was cruel,
When a poor man came in sight,
Gathering winter fuel.

Hither, page, and stand by me.
If thou know it telling:
Yonder peasant, who is he?
Where and what his dwelling?
Sire, he lives a good league hence,
Underneath the mountain,
Right against the forest fence
By Saint Agnes fountain.

Bring me flesh, and bring me wine.
Bring me pine logs hither.
Thou and I will see him dine
When we bear the thither.
Page and monarch, forth they went,
Forth they went together
Through the rude wind's wild lament
And the bitter weather.

Sire, the night is darker now,
And the wind blows stronger.
Fails my heart, I know not how.
I can go no longer.
Ark my footsteps my good page,
Tread thou in them boldly:
Thou shalt find the winter's rage
Freeze thy blood less coldly.

In his master's step he trod,
Where the snow lay dented.
Heat was in the very sod
Which the saint had printed.
Therefore, Christian men, be sure,
Wealth or rank possessing,
Ye who now will bless the poor
Shall yourselves find blessing

Scott Eric Alt responds to my post

A few days ago I took issue with a post by Scott Eric Alt.  Now, Mr. Alt has responded to me.  Read it here.  In case I muddled the previous post, let me break it down, to make sure we're on the same page.  Here is an image of the book title that seemed to be the launch point for the post:

And here is the Twitter post that objected to the above book title:

I couldn't care less what Mr. Alt's arguments about Scott Han are, positive or negative.  Or what the book has to say about the matter.  Whatever.  But what struck me in Mr. Alt's initial post that I linked to was this:

So to have criticisms of Scott Hahn means that a Catholic “serves a different master”? What you think of Scott Hahn is a litmus test for whether you’re serving God or Satan? Scott Hahn is above criticism by any faithful Catholic?

That’s straight-up undisguised idolatry.

The comments on that post are as tragic as you would expect.

(I also find it ironic that the same people who feel Scott Hahn is above criticism by decent Catholics regularly attack the Holy Father, as though attacking the Holy Father is a hallmark of decent Catholicity.

That highlighted sentence is what jumped out at me.  The 'Gee people, isn't a faithful Catholic allowed to offer a mere criticism of Dr. Hahn?'  Please.  That sounds like an over the top objection from a Pee Wee Herman movie.  The reaction of Leila Miller was a reaction to a deliberately provocative and accusatory book title and we know it.  If you don't like the over the top reaction, then say the same about an over the top book title. 

Sure, if you want to criticize Scott Hahn, then do so.  Heck, if you want to criticize those who still think Scott Hahn adds value to Catholic teaching, by all means.  But the Jerry Springer level click-bait book title is meant to do just what it did..  The 'Hahn American Pope and Catholic fundamentalists' aren't academic assessments or careful journalistic uses of terminology.  As Terry Mattingly at GetReligion was fond of pointing out, they're being used here to take broad swipes, and Mr. Alt knows it.

Which, as I said my post, is the problem.  The 'let your yes be maybe to give yourself a slick exit just in case' is more at home with the Father of Lies than the Father of Light.  We darn well know that book title was meant to do something, and acting like we're shocked that it did so is the same rhetorical sleight of hand all too common today.  The same level of duplicity we see when late nigh political activists insist they're really just humble comedians, so why the fuss?  So for heaven's sake, don't play the part of the hapless babe who just can't understand why those fundamentalists are so defensive.  It's unseemly and a bit cowardly if you must know. 

I will make one factual correction.  Mr. Alt labels me a 'pop apologist'.  I'm not an apologist, nor do I claim the title apologist.  That's why I spend little time on this blog unpacking Catholic doctrine or defending the Catholic faith against detractors and skeptics. That's for people with the time to put in the work needed for reliable apologetics.  I'm just a fellow who looks at the news and the goings on of the day and comments on how those impact a Catholic convert in a changing world.  I also watch what others on the Catholic Internet do and how I believe that helps or hinders the cause.  

But again, rather than get into a tit for tat with Mr. Alt, I'll leave you to read his rebuttal.  You decide. My contention was that he knew full well why people responded to the book in question the way they did, or at least responded to the implications of its title, and he shouldn't act surprised that they did, . He has responded to clarify.  I'll leave you to it. 

Oh, and since I do allow comments, Mr. Alt is free to comment here if he's up to it. . 

Dr. Larry Chapp looks at Pope Francis

By looking at the actions toward the John Paul II Institute in Rome. I was going to add a few thoughts, but that would be like asking to add a ditty to the Amadeus soundtrack.  It's a good read, and I disagree with little of it.  But I'll leave others to read through and make their own decisions.  Enjoy. 

Come to the League of Catholic Bloggers

Really, here is the link.  Come on over and visit, because many great bloggers who are sticking the landing of Catholic faithfulness are there.  Oh, and I will be too, as I've been extended an invitation to be added to their lists of contributors. So I'll be part of the august company of those trying to stay faithful in these turbulent times.  

Everyone who visits here knows I play pretty fast and loose with my writing, envisioning a 'casual conversation around a pint at a pub' blog than seeing my posts as dissertation level submissions.  Nonetheless, with school coming my output may be hampered a bit.  Therefore, to make up for that I'll pull out the old Strunk and White and at least try to keep it in good company with some pretty awesome contributors to the cause. 

My posts will be here of course, picked up there, but make sure you visit to see the busload of other good insights and articles.  Meantime, see you in the funny papers. 

Know the difference between proclaiming the Faith and exploiting it

Case in point: M. Shea's long awaited piece on the death of Rush Limbaugh.  It was what I imagined, a chance to drag Rush through the mud, accept all accusations against Limbaugh at face value, use them to tar and feather the greater conservative movement, and then dangle the possibility that he might be saved despite his manifold evils as defined by the political Left.  A partisan political hit piece disguised as a reflection with only the thinnest veneer of religion spread about for good measure. 

Now I personally was not a huge Limbaugh fan.  Limbaugh was a phenomenal communicator, and often fun to listen to.  He also did some good things, and made some valid arguments in defense of conservatism.  Chief among my favorite contributions was him being one of the first on the national stage to pull the veil away from the media's already clear and obvious bias as early as the late 1980s.  His presence also put the lie to the Left's proud sermonizing about the importance of respecting other opinions and always championing free expression of ideas, no matter how offensive. 

Rush continued to make some good points here and there over the years.  But, IMHO, he also represented that conservative swing toward putting defense of Corporate Interests at the head of the class and the primary goal over and against any and all other goals and priorities. A tendency that is now swinging around and kicking conservatives in the tail end. 

Nonetheless, not being a fool and a partisan hack, I also knew when criticisms of Rush were valid, and when they were hit pieces by a biased propaganda ministry meant to tear him, like any other dissenters, down to size. Naturally Mark makes no such distinctions. Every attack and every criticism and accusation of Rush as racist, bigot, evil non-liberal man is taken as gospel truth. 

But here's the dangerous part.  In all of this, Mark frames it as 'there but by the grace of God go I.'  He basically says he, too, is the same type of sinner in need of repentance.  I often see that in writings by the faithful, especially of amateur status.  You drag someone through the mud, attack them with both barrels, and then make some vague 'but I, too, am a sinner in need of God's grace' to cover the tracks.  On the surface it seems fair enough, but it isn't.  It is just tossing a cloak of righteousness on a hit piece through appealing to a doctrinal technicality.

If Mark wanted to make his point, he could have written of Limbaugh, and if need be acknowledged what we all know, that Limbaugh was far from perfect and no doubt a sinner like us all.  Then Mark could have publically unpacked his owns sins - by name - and told us of his dire need for God's grace and forgiveness.  Or he could have kept his own sins vague and unnamed, while doing the same for Limbaugh.  Or, if he was unable to deal with Rush's death without doing what he did, he simply could have applied the Thumper rule.  

I know some will say Mark was very specific in the piece about repenting of his days as a conservative.  That's not what I mean.  I don't mean you can say 'Like Limbaugh, there was a time when I, too, was a vile sinner for not realizing the evils of conservatism and conservatives in America, but I'm much better now.'  That's nothing but rationalizing partisanship by acting as if it was only wrong because it was in line with the wrong partisanship. 

No, this is the type of attempted cleverness that does more harm to the Faith's witness than it does good. It also does no good for the individual in question, in this case Mark.  Mark has essentially mocked God by acting as if God isn't aware of what Mark has done and why he has done it. 

If someone dies and you feel the need to go on about his sins, but CYA by ending it with your own need for God's grace, consider the better way to do it.  Either name your own sins, or keep the sins of both general and unnamed.  Or perhaps don't bother dragging the individual's sins over his grave in the first place.  Don't use the Faith, or the teachings of the Church, to trash a dead person and then pull a clever didactical sleight of hand as if it covers up what you have clearly done.  The Gospel of Christ is many things, but a crucifix shaped bludgeon to use against those who run afoul of our political opinions is not one of them.  

Those who want to learn about the Faith and its teachings be warned.  Check your sources for the least acceptable standards.    

Do not be deceived; God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.  Galatians 6.7

UPDATE: I was made aware that Rebecca Bratten Weiss has penned a hit piece that makes Mark's piece look charitable by comparison.  No attempts to cover her loathing of Limbaugh and those even marginally right of center with any religious posturing.  It's a political attack post plain and simple.  Bonus fun goes to her last paragraph in which she tries to frame anyone who dares disagree with her pissing on those run afoul of her opinions as part of the problem.  An old trick and one that has never worked with me. 

It's worth noting that most Catholics (and in fact Christians) I've read have either ignored the news of Limbaugh's death, or have posted variations on 'he was good here, problems there, pax to his soul.'  I've seen none elevating Limbaugh to fourth person of the Holy Trinity.  So far these are the worst examples from the faith community.  But so far, at least from what I've seen, the exception to the rule. So there's always hope. 

The things you find on the Internet

Not all is bad on the Internet, and sometimes that even extends to the world of Social Media.  Take for example this blog entry on James Maliszewski's blog of interesting things.  It's a blog for those who are interested in the world of sci-fi and fantasy, especially as those genres pertain to role-playing games. 

In this case, he muses on the artwork of the  board game Dark Tower.  I've posted about that game several times over the years.  For the longest time, it was the Holy Grail of my childhood nostalgia.  I used to regale the boys about it time and again.  And as I wrote here, once I got my hands on a complete copy for a surprisingly acceptable price (it kept within the realm of inflation if you figured it), I was happy to see the boys actually enjoyed it.

Now, I admit - and so have they - that its replayability factor is a bit limited.  One reason is that they know, and I know, that the old thing can only last so long.  Each time we turn it on we hold our breath.  That makes it something they don't just want to drag off the shelf and play ever day.  It is an original from going on half a century ago. 

But beyond that, it is primitive by today's standards.  As the boys say, the AI is essentially not AI.  There is no balancing factor.  Each game is basically seeing who will get plastered by dragons, plagues, brigands, and all manner of bad luck while seeing who else skips along with no adversity and makes it clean to the gates of the tower.   As funny as that can be, it has its limits in terms of taking time out of the day to watch it happen.  After all, as we know, our technologically advanced age has far less time than we did in those lazy, hazy days at the dawn of the computer revolution (you know, the revolution that was supposed to get computers to do it all for us so we'd have infinitely more time to kill).

Anyhoo, Mr. Maliszewski muses on the artwork for the game.  It never dawned on me that the artwork would be from anyone not in a cubical at some toy manufacturing company.  Turns out, it was an actual artist.  That might be why it was so evocative and its absence in the kickstarter reboot is so keenly felt.  The same, of course, for the digital sound effects, at least one of which would never pass the 21st Century censors.  

But it art goes to show the level of production that went into the product.  My boys call it creative inflation.  The idea that, while things are certainly more complex, more impressive in terms of output, and sometimes more enjoyable (not insta-kill due to lack of AI), there is something missing in today's product lines.  Somehow, if you consider creativity in terms of inflation like you consider box office receipts when comparing Gone With the Wind to The Avengers, you end up the same way.  The latest may be more on so many levels, but if you think of the newness and limits of almost 45 years ago, and think of the production and output compared with everything we have today (including 40 years of learning) is it really that much better?

I think they're onto something.  In fact, without me pointing it out to them, I pointed it out here.   So with all that, take it away Orson (Milton Bradley demonstrating its quality investment by having none other than the great Orson Welles throw out the sales pitch):

The right way to do history

Courtesy of Donald McClarey at The American Catholic.   As opposed to the dumpster fire of presentism and intolerant judgmentalism (at least toward the Christian West and America) that defines the Left's approach.  It's as good a treatment of the Gettysburg Address and its context as you'll find on this side of a history book. 

A brief overview of the destruction of Western Civilization that we're witnessing

Courtesy of John C. Wright.  By brief I mean in terms of an educated and literate society.  In our Twitter Age, it reads like a multivolume set of history.  

It's worth the read.  Like any history, what we're seeing happen in our move toward a post-national globalism, focused exclusively on the destruction of the Christian West, has many roots and causes.  History is never so simple as 'Event A happened all because of X.'   When you hear someone say that, you're dealing with someone who is ignorant or a huckster.  Sadly, that would be the majority who teach in our schools and universities, as well as those who produce the shows we see on National Geographic and PBS.  

It's worked like a charm.  Buttressed by Multicultural education, which has been one of the primary means for the West's destruction, this simplistic approach to everything including, but not limited to, the study off history, or philosophy, or ethics, or anything has laid the groundwork for what we're all seeing. 

The biggest thing to realize is that this is no accident.  And as Christians, we know who is behind it all.  As Mr. Wright says, we deal with "the little enemies on earth, some of whom know what dark power they willingly serve, some not."  But serve those dark powers they do, and so far over the last century or more, those dark powers have had their way.  Including with the Church itself. 

Heh

A little levity for these troubling times.

HT: James Maliszewski at the always interesting Grognardia 

To celebrate Columbus Day

You could do worse than take a look at this fine post at The American Catholic.  I won't detract from remembering the good by focusing on the bad.  Just let it be known that as far back as my third grade year - 1975 - we learned the bad, and even the bad regarding Columbus, just the same.  We also celebrated the good.  At that stage, multiculturalism had not taken hold and we still learned that for all its sins, the Christian West was a net boon for the world.   Today we are told the opposite, and youngsters believe the opposite.  Where that will go I don't know.  But a sane and realistic - and dare I say, Christian - look back at Columbus and what he did might be a great way to stop the mental bleeding.

I will say something my boys pointed out, since in our neck of the woods our Democratic mayor and city council in Columbus have removed statues of Columbus.  Especially regarding those who substitute Columbus Day with National Indigenous Persons Day - isn't it odd they celebrate entire cultures who openly did what they're blasting Columbus for doing?  Clearly his problem wasn't slavery or imperialism or conquering people.  That was done aplenty in the Americas long before Columbus.  It must  be because he helped bring Christianity and the West to these shores, both of which the modern Left is now against.  Given the Left's zeal for abortion, it's obvious why those cultures' human sacrifice isn't something that keeps them from being celebrated, that's for sure. 

He's Back!

Who is back?  A fellow named James Maliszewski. Who's he?  Apparently he's a historian of sorts, also a pro writer, and a fellow deeply emerged in the world of RPGs (that's roleplaying games to us amateurs), Fantasy, Sci-Fi and all that jazz. 

I stumbled on his blog years and years ago, before I even had mine.  It was a post celebrating JRR Tolkien.  It was a well written, pithy post, that capture much of Toklien's greatness and influence on modern fantasy.  I thoughts at first it was just a literary or perhaps fantasy type blog.  Since Mr. Maliszewski is also openly Catholic, I thought it might be something along those lines.

After a few posts, it dawned on me that this was no Catholic or literary blog.  Even if much of his purpose was tracing the literary roots of the RPG genre - particularly that flagship RPG Dungeons and Dragons - it was definitely focused on the game, the hobby and the surrounding culture.  One of his big theses is that Tolkien had bupkis to do with Dungeons and Dragons, and he seems to take the late Gary Gygax at his word when he insisted he hated  The Lord of the Rings and only used Middle Earth references as cheap marketing ploys.

I found him a bit touchy at times.  A couple of times I merely asked a question and received rather curt responses of an almost 'how dare you' nature.  But then, again, the genre in question.  I've mused before on the disproportionate level of influence that fanboys and brandboys have had on the Internet and Social Media culture.  Nonetheless, I found his writing enjoyable, and he often delved into areas of nostalgia (a plus for me) and history, with some very keen insights I must say.

A few years ago he fell off the radar.  Apparently it had to do with problems with a game he was trying to publish by way of that crowd funding or what have you.  I have no clue about those things and can only guess what may have happened.  Also, he had written about health problems with his father.  

Whatever the reason, he abruptly ceased writing for his blog back in 2012.  I would go back on occasion to look up a couple of his more perceptive posts.  In getting ready for the big 2020 Fall Season (woohoo!), I went back to look up one I remembered when, lo and behold!, it looks like he's back. 

No fanfare.  No return post.  No 'I'm back!'.  Just some posts beginning a couple weeks ago this very year.  So no clue what to expect.  I'd like to think he'll be as interesting and perceptive as he was.  If you're inclined toward things like interesting insights about history, Tolkien and fantasy, if you like RPGs and Science Fiction and even Comic books, then you might like it, too.