June is the month that is most closely associated with weddings. Don't ask me why. But while we're on the subject, let's talk about the possibility of secular music at sacred occasions.
In particular, let's set our sights on one particular piece of music, the favorite or whipping boy of choice when Catholic weddings are planned, “The Wedding Song” originally composed by Noel Paul Stookey (the party of the second part in Peter, Paul, and Mary). A growing number of parishes and dioceses are forbidding its use, because it is a popular music selection, which is to say, secular music, making it inappropriate for sacred use.
So, if you never heard it on the radio or anywhere else, but you heard it at your friend’s wedding, you’d say: “Duuude, that’s not sacred music, that’s a pop song!”
Or would you?
You see, I don’t think people take that position with this song because their disapproval has any merit. I think they take that position because most guitarists suck at it. They don’t play it even close to the way Stookey composed it. As you can hear in the first video, his own performance at a 1986 concert, you probably don’t hear it sound like that anywhere else.
And there’s a reason.
Behind The Music
But first, some background on the song, from the “Shout Music Factory” YouTube channel.
”Wedding Song (There Is Love)" is a song written by Noel Paul Stookey in the fall of 1969 and first performed at the wedding of Peter Yarrow - Stookey's co-member of Peter, Paul and Mary - to Mary Beth McCarthy at St Mary's Catholic Church in Willmar MN: Stookey was best man at the ceremony which took place in the evening of October 18, 1969.
Stookey had written the song on a midnight flight between PP&M concert dates in San Jose and Boston setting out to write a song for Yarrow's wedding which would convey Stookey's Christian convictions while respecting Yarrow's Jewish faith.
According to Stookey, "the melody and the words [of 'Wedding Song'] arrived simultaneously and in response to a direct prayer asking God how the divine could be present at Peter's wedding." (The first two lines of the song's second verse: "A man shall leave his mother and a woman leave her home/ And they shall travel on to where the two shall be as one", is largely a paraphrase of the text of Genesis 2:24: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.") Believing he could not take personal credit for composing "The Wedding Song", Stookey set up the Public Domain Foundation which since 1971 has received the song's songwriting royalties for charitable distribution.
So, everybody can relax, no one is making a living off this little ditty, are they? Try claiming that about the stable of artists at Oregon Catholic Press, which for nearly half a century has succeeded in dumbing down the music programs for more than half the parishes in the United States. (There’s a secret to how they do it, and my Very Close Personal Friend Jeffrey Tucker explains it all for you.)
The song doesn't celebrate those who hear it, and not really the bridal couple. Whatever one thinks of it, the song celebrates how God is love, with the scriptural references to bring the point home.
Behind The Details
I was certain that Stookey played it in an alternate tuning (that is, a tuning other than E A D G B E, from sixth to first strings), which was the only explanation for its very modal quality. I was surprised to learn that, other than tuning the guitar down three half-steps (Db F# B E G# Db), or four half-steps (C F Bb Eb G C), depending on who you ask, standard tuning and chording is applied. It’s how he takes it from there (as seen in the second video by some anonymous guy who actually doesn't suck at it) that sets it apart from all the wannabes. There are plenty of websites that have the tablature to show how it’s really done, so you have no excuse to play it badly.
To put it another way, you have no excuse to suck at it.
It also doesn't hurt that Stookey uses a twelve-string guitar, both in the original recording and in the live stage example shown here. We all know at least one guy who plays only a twelve-string for the sole purpose of sounding more obnoxious than the next guy in a jam session (or at the parish "folk Mass"), but they really do serve a specific purpose in adding an additional texture, especially with picking or fingerpicking styles (as opposed to the average flattop flogger who should either invest in a six-string, or just stay home).
Roma Locuta, Causa Finita
Let's put the hit parade aside for a moment. What does the Church say about sacred music? Quite a bit, actually. In the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, issued by the Second Vatican Council in 1963, says that music for sacred worship must serve "the glory of God and the sanctification of the faithful." (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 112) Further, the 1967 instruction on sacred music in the liturgy, Musicam Sacram, states that it must "be holy, and therefore avoid everything that is secular," and further, that such criterion must be "universal" in its understanding. In other words, it must not be subject to the passing whims of popular culture and fashion.
Most important, inasmuch as lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of praying is the law of believing, in other words, as we pray, so we believe), the words of the composition must be doctrinally sound. It must serve, and not offend, the Truths of the Faith and the glorification of God.
However ...
Having said this, we could subject many of the English-language hymns of the late 19th and early 20th century to the same scrutiny as luminaries of the 1960s "folk scare." One saccharine example is "Mother At Your Feet Is Kneeling," its composer identified only as "Sister SC," and composed as early as 1929 or as recent as 1952, depending on whom you ask. It was recorded for the popular charts by such crooners as Dennis Day and Bobby Wayne, and can be found in a number of preconciliar (and ostensibly traditional) hymnals.
What is it about sugary sentimentality that was acceptable before the 1960s, that suddenly becomes anathema after the 1960s? If the Psalmist wrote of praising the Lord "with trumpet sound ... with lute and harp ... with timbrel and dance ... with strings and pipe ... with sounding cymbals" (that's Psalm 150; read it and weep, suckas!), is it conceivable that He can be praised with the guitar, the stated preference by the Church for the organ in Sacrosanctum Concilium (120) notwithstanding?
So, Now What?
We may still insist that secular music has no place in a sacred setting. But if a band of monks can hit the Top 40 with an album of Gregorian chant, there’s always that chance of it cutting both ways. There's also that chance that walking the fine line between sacred and profane didn't start with Ray Repp and a bunch of singing nuns. Music is sacred on the basis on its own merits and objective characteristics, not some arbitrary classification of who did it first or how, or in which section at Barnes & Noble you find the recording.
If we want to get people to start making sense in choosing sacred music, it helps to know that to which we are both referring, as well as not referring, don’t you think?
Or don’t you?
(NOTA BENE: The above is proposed by this writer as a gedankenerfahrung, a "thought experiment," and does not take away from his dedication to the restoration of the sacred in Catholic worship, and his active promotion of Gregorian chant, the treasury of sacred polyphony, and the Traditional Latin Mass.)
Concerning the recent violence in Charlottesville, the home of Thomas Jefferson in the heart of the great Commonwealth that is Virginia, there are four lessons to be learned.
First, those in the so-called "alt-right" movement speak of defending their "European, American, and Christian heritage." Catholics, specifically traditional Catholics, must bear in mind that for most of American history, "Christian" was a euphemism for "Protestant." Until the 1960 election of John Kennedy as President, most Protestants, alt least in the South, did not consider Catholicism to be Christian. Most if not all of the neo-nazi and KKK types marching in Charlottesville despise Catholics every bit as much as they do Jews and persons of color. Those of the "alt right" would also be loathe to remember that the very flower of Western civilization, that of the rise of Christendom in Europe, was specifically Catholic is its origins.
Second, the incident may have been sparked by an attempt to remove the statue of Confederate General Robert E Lee, but in the end it had little to do with that, never mind that Lee himself would never have approved. The history of the War Between the States (more commonly and misleadingly known as "The Civil War"), and the tensions between North and South until that time, had to do with a lot more than slavery. If it did not, then explain why blacks fought on both sides of the war, and to this day, black men comprise part of the membership of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and proudly carry the Southern Cross in public.
PHOTO: A counter-demonstrator used a lighted spray can against a white nationalist demonstrator. (Steve Helber/Boston Globe)
Third, acts of violence were initiated by elements of both sides of the confrontation, but the mainstream media likes simple little bedtime stories of "good guys" and "bad guys," and the truth doesn't fit the narrative. And both sides, including the counter protesters, gave the purveyors of dirty laundry exactly what they wanted. Those who didn't want violence would have accomplished more by staying home.
This eight-minute short film “Mana Janji Ayah?” (Where is Daddy's Promise?) is the story of a girl born into a very poor family. Her father is only a Bajaj driver (Bajaj is a three wheel vehicle, one of the public transportations in Jakarta). Since childhood, she has always been mocked by her friends, because she's very poor, and her fathers job is too inferior for them. They also make fun of his crippled leg. She is anger over her lot in life, and she vents this anger at her father.
The young girl has grown up with her anger, making her increasingly insecure, and underestimated by her friends. Her wishes for the trappings of the good life, especially material possessions, are not fulfilled. She is unaware of how much her father struggles to please her, to the point of selling his own prized possessions.
Her anger continues to grow, and the young girl continues to resent her father, because all her desires are not fulfilled. He is willing to struggle for his only one daughter's happiness.
Then one day, as her birthday arrives, he is finally able to fulfill all of his daughter's desires. It is then that tragedy strikes, and he is the victim of a highway accident, and is killed. Suddenly, and tragically, the little girl learns not only of the extent of her father's sacrifice, but the cost to herself, in losing that which matters more than mere possessions.
“Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity.” (Ecclesiastes 1:2)
+ + +
This feature and commentary are possible through the kind assistance of Miss Fillia Astika, of Sidoarjo, Jawa Timur, Indonesia.
(The following was intended for publication on the 15th of March, but was intentionally delayed so as not to interfere with Holy Week and the Paschal Triduum.)
“It is not surprising to suggest to faithful Catholics that the time has passed for being silent. What if the time has also passed for being polite? Social media has become the public arena of choice, an arena where the playing field is level, and all bets are off. If you commit a public sacrilege with no apologies, be prepared to get called out on it, and have no one to blame but yourself. If you're a bishop who can't be bothered with the legitimate concerns of faithful Catholics, be prepared to look inadequate to the task, and (you guessed it) have no one to blame but yourself. Say all you want about playing nice, but it hasn't worked, and the Powers That Be are left with the fruits of their indifference. If this level of outrage is to be contained, it must begin at the source. That would be the problem itself, not the reaction.”
This past February saw a parish in Seattle fall victim to a hate crime.
At least that's what some would have you believe. Saint Patrick's Church, located north of downtown in the Portage Bay neighborhood of the city, has what could politely be termed a rather enthusiastic liturgical life, complete with dancing and movement and banner-waving and what-not. They haven't been all that ashamed of it, having until recently chosen to make it public on Facebook. They got a response they weren't expecting, in the form of a barrage of criticism from faithful Catholics in social media, who are tired of the nonsense, irreverence, the desecration of the house of God, whether it happens at the parish down the road, or Down Under. The extent of outrage took the parish in question by surprise, to the point where they removed their Facebook page, so that the photos of their celebrations would be free of harassment.
Well, maybe not entirely.
Enter the predictable punditry, as William Bornhoft admonishes us to respond with love, or something.
In response, Joseph Shaw of the UK-based Latin Mass Society reminded Mister Nice Guy, that recourse to dialogue and persuasion hasn't always worked with unreasonable people ...
... and "unreasonable" is exactly what we're dealing with here, as the example to follow will demonstrate.
+ + +
Much has been written in recent decades about much that has been written; in particular, letters to the local bishop or to Rome by ordinary Catholics, citing their concern over things gone wrong, attacks on the Church from within. Whether abuses against the sacred liturgy in the local parish, errors against the Faith proclaimed from the pulpit or local "theological institute," or women Religious escorting pregnant women to abortion clinics, not to mention other attitude problems -- the list goes on. We are told to "go up the ladder" of the hierarchical system, to be short and to the point, to be excruciatingly polite, with every "t" crossed, every "i" dotted, every jot and tittle correctly jotted and tittled -- and to bide our time.
Basically, to kiss more than their rings.
One would think that the discovery of deception, over the sexual indiscretions of priests in the past generation, would have altered the sympathies of those in the pews. (It sure has hell altered mine.) Father Zuhlsdorf has counseled us, and one could say, wisely so, as to the right and wrong way to address our concerns in writing to the sacred pastors of the Church. He should know, too, since he worked in the Vatican for a number of years, and knows how complaints are handled (or aren't, depending on their merit). It is simply based upon the admonition “in omnia, caritas” -- in all things, charity; not to mention that old saying that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
IMAGE: Catholic Answers, Inc. Used here without permission or shame.
Then, of course, there are the miscreants who ignore that good advice. It is they who become what My Very Close Personal Friend Father Paul Scalia refers to as “The Church Belligerent.”
+ + +
One year ago this month, Katrina “The Crescat” Fernandes Ebersole related her experience at the parish of her grandmother's funeral. This included the celebrant imploring the people to stand for the Eucharistic Prayer, and Katrina herself being denied Communion on the tongue, to the point where the priest actually grabbed her by the hand. She also describes how, shortly before her grandmother's passing, the parish secretary denied arranging for a visit from the priest when her grandmother was dying, offering instead to have a "lay minister" come and give a blessing.
Of course, you know another old saying, that "everybody has to get into the act." The mere reference in this venue to such a stalwart-albeit-anonymous fellow may provoke our readers to ask: “Yo, Mighty Black-Hatted One, what more could you in all your pompous pontificating possibly presume to produce as proxy to this predicament?”
Ah, dear minions, how easily one would cut this writer to the quick! Or was there any thought given as to just how this local brouhaha came to such a happy and expedient ending?
It is here that yours truly would dare to tell the untold story, which may or may not have had an effect, but which was undertaken on one's own volition, without prior knowledge or approval of our hapless (and more famous and well-loved) heroine. For it was while overcome with outrage, and just a dash of chivalry, that this writer decided to bring the affair via electronic mail, to the attention of the Most Reverend Francis Xavier DiLorenzo, DD, STD, Bishop of Richmond, Virginia, the diocese in which this adolescent personality cult masquerading as a parish is situated. But did we stop there? Oh no, we're much too clever for that. We copied it to the one person to whom His Excellency would eventually turn and say, "Handle it." In this case, that would be the Reverend Monsignor Mark Richard Lane, D Min, Vicar General, Moderator of the Curia*, and Vicar for Clergy.
And so what follows is the relevant correspondence at this little corner of the internet, in order of occurrence.
On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 1:47 PM, David L Alexander wrote:
Your Excellency:
There is an account of an incident that occurred recently in your diocese, and it is going viral. Its nature is such as to make right-this-damn-minute a very good time to read about it.
I'm going to assume that the use of illicit or invalid matter for Holy Communion might be a concern of yours. On the chance that it may not be, I seem to recall that the incident as described by the woman, upon attempting to receive Communion, constitutes assault according to the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. (No, I'm not a lawyer, just a guy who knows what "tell it to the judge" means.) Maybe you're okay with that as long as it didn't involve sexual abuse or losing money. Others in high places and less beholden to you may feel differently.
That, and there were probably a whole bunch of witnesses.
I would suggest that you might dispense with the usual countermeasures of saving face, as it's generally too late once there's egg on it. Further, I submit that it serves your best interests to personally apologize (that means, meet her face to face and actually talk to her, while being just a little inconvenienced) to the woman in question, and remove the priest from his position. Let there be no room for doubt that this is not the sort of approach which the Diocese of Richmond takes in the administration of the sacraments, or in pastoral care.
It is said that she is planning to contact you. I am doing this of my own volition, because I am tired of reading stories like this, not to mention the bureaucratic bullshit nonsense that usually follows it.
Finally, and in case it has occurred to you, I stopped being overly polite about things like this a long time ago. That's the bad news. The good news for you (not to mention the priest in question) is that it didn't happen to me.
I'd be a lot less polite than I am now.
In corde Jesu,
David L Alexander
Arlington, Virginia
Now, that wasn't very nice, was it?
No, it wasn't. And by all accounts, it broke every rule which the Z-Man would impart to us. I really didn't think I deserved the courtesy of a response. I didn't expect one. A number of factors came into play while writing this, however, among them an outrage of sufficient magnitude that I didn't give a rat's ass.
Assorted malfeasance from the neighboring diocese has been fodder for local stories among faithful Catholics for many years. One might imagine that there has been sufficient time for somebody in charge down there to corral a few misbehavers. Alas (and this might be a chance to speak in the good bishop's defense), the biggest single challenge faced by any diocesan bishop is that of clergy personnel. A number of issues -- keeping them all busy and reasonably content in their assignment, finding enough of them to even fill every assignment, the mere obligatory handful of those with more than their share of growing up to do, and so on -- require a good portion of a bishop's day. And a presbyterate that is unaccustomed to a collective sense of self-discipline (a malady from which my own Diocese of Arlington has been relatively spared) can make that even more difficult, especially when you can't exactly fire them, and when they know it, and when you know they know, and when they know that you know that they … well, you get the idea.
So, imagine the surprise two days later (right about the time that Katrina issued her clarification) when this rogue warrior received the following unsolicited response, to that which was penned two days earlier, in his inbox.
On Friday, March 13, 2015 3:51 PM, Kevin O'Brien wrote:
To whom it may concern,
I received your email about the incident that happened this past Monday at the woman’s grandmother’s funeral. I would like to make several comments.
First, I have written an apology to the woman for not giving her Communion on the tongue. The pieces of the Body of Christ were brittle and I thought that it would be safer to place it in her hand. I was wrong. I should not have done that. I made a terrible mistake. I learned an important lesson and I will not make that mistake again.
Second, there are people in our parish who regularly wish to receive Communion on the tongue and I gladly give it to them on the tongue. Monday I made a split second decision and I was wrong. I am truly sorry. This is not a usual occurrence.
Third, the bread that we use at Eucharist here at the parish is not “pita bread.” It is in compliance with the guidelines set by the American Catholic Bishops.
Fourth, if someone is dying, I always respond to their request and visit the person as soon as possible.
Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding this issue. God’s Blessings always!
Sincerely Yours,
Rev. Kevin J. O’Brien
Now, even an arrogant son of a b**** such as myself is not one to kick a man when he's down. If only to remove all doubt, I made an exception.
On Friday, March 13, 2015 8:44 PM, David L Alexander wrote:
Father O'Brien:
Thank you for your letter to me. I found it most contrite. Then again ...
I would surmise that your superiors brought my correspondence with them (as opposed to any of mine directly to you) to your attention. To wit, the action described by Ms Fernandes, whereby you allegedly grabbed her by the hand as she attempted to receive Communion, constitutes assault according to the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. If this is the case, you are most fortunate that she does not take any further action. I can assure you that I would have been far less accommodating.
Reception on the tongue is normative in the Latin church, while reception in the hand is an indulgence, at the discretion of the bishop or conference of bishops. If you remember from those lectures on canon law, a lower authority cannot restrict that which a higher authority allows. (The latter would be Rome, not the bishops conference.)
As to the form of bread used for confecting the Sacrament, I took the time to examine the recipe that your parish uses. While it appears to meet the criterion set down by the Apostolic See for validity and licitness (the declarations of the bishops conference notwithstanding), there is always the danger of even the smallest of particles falling to the ground (or left on the hands with the communicant unaware, photos available upon request), especially when the form of the Sacrament is, as you describe it, "brittle." I recommend that you either employ servers to accompany you and other ministers with patens, or use a more conventional form of hosts. True, the latter takes away some of the romance, but not the essence.
I also recommend that you initiate serious catechesis with your staff and volunteers, regarding the differences in the roles of priests and laity; more to the point, that a layman offering a blessing to the dying is not of the same order as the administration of the Last Rites. When I prayed the "Proficiscere" over my dying father three years ago, I was under no illusion that it would have replaced Viaticum and the Apostolic Pardon which he had received earlier. Neither should it be.
And so there is no misunderstanding, Father, you have ABSOLUTELY NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to compel the faithful to stand during the Eucharistic Prayer. I trust that manner of coercion will cease immediately. You are hardly in a position to disagree. The proper gesture is to kneel. PERIOD!
Finally, I can tell you that the tone of my letter to His Excellency was most intemperate. In my dealings with both priests and prelates as a master of ceremonies, I show the highest respect for the sacerdotal office. Unfortunately, I know this woman well enough to know the challenges she has faced in life, and how her faith has sustained her. I was so incensed at the offenses described to me (not to mention the entire internet), that I was moved to respond as I did.
We ask so much of our priests (including yourself), such that those whom they serve would grant them more latitude in their human failings. Once in a great while, one who serves will take undue advantage. Once in a great while, those whom he serves look the other way. In time, they may do it all too often. I would consider the possibility that you may not have been well served in this respect. I pray that such imprudence does not plague you too much in the future. Too many souls are in need of you.
In return for your taking this time to write, I feel obliged to inform others of your humble contrition, for the sake of your good name. Thank you again for writing me. I can only imagine how hard this must have been for a man in your position.
Oremus pro invicem!
David L Alexander
Arlington, Virginia
+ + +
I should say at this point that Ms Ebersole was informed recently about the correspondence (if not shown its substance), and of my intention to publish it. The above is not necessarily a reflection of her own views on the matter, let alone how such incidents might be confronted, but are solely those of this writer. She has been assured that she can safely disavow any association with, or prior knowledge of, the aforementioned correspondence. The author (that would be me) has proceeded on the understanding of there being no objection.
That being said ...
Was the above a factor in a resolution of a pastoral matter? I don't know. I don't expect to.
But here's what I do know. The majority of a certain generation of priests have engaged in years of adolescent behavior, of such nature and extent that would never be tolerated in any other venue in real life, and have enjoyed such indulgence with little consequence if any, and I'm about as sick and tired of it as anyone else. At the age of sixty-plus years, it is in most areas of life, that I am expected to act my age. It doesn't seem to happen with many who pursue a life of "professional ministry." I have seen lives and marriages and reputations ruined. I have seen the good priests suffer for standing with correct belief and correct worship. I have seen those among the faithful who have lost their faith.
All this, so that a tired and perverse status quo might be held together with the bailing wire that is the code of silence, casually explained away as "the good of the Church," as though such would ever owe its preservation to a sinful act.
I would also invite the reader to pay attention to the paragraph highlighted in my response to the pastor. If one is to avoid the pitfalls that are part and parcel to the human condition, we must be aware, not only that our priests are only human, but that they are no more or less so than ourselves. It is important to take notice, not only of how much we need them, but how much they need us, and especially, how and why. We have a case where a priest was caught dead to rights, and has had to humble himself to all who would call him on his errors. He deserves notice for that much, and the vote of confidence that, perhaps, he might be just a little closer to the kingdom of Heaven; dare we might say, even more so than the rest of us.
It is not surprising to suggest to faithful Catholics that the time has passed for being silent. What if the time has also passed for being polite? Social media has become the public arena of choice, an arena where the playing field is level, and all bets are off. If you commit a public sacrilege with no apologies, be prepared to get called out on it, and have no one to blame but yourself. If you're a bishop who can't be bothered with the legitimate concerns of faithful Catholics, be prepared to look inadequate to the task, and (you guessed it) have no one to blame but yourself.** Say all you want about playing nice, but it hasn't worked, and the Powers That Be are left with the fruits of their indifference. If this level of outrage is to be contained, it must begin at the source. That would be the problem itself, not the reaction.
I remain hesitant to recommend to faithful Catholics the method I employed here, assuming it had any direct effect at all (other than finding out the hard way what I have to do to get any attention around here). Given the choice between honey and vinegar, that of the higher ground may be obvious. On the other hand (and in my defense), there are moments when the best results can be found with a fresh road kill.
In other words, sometimes you have to raise a big enough stink to get enough attention, don't you think?
Or don't you?
*The "moderator of the curia" is a position akin to a chief of staff. It is always held by a cleric, one who is often also the chancellor (the chief administrative officer or a diocesan bishop) and/or the vicar general (the chief delegate of a diocesan bishop, always a priest or auxiliary bishop).
**It is clear that the Bishop of Richmond is not among that number, and where he is concerned, yours truly stands corrected.
If you haven't seen this go viral already (and you both know who you are), this is what the 21st century corporate office environment is like.
Recent years have seen the rise of "hotelling" or the sharing of desk space by alternating "teleworkers" -- Dick works at home on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, while Jane works at home on her company laptop, and comes in on Tuesdays and Thursdays so Dick can stay at home and ... walk the dog and pretend he's working. It all sounds great, until you try to get them all together for a meeting. It's funny, yes, until you have to work this way, and find how easy it is for at least one joker to be perpetually disengaged from his virtual office environment.
It happens to yours truly on a weekly basis. Tripp and Tyler demonstrate what a regular in-the-office meeting would look like if it went like a conference call. It's hilarious, unless this is what your job is like, in which case it's REALLY hilarious. And so it goes for this week's Friday Afternoon Moment of Whimsy.
And while we're at it, welcome to my day job. Watch your American tax dollars at work.
.
While researching something else entirely, I came across the following at the website for The Martin Luther King Jr Center for Nonviolent Social Change (aka “The King Center”), located in Atlanta, Georgia. It received very little attention in the press at the time, possibly overshadowed by events related to the end of a millennium:
If this writer has learned one thing in more than thirty years of living and working in the Nation's capital, it is never to put anything past anybody. For the right price, for the right incentive, most people will do anything, anything at all, and sleep like a baby that night. Some of the "nicest guys" I ever met in this town, are guys I wouldn't trust farther than I could throw them (which is an option I have considered in those cases). It is a sad commentary on the human condition, and yet, if you ever doubt the ability of man to do unspeakable evil without regret, tell that to nearly half a million people who will converge on this city the day after tomorrow.
Personally, I never watch shows like American Idol. It's bad enough watching some people embarrass themselves, like that one guy who sounded a little too much like Garth Brooks. (Will we see Garth Brooks impersonators in the wake of Elvis impersonators? You decide.) It's also a bit of dissonance when a lily-white boy or girl tries to sing in the style of Negro spirituals.
But none of that compares to the people who judge them.
I mean, seriously, what the hell can Simon Cowell actually do? Does he dance? Can he sing or play a musical instrument? Can he even do card tricks? No, he doesn't do any of that. The guy is a poseur, but he just happens to be really, REALLY good at it. (Notice I didn't say he wasn't any good at it. Did I say he wasn't good at something? Of course not. Anyway ...) The only other thing I can see him being really good at, is leaving his shirt halfway unbuttoned, which really kind of went out of style by the 1980s, unless you're a coming-of-age Italian-American male from New Jersey.
I believe the polite term is "Guido."
But then, there are the young ladies like the one in this video, fifteen years old, with stars in her eyes, who sang Grace Potter's Paris, a song that tells more of a longing for defilement than it does the City of Lights. (You've been warned.) Fortunately, the acclaimed jazz singer/pianist and actor Harry Connick Jr was on the panel. After hearing the young hopeful's selection, her own idol gave her the thumbs up. But then it was Harry's turn.
As a matter of fact, in addition to being a practicing Catholic, Connick is also the father of three daughters, the oldest nearly fourteen. Connick also managed to one-up Australian country singer/songwriter Keith Urban, before all three were called to give the thumbs-up. On the bright side, it's probably a good sign that this season's panel of judges genuinely want to be supportive of anyone who gets up there and takes the risk that they do. (When I auditioned for talent shows and musicals, I had the luxury of hiding behind a guitar. Those were the days ...)
Yesterday's homily, in anticipation of the March For Life, was about Audous Huxley's 1932 dystopian classic Brave New World, depicting the loss of humanity through the mechanization of reproduction, and its separation from the conjugal act, indeed, from marriage and family altogether. A gentleman who spoke to the priest after Mass today told of a class of high school students given the book as required reading, who were unphased by such a civilization as this.
Sometimes “art imitates life” all too well, don't you think?
Recently, in both the national news, and among those active in Boy Scouting, the following announcement has fermented waves of discussion and dissention.
The BSA National Executive Board is meeting this week at the national headquarters in Irving, Texas (located between Dallas and Fort Worth). A decision regarding the aforementioned is expected by Wednesday or Thursday. This writer most certainly has an opinion on the subject, one that is borne not only out of an awareness of this aspect of the "culture wars," but based on years of experience in the Scouting program, both as a youth and as an adult. This includes extensive awareness of the issues at hand, their critical background, and recent history. Research is already in progress, and an opinion piece is coming very soon.
Everyone who works on or uses the Internet (including yours truly) owes a lot to this man. Today was his funeral.
In 2010 and 2011, Aaron Swartz downloaded a lot of academic documents from JSTOR (the online library of scholarly articles) with the intent to distribute them because he believed more information in more hands would make the world a better place. A noble idea, but the Department of Justice decided to make an example of him. Aaron faced 35 years in jail and $1 million in fines before he decided to commit suicide. Watch this moving talk from 2012 about how he helped stopped COICA and SOPA, two congressional bills that would have essentially created a great American firewall and made it easy to censor the Internet.
Writer and internet advocate Mischa Nachtigal has provided the above content, and has also furnished time-coded highlights of his friend's testimony. If you have 23 minutes to spare, if you use the internet (kinda like you are now), and you prefer that the government not be in your business any more than it absolutely has to, you owe it to Aaron, to Mischa, to say nothing of yourself, to give ear to listen.
Today, in Newton, Connecticut, 27 people, including 20 children, were killed when a gunman clad in black military gear opened fire inside his mother's kindergarten class at an elementary school. It is a tragedy beyond comprehension, even for a nation that allows the killing of roughly four thousand unborn children every single day. Most people would consider such a comparison to be completely arbitrary. But what happened in Connecticut today is what the culture of death looks like, if only when it stares you in the face, and you cannot look away or paint it over with euphemisms like "choice."
You are left, then, with only ONE choice, to stare back at it in horror, and ask yourself, “How long, O Lord?”
+ + +
Spend all your time waiting
for that second chance
for a break that would make it okay
there's always some reason
to feel not good enough
and it's hard at the end of the day
I need some distraction
oh a beautiful release
memory seeps from my veins
let me be empty
oh and weightless and maybe
I'll find some peace tonight
In the arms of the angel
fly away from here
from this dark cold hotel room
and the endlessness that you fear
you are pulled from the wreckage
of your silent reverie
you're in the arms of the angel
may you find some comfort here
So tired of the straight life
and everywhere you turn
there's vultures and thieves at your back
the storm keeps on twisting
you keep on building the lies
that you make up for all that you lack
it don't make no difference
escaping one last time
it's easier to believe
in this sweet madness oh
this glorious sadness that brings me to my knees
In the arms of the angel
fly away from here
from this dark cold hotel room
and the endlessness that you fear
you are pulled from the wreckage
of your silent reverie
you're in the arms of the angel
may you find some comfort here
you're in the arms of the angel
may you find some comfort here
“The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.” (John 10:10)
So is the question asked by one Ken Huber of Tawas City, Michigan, a town of just over two thousand on the shores of Lake Huron, in a "letters to the editor" page of a small Michigan newspaper.
... in public schools you can teach that homosexuality is OK, but you better not use the word God in the process; you can kill an unborn child, but it is wrong to execute a mass murderer ...
To answer his question, America has become exactly what we allowed it to become.
No one forces us at gunpoint to settle for the version of the truth as told by the mainstream media. We are free and able to seek out reliable alternative sources. No one forces us not to believe in God, and we can still (for the time being) worship him as we choose. Those of the Muslim faith, to the extent that they get their way in the public square -- remember, "Allah" is simply the Arabic word for "God" -- do so because they have learned to show collective outrage at any affront to their beliefs. Do not blame them for something that Christians in America used to do without hesitation. They hold sway because they frighten us. The extremists among them know this, and the moderates among them take advantage of this.
No one took over this country by force. We sat back and allowed an effete and articulate minority to influence opinion, to the point where they have taken over the bully pulpit, and have cowed us into submission. They earn personal fortunes, and enjoy the good life, by mimicking the cry of the poor, showing generosity with someone else's money.
Mister Huber asked all the right questions. What will he do with the answer?
We here at man with black hat have received quite a reaction to our piece entitled “Every Matter Under Heaven” from last Tuesday. We drew attention to plans underway by Michael Voris of ChurchMilitant.TV to organize a retreat, not only on a pleasure cruise line, but during Lent, and with the able assistance of Father John Zuhlsdorf, author of the weblog "What Does The Prayer Really Say?," and affectionately known as "Father Z."
But the reaction we will be reviewing more closely in this sequel to last Tuesday was found just a combox away, courtesy of one Christine Niles, hostess of the Fidelis Radio talk show "Forward Boldly" and author of the weblog Laudem Gloriae, devoted to the explanation and defense of Catholic tradition.
Sorry, but it all sounds like a whole lot of griping to me. I stand by my remarks that your complaints were "an ugly display of envy and sour grapes."
Actually, my dear, you have at least four reasons to be sorry. Since you chose to make this admonition public, my response will be in kind. I will examine your legitimate causes for regret forthwith.
You have an unnecessarily narrow definition of retreats, which come in all shapes & sizes. Some are made in absolute silence & enclosure, while others are characterized by complete freedom, conversation, and plenty of food. All a retreat means is to get away; the particulars of the retreat itself are up to the organizers.
"All a retreat means is to get away." You had best be quite sure of that, because ...
Words. Have. Meaning.
If there is one thing for which the errors of modernity have served as a cautionary tale, it is that there is an objective and precise meaning to the words we use, and that altering those words to suit our own purpose can be an insidious form of deception, one to which most faithful Catholics reading this (including you, as I would gather from reading your work) will attest. An explanation of Objective Truth requires that we mean what we say, and that such meaning is unassailable. Attempts by amateur liturgists in our parishes to alter the words of Sacred Scripture to facilitate a theological or ideological agenda, can in turn alter the meaning of the text, even to the point of heresy. Are women "excluded" when God is not redefined to suit them? Do we not, rather, "exclude" God when we address Him as "Mother," when His Son taught us otherwise? Attempts in parishes to justify a laic (as opposed to a cleric) preaching a homily by saying, "No, it's not a homily, it's a reflection," is a way of manipulating others into believing something is acceptable, when in fact it is not.
The word "retreat," in our case, is from the Latin word "retrahere" which means "to draw back." In our present usage, it is much more ...
verb:
1. a. The act or process of withdrawing, especially from something hazardous, formidable, or unpleasant.
b. The process of going backward or receding from a position or condition gained.
noun:
2. A place affording peace, quiet, privacy, or security.
3. a. A period of seclusion, retirement, or solitude.
b. A period of group withdrawal for prayer, meditation, or study: a religious retreat.
Nothing in this definition suggests anything other than the sort of meaning we have put forth, that it is more than simply "to get away," but is in fact doing so with a particular result in mind. Even "to draw back" is more precise than merely "to get away," as the movement implies deliberation, a purpose. The format of a retreat may vary, from a weekend in silence, to a thirty-day Ignatian exercise under spiritual direction without sequestering, but it is most certainly a deliberate break in routine for a pre-specified purpose.
Ergo, the meaning put forth here is not "unnecessarily narrow," but necessarily specific.
What you're actually doing with all this holier-than-thou griping is impugning the integrity & character of the retreat organizers, including the priest giving the talks.
No, what I'm actually doing is impugning the nature of the actions, having already drawn a clear distinction between the good character of the organizers themselves, and that which was problematic in their endeavor. Any preference toward a more severe (dare I say, "narrow") definition of a retreat, is what it is, PRECISELY because we are NOT "holier-than-thou." When we require a desert experience (as opposed to an oasis), we are obliged to follow the example of Christ, not of Mammon. I do not know Mr Voris' motives, nor those of the good Father. Indeed, I cannot possibly imagine what could possess two men of whom I have sufficient opinion that they would know better. I only know, and only submit, that their plans are terribly misguided, and I give specific reasons.
If you don't want to go, then don't. But this attempt to make attendees feel guilty is just silly.
I won't be needing your assistance to make that choice. I wouldn't go if they offered it for free. True, I would certainly want a Catholic priest along whose bonafides are in order (something which we mentioned is increasingly problematic on cruise lines), but why would I go during a penitential season, and why in the hell would I go alone? You see, my companion and best friend Sal would want to come too, and I would very much want to bring her. She studied ballroom dance for several years, and makes me look like a much better dancer than I really am. But I can barely afford one room, let alone two.
I can just hear her now:
“Ano ang ibig mong sabihin? Dahil lamang na iyong binayaran para sa aking biyahe? Tanga! Ngayon kuha mo ako ng mojito!” (“What do you mean? Just because you paid for my trip? Fool! Now get me a mojito!”)
True, I could sleep on the couch, but that assumes we don't get caught, and simply planning on that good fortune in this setting would be bad, wouldn't it? Besides, I can sleep on the couch at home, which usually happens when I watch late night movies ... but that's another story. Back to explaining yours.
Happy Advent.
Well, thank you, Christine, but I'd rather my Advent be "blessed" than "happy." While you certainly mean well, we have yet another case where the meaning of words is diluted. In the Beatitudes, certain candy-@$$ translations would say "Happy are the poor in spirit, for the kingdom of heaven is theirs." Elsewhere, the Book of Psalms would mistakenly open with: "Happy is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked ..." No, what Christ meant was "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven." (Matthew 5:3) Further, the psalmist wrote: "Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers ..." (Psalm 1:1)
I can feel happy without ever knowing or caring whether I am blessed. I can be blessed without ever feeling happy. In fact, this is not about feelings at all, and this supposed "attempt to make attendees feel guilty," as one would learn the hard way in an introductory logic class, has nothing to do with how anyone would "feel."
What it has to do with, is our regard for what it is how we identify ourselves as Catholic, which, as is stated in our raison d'etre "... can involve more than avoiding sin and exercising virtue." We live our faith, not in a vacuum, but according to the seasons of the year. We read of this in the Book of Ecclesiastes.
For everything there is a season,
and a time for every matter under heaven:
a time to be born, and a time to die;
a time to plant,
and a time to pluck up what is planted;
a time to kill, and a time to heal;
a time to break down, and a time to build up;
a time to weep, and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
a time to cast away stones,
and a time to gather stones together;
a time to embrace,
and a time to refrain from embracing;
a time to seek, and a time to lose;
a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
a time to rend, and a time to sew;
a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
a time to love, and a time to hate;
a time for war, and a time for peace. (3:1-8)
So it is with the seasons of the liturgical year, moving in harmony with those of the world around us. We know the time for planting and for the harvest. We know the time of fasting, and the time for the feast. Likewise, there is a reason that weddings were never done during penitential seasons (and still should be, in my estimation), and why funerals were never conducted on a Sunday (and, inasmuch as some things are still sacred, still are not). There is also a reason that an attempt to conduct a religious retreat on a luxury cruise line, never mind during the Great Fast, is a really, REALLY bad idea. And in making the distinction between the parties in question, and the act itself, one would hope that this has been an attempt to speak the truth in charity, whether successful or not.
We could go on at some length, Christine, about your impugning MY "integrity & character." We could also seek the counsel of those with experience in arranging luxury cruises, who could explain just how difficult it would be to isolate a "retreat" from the occasions for decadent behavior thereupon. We could go so far as to elaborate on your impressive academic credentials, and easily surmise that you should have done an infinitely better job of making your case against a yutz like me, but you get the idea. So does anyone else reading this, don't you think?
Or don't you?
(Our thanks to the unidentified "Catholic in Brooklyn" for the images of the austere conditions of the Princess Cruise Lines, ostensibly conducive to spiritual reflection, and to Christine Niles for her invaluable contribution to this discussion. May the blessings of the season be upon both of them and their loved ones. Meanwhile, there's this song that's been going through my head for the last three days. Go figure.)
For everything
there is a season,
and a time
for every matter
under heaven.
(Ecclesiastes 3:1)
Recently, Michael Voris, of the internet-based video apostolate known as ChurchMilitant.TV (formerly RealCatholicTV), announced his apostolate's first-ever “‘Year of Faith’ Retreat at Sea” cruise for seven days from Fort Lauderdale to various stops in the Caribbean and back. This retreat will be a time of prayer, reflection, fellowship, not to mention Mass and regular confession, given the services of the one and only Father John “The World’s Most Powerful Catholic Blogger” Zuhlsdorf.
The opportunity to socialize and share common ground with Catholics of like mind is good in and of itself. Bringing a good Catholic priest along for the ride is even better in and of itself, given the increasing difficulty of finding cruise lines with a Catholic chaplaincy, never mind a priest whose bonafides are in order. (Some cruise lines have used priests of independent Catholic sects, or "rent-a-priests" who left their calling to marry, but still set up shop for weddings, spiritual counseling, and ... well, opportunities like this.) All this in itself has not been a recent bone of contention. It was the idea of all this under the auspices of a spiritual retreat.
Now, you're sitting there thinking: “But, but ... Oh Black-Hatted One, what harm can there be in joining others of the faithful remnant in prayer and reflection, or do we suspect that your indignation is prompted by (yet another) stick having ventured far into the nether regions of your well-formed posterior?”
Ah, dear minions, a good question. A little over the top, maybe, but never mind that. Let us first consider the essential differences between a spiritual retreat and a pleasure cruise, under the premise that there might actually be at least one.
On one hand, a retreat is held mostly in silence, with a carefully planned sequence of spiritual talks, with balanced if simple meals, and with no allowance for cellphones, electronic devices such as laptop computers or iPods, or musical instruments. All such creature comforts are left at the front desk for the duration of the event. You go to bed early, you get up early, and if you never have a moment's fun, it's beside the point ... isn't it?
On the other hand, a cruise has outside activities, social events with no limit to schmoozing, extravagant meals, swimming pools, shuffleboard, nightclub entertainment, ballroom or other forms of dancing, and social directors which the likes of yours truly would spend most of the time ignoring.
Even when Christ Himself evaded the crowds for solitude, he fled to the desert, not an oasis.
The above having been said, the organizers of this sojourn have no doubt discovered that 1) other Catholic publishers and apostolates have put on the party-dog hat for doing this, 2) the organizers get to go for free (as is standard fare for travel agent/planners among the infidels), and 3) the priest gets to go for free, "for the laborer deserves his food." (Matthew 10:10). On one hand, I don't remember seeing a Caribbean cruise on Father Z's wish list. On the other hand, this is taking place during the latter part of Lent, which is the worst time for a parish priest to break away, and the good Father does not have a parish assignment.
Now, I don't know about the rest of you kids, but when I go on a retreat, I go on a retreat. When I go on a cruise, I go on a cruise. (I haven't yet, but that's not important.) Retreats might be of varying depth and severity, this is true, but in the Catholic tradition, they all have certain things in common, such as the denial of varying degrees of creature comforts, and a certain severity in routine. Unless an entire cruise line is prepared to cooperate, this is an implausible scenario, and it is so during the season of the Great Fast, known in the Western church as Lent. Dressing it up with a certain routine, bringing a priest along, and calling it a retreat doesn't change any of that.
Meanwhile, to the person who accused yours truly in a particular social media venue of engaging in "an ugly display of envy and sour grapes," it is to laugh! Such a response assumes three things: 1) that those who challenge the idea as presented by CMTV are invariably jealous that they cannot or would not attend, 2) that concern over confusing a luxury cruise with a religious retreat is without merit, and 3) that the basis for 1 and 2 are that the parties in question are considered undeserving.
To the first, I can assure this individual that I have ample opportunity to a) go on retreats, b) go on a cruise (eventually), and c) have served Holy Mass for Father Zuhlsdorf, whom I have met and with whom I have broken bread on more than one occasion. He is a fine man, and a devout and (though you might not know it by his internet presence) an unassuming and humble priest.
To the second, my case stands on its own merits, and is motivated solely by them, and so I stand by them. I do so with no resentment towards Mr Voris, CMTV, (both of whom I have defended publicly in this setting), or (certainly!) Father Zuhlsdorf, for their fortunes. That they have suffered the slings and arrows of opposition for their convictions is not to be disputed here.
To the third, it would depend on what you mean by "deserving." Do they deserve a cruise for their apostolic work? Maybe, maybe not. It is hardly a free ride, as both are engaged in the responsibility of managing the event for others. Besides, if enough people decide to attend, Mister V and Father Z will get a cruise whether they deserve it or not, won't they?
But none of that makes it a retreat.
No one in the United States, even in a diocese that is on the verge of schism (and there are those within the walls of the Vatican who have long contended this), has to go offshore as they would with their monetary wealth, to find a haven of spiritual wealth. They can travel to other parts of the country and attend retreats, spiritual talks, and (lest we forget to mention) Gregorian chant symposia, all on dry land, for less money, and without a passport. As for myself, I am presently situated in the ecclesiastical Garden of Eden that is the Diocese of Arlington. I don't need to go on a cruise to hear the Truth with eloquence, having ample opportunity every Sunday to have such legends as those who serve the Church of Saint John the Beloved in McLean, Virginia. (Click on that link there and you can hear them as well.)
As I have not gained the notoriety for my blogospheric work to nearly the extent of the others mentioned here, this commentary would hardly stir the wind among the willows, don't you think?
Or don't you?
(Less than a week later, a sequel is published, and so the plot thickens!)
One week ago tonight, we learned the results of this year's general election, including that of President of the United States. As forty-eight percent of the population were stunned by the results the following morning, fifty percent of the population were jubilant at what they termed a "decisive" victory. Now, fifty percent is hardly decisive. Neither is fifty-one percent, which is what they had once Florida's votes were counted. As the inevitable appeared likely, Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly had this to say as to why the incumbent would be re-elected.
If one can overlook the ethnic distinctions, which are in danger of having entirely too much significance attached to them, it makes a great deal of sense. The unemployment figures do not always count those who have given up looking for work, and if there are enough of them (and the numbers tend to be disproportionately higher among nonwhites), and if enough of them have given up, they will abandon opportunity for dependency. This is part of the cycle to which we alluded just four years ago at this time.
... and that's just for openers. Personally, I don't imagine the President or his campaign to be responsible for this. They wouldn't have to be, with support at the local and state levels from the Service Employees International Union (you know, those goons in the purple tee-shirts who would beat up people outside of "town hall" meetings), and whatever demon spawn has arisen from the ashes of ACORN. It has also been observed that Obama lost every state that required photo identification in order to vote, which cannot help but say something about the integrity of our voting process. Is it so unrealistic to expect people to prove who they are to vote in an election?
While all that's going on, we thought we'd take this opportunity to look at the why and the wherefore of the results, both the big picture, and the devil in the details.
First, let's look at the nationwide map from more than one vantage point. The first map (in this case, from CNN) is how the results would have looked if only those who paid federal income taxes had voted. We can see that it would have been no contest for former Massachusetts Governor and Republican challenger Mitt Romney. This scenario might lend some credence to O'Reilly's observation, especially when you consider that nearly half the population pays no federal income tax. Or so they tell me.
The second map is which way the states actually ended up going. While the popular vote was 51 percent for Obama to 48 percent for Romney, the electoral vote, that which actually determines the election, was counted at 332 for Obama to 206 for Romney. In the United States, the people do not elect their President; the states do, in the form of electors, representatives of the will of their respective states, apportioned by population. But even this is misleading in terms of where the nation as a whole stood with this election.
(We note the exclusion of Alaska and Hawai'i in our subsequent examples. For what it's worth, the former was overwhelmingly Republican, and the latter was overwhelmingly Democratic, so there you go.)
It is here that we look to how the counties voted, which gives up a more accurate depiction of the mind of the popular electorate. In particular, we will look to three of the "battleground" states; Ohio, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.
First, we examine this writer's native Ohio. It is the Buckeye State, above all others, which is arguably the most representative of a cross-section of the nation (or as I used to call it, "the most average state in the Union"). Here we see a state that has long been culturally and economically divided. The northern part of the state is part of the Great Lakes region, with traditional blue-collar industries such as automobiles, coal, rubber tires, steel, and other forms of manufacturing. They would be dominated by the labor unions, whose members traditionally vote Democratic. The central and southern parts of the state are a combination of agrarian-dominated rural and small-town areas, and cities with a balance of white- and blue-collar industries. The southern part of Ohio, in particular, shares a common culture with the South, which in the last several decades has been more conservative, and tends to vote Republican. With the vote from Hamilton County in the southwest corner (which includes Cincinnati) having been swayed to vote Democratic in the 2008 and 2012 elections, it was enough to swing the state's 18 electoral votes (with 50.1 versus 48.2 percent of the popular vote) in favor of Obama.
We see similar dichotomies in Pennsylvania and Virginia. The former is divided between the larger urban centers of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and smaller ones such as Erie and Scranton, all with mostly blue-collar and/or minority populations. The latter is more or less split along the Rappahannock River. To the north is a region largely consisting of non-southerners and foreign-born, who rely on the federal government as a "company town" and want to keep it that way, and so will tend to vote liberal; that is, Democratic. The rest of the state is very southern, ergo conservative, ergo Republican, except for the urban centers such as Richmond and Newport News/Norfolk, which are, in concert with northern Virginia, enough to give its 13 electoral votes to Obama as well.
There is another perspective to our cultural divide that was brought to our attention just recently. “One can drive nearly the entire length of the continental United States in a straight line, over 3000 miles [from Curry County, Oregon, to Granville County, North Carolina], without going through a single county that voted for Barack Obama. North to south [from Divide County, North Dakota, to Terrell County, Texas] isn't even difficult.” Well, the west-to-east route could have been pulled off by angling it just a touch southward towards the end, but you get the idea. The bulk of the Democratic vote is concentrated in the northeast, along the Great Lakes, and the east and west coasts, not to mention the Indian reservations. Virtually everywhere else is distinctly Republican. This is how America is divided; urban against rural, urbane against provincial, liberal against conservative. We are supposed to be united as a country, even after a general election. But with the popular vote split so evenly in the last two elections, we live in what Michael Barone calls "two Americas."
People like Ann Coulter blame everyone but Romney, namely those who were what she calls "purists,"while insisting that everyone should have quit the internecine bickering and go with the most palatable, least offensive candidate from the get-go. She does manage to explain, if badly, why the middle-of-the-road approach did not work in 2012. Yet she and so many others of her ilk neglect to explain why this approach also didn't work in 2008, in the form of the wannabe "maverick," Senator John McCain.
The advocates of a middle-of-the-road Republican candidate, which dominate the party establishment and show no signs of yielding, continue to deny that their approach continues to fail. As Jonathan Last points out:
Nor can you say that they were embracing one. That's why they call it "middle-of-the-road." It was the downfall of Bush the Younger's legacy, it didn't work in 2008, it didn't work in 2012, and the definition of insanity, where the same thing is tried repeatedly in the hope of different results, would once again prove fatal for Republicans.
Another columnist for the National Review, Kevin Williamson, boils Romney's loss in Ohio down to three things ...
... the first amounting to borrowing from China to prop up a "too big to fail" industry, the second being a confirmation of how Camille Paglia became disillusioned with Obama, the third underscoring Romney's fundamental weakness: the inability to elaborate on a specific plan, relying too much on that of his running mate (who couldn't very well coach him during the debates, now, could he?).
Then there was the usual canard about playing to the conservative base, the so-called "Tea Party" -- by the way, there's no such thing, as it's more of an idea or a movement, than it is a single, coherent organization -- at the expense of the big tent, the broader conservative constituency; in other words, the country-club-joining, three-martini-lunch-sipping, East Coast banker-and-lawyer types, the aging white guys once known as "Rockefeller Republicans." This old party establishment went out of their way for at least a year to ensure that their man got the nod no matter what enthusiasm any other candidate for the nomination would generate. Don't worry, they'd tell themselves, they'll all say or do something stupid sooner or later.
The thing is, most of them did. On the other hand, none of them ever strapped a dog cage to the top of their car with the dog still in it. In other words, Romney was no more immune from the frailties of the human condition than the rest of them. Many have gone to considerable lengths to describe the Republicans stumbling all over each other, but the most amusing (if only as an acquired taste) came from none other than my son, wunderkind of game design and would-be political wonk Paul David Alexander, a couple of months ago.
At the beginning of the year, it was somebody, ANYBODY but Romney. Romney was a wishy washy twerp who couldn't possibly guide true conservatives to victory. His chief accomplishment in office was Romneycare for [pity's] sake! SuperPACs flooded the campaigns of Gingrich, Cain, Bachmann, Perry -- a different crazy kook every other week, all in the desperate hopes of avoiding what most pragmatic conservative pundits saw as the inevitable. When that didn't work, conservatives pitched a fit and insisted Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Sarah Palin, or the resurrected corpse of Ronald Reagan take a shot at it. When THAT didn't work, every single notable radio/talk show conservative pundit -- from O'Reilly to Coulter to Huckabee to Beck -- insisted that they were drawing a line in the sand. No way, no how were they gonna get behind this guy. They trashed him week in and week out. My, how things change.
And change they did, which actually proves one of two things. Either the GOP should have come to a conclusion sooner, saving a lot of money on the convention and the primary brouhaha, or the party establishment should have gotten the message that maybe the proverbial cat was not necessarily in the bag, that the "least offensive candidate" approach was going to fail -- again. Alas, they didn't get the hint, and they didn't get the White House. Not very "pragmatic," is it? My, how things don't change. (See "definition of insanity," above.)
AND NOW, THE SO-CALLED “CATHOLIC VOTE”
You were wondering when we'd get to this one, weren't you?
The very idea of discussing the Catholic vote, at first glance, is a joke, as ably demonstrated by those on the political left or right who attempt to claim it. The very fact that such a voting bloc can be determined solely along partisan political lines is a perfect illustration of the ideological tail wagging the Catholic dog. Well-intentioned organizations like CatholicVote.org come off looking like neo-conservative front groups, when they draw up litmus tests that read like a Republican scorecard, heedless of such factors as reservations of two popes concerning America's war in Iraq, all in relation to the "just war theory." One can disagree as to whether or not this criteria may apply, and it is not an absolute teaching like, say, abortion, but when a Pope speaks out on it one way or the other, it carries a certain weight -- unless, we can only surmise, it becomes politically inconvenient to do so. (Mind you, their list isn't wrong, merely short-sighted.)
Attempts to explain the Catholic vote are also pointless without certain distinctions being made.
Getting past why an ostensibly "conservative" Catholic source would refer to assisting at Mass as "attending services" (which some of us are old enough to remember never being done), we can see that practicing Catholics vote one way, and non-practicing Catholics vote the other. Otherwise, the above only proves that the Catholic vote is just like the Catholic divorce rate; indistinguishable from its non-Catholic neighbor.
In other words, the Catholic vote is no big deal. It's just like how we don't have the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, but just "attend services." Geez!
One big loser is conservatism in America, and the Republican party in particular. There are fiscal conservatives who are not keen on the social issues, and social conservatives who court the "religious right," but end up being "big government" conservatives when in office. George W Bush was an example of the latter, and to hear some say it, he has yet to live it down. But one segment of the conservative movement is consistently ignored, and has the capacity to both rouse the traditional party base, and win a good share of the young vote. The so-called "granola conservatives" (or as Rod Dreher so ineptly refers to them, "crunchy conservatives") endorse fiscal prudence, social conservatism with a locally-based activist streak, and a foreign policy of non-interventionism, which we may be forced to adapt sooner or later, as we may no longer be able to afford our Wilsonian vision as the world's babysitter. The most viable standard-bearer for this point of view in the 2012 race was Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who has been the laughingstock of his party's establishment, not to mention some of the candidates.
But the really, REALLY big loser in this election year, which may not be apparent for a while, is the mainstream media. Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel assess the bitter fruit of playing the lapdog for the Obama presidency, with so-called journalists resigning themselves to rare press conferences, evasive responses, and being confined to soft-balling questions, lest they appear "rude" to a thin-skinned chief executive.
We'll leave the rest to you since, having witnessed Joe Biden's completely boorish conduct during the vice-presidential debate, we know you can very well imagine.
HOPE BREEDS ETERNAL (IF MOMENTARILY ELUSIVE)
Syndicated columnist and Pinay Jersey girl Michelle Malkin found reasons to rejoice over the election, if not at the national level, but at various congressional, gubernatorial, and other assorted victories across the nation, in her "20 things that went right on Election Day." One victory she neglected to mention, probably because the results were not immediately apparent, was that of Michelle Bachmann, once-defeated candidate for the Republican nomination, who went on to regain her seat in the House of Representatives, on behalf of Minnesota's 6th congressional district.
Of course, this also means that I won't be getting any more fundraising e-mails from Madame Congresswoman with the subject heading:
Having said this, we could subject many of the English-language hymns of the late 19th and early 20th century to the same scrutiny as luminaries of the 1960s "folk scare." One saccharine example is "Mother At Your Feet Is Kneeling," its composer identified only as "Sister SC," and composed as early as 1929 or as recent as 1952, depending on whom you ask. It was recorded for the popular charts by such crooners as Dennis Day and Bobby Wayne, and can be found in a number of preconciliar (and ostensibly traditional) hymnals.
