Undue diligence at the IRS

If the IRS had been more politically savvy, the agents in charge would have thrown in some "balance" keywords as well — words like "Occupy" or "99 Percent." But those balance keywords wouldn't have mattered, because the Occupy movement wasn't setting up hundreds of new 501(c)(4)s. But we don't have a particularly savvy IRS, and so we're left with this bumbling scandal.

—David Karpf, "'IRS-gate' as Conservative Political Correctness", Huffington Post, 5/15/13

Initially, the bulk of this [political] money [streaming through non-profit entities] came from groups that tilted right. Perhaps it was a coincidence, but the plaintiffs in Citizens United wanted to run a pay-per-view movie critical of Hillary Clinton, then the front-runner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. Today, left-leaning groups are just about caught up, and the new left- and right-leaning voices in federal elections are approaching parity with each other.

—David Morrison, "The Real Scandal Behind 'IRS-gate'", Crain's Chicago Business, 5/16/13

Okay, guys, you may want to get your stories straight with each other. 

Both Karpf and Morrison are agreed in principle, though: There's nothing really wrong with the IRS digging into the motives and personalities behind non-profits; they just goofed by biasing their efforts towards conservative groups. Karpf, as HuffPo's puppet academic, seemingly believes that the sole liberal group warranting such attention is the Occupy movement; there are, in his world, no liberal 501(c)(4) organizations. But if there were, he theoretically grants that they too should have been scrutinized. 

The idea that the scrutiny itself might be objectionable they both wave away as conservative opportunism masking as principle. The point of the Citizens United case is that corporations, associations and unions also have the right to participate in the public forum via the First Amendment. Morrison finds political figures such as Karl Rove attempting to influence elections outrageous, while Karpf objects to wealthy people having a voice in the public square (did I mention he was writing in HuffPo?). Silly me, I tend to think of such things as part of the baggage of democracy and the First Amendment. After all, astroturfing is what put our current Glorious Leader in office. Sauce for the goose.

What do these young French Catholics want?

Protesters at a March '13 Paris anti-SSM demonstration.
(© 2013 Jean-François Gornet)

Much to the surprise of everyone, the strongest, most vocal resistance to same-sex marriage comes from the people of France. Once storied for their sexual laissez-faire, and reputed to be one of the most thoroughly secularized cultures on the planet, more and more French people are discovering that they're still Catholic after all these years.

Of course, it can't come as a bigger surprise to anyone other than the rest of the French population. Christine Pedotti, editor-in-chief of the pro-SSM magazine Témoignage chrétien ("Christian Testimony"), remarked to Marie Lemmonier of Le nouvel observateur ("The New Observer"), "It is a real groundswell ... These young conservative activists obey the Church hierarchy and are addicted to family values and genuflecting. This is the new face of the Church." 

And it's a face she and other progressives don't like:

According to Pedotti, the uncertainty of today's society makes Catholics "crave for authority." [Ah, here comes the psychobabble.] They love — sometimes even idolize — the pope, and hate the 1968 generation, which they consider as the root of all even, the people who are responsible for the Church’s decline. 

"They have made obedience to the Church the most important aspect of their faith, which can sometimes prove counter-intuitive when they fail to follow the strict commandments of the institution. They would rather be in the wrong than challenge the rules," Pedotti explains.

"When you have no backbone anymore, you need to have a body armor. It's like the ‘lobster complex’ coined by French psychoanalyst Françoise Dolto to describe the transitional period that teenagers go through, where they act like a lobster, which sheds its outer shell and hides while waiting for the new shell to grow," explains Nicolas de Brémond d'Ars, priest and psychologist. He finds it regrettable that among the adepts of this new trend, the more progressive young Catholics do not have their say. [Mais naturellement ... why would one expect to hear "progressive" voices in a conservative movement? Would you expect to hear an apologia for Obamacare at the next C-PAC convention?]

Ah, I see. This new wave of conservative French kids don't have the backbone to ... cave in and go along with the rest of European society? They're lobsters forming body armor because they blindly follow Pope Francis rather than blindly follow Nicolas Sarkozy? (Have we really, really established as a fact that they're following anyone "blindly"?)

The man (or woman) who isn’t there

It’s never too early in life to treat your children like mushrooms. Or to give them the suspicion that you live in a world only tangentially connected with theirs.

That, apparently, is the operating theory behind Cory Silverberg’s picture book What Makes a Baby (Seven Stories Press, $16.95), reviewed with implausible enthusiasm by Noah Berlatsky in The Atlantic. According to Berlatsky:

Silverberg’s goals here are very deliberate and (in the reader’s guide) carefully spelled out. He wants to include all children, regardless of whether they have a mommy and daddy who had sex, or adopted them, or whether they have two mommies, or two daddies, or (as Silverberg mentioned in the guide) a trans daddy who gave birth to them, or any of a myriad of other possibilities. The book, then, tries not to impose one truth, but rather to open up possibilities and conversations.

Null hypothesis: Silverberg is being (somewhat) honest — he wants to make his book accessible to as many children as possible, including those raised by same-sex couples and transsexuals. Hey — more kids, more royalties; not every author of children’s books is as wildly successful as was Dr. Seuss.

However, as Berlatsky tells it, Silverberg is so determinedly inclusive in his treatment of sex that “the book doesn’t even mention the word ‘mommy’ or ‘daddy’.” Sperm and egg meet in a uterus that doesn’t apparently belong to anyone, through some unspecified means (here’s looking at you, IVF babies!); what connection they have to the colorful blobs, drawn by Fiona Smyth, that represent people is never quite nailed down. You might as well say nothing as be so thoroughly ambiguous.

Read the rest at Catholic Stand!

Another bad case of conservative foot-in-mouth disease

Thomas Sowell, in The American Spectator, asks the question, "Is Thinking Obsolete?"

Judging from the cover, I'd have to say, "Yes." At least the editor abandoned thought who let the title of the article about Sarah Palin make it to press.

The piece is about Gov. Palin's success at getting conservative politicians elected. I'm not a fan, but I understand that plenty of neo-conservatives and Tea Party types are, so I imagine that her voice has helped bring some votes to the booths. No quarrel there.

So they could have titled it, "Sarah Palin's Success". Or "Sarah Palin, Power Broker". Or any number of other string of words that didn't involve a double entendre that will have people, male and female, red and blue, sniggering like 14-year-old boys watching a blue movie. "Yeah, ol' Palin's got a really impressive rack ... of successes. Heh, heh, heh."

There's no winning on this one. Whether it was intentional or not, women on both sides of the political spectrum will be annoyed and insulted, and feminists of the Sandra Flake variety will find in it confirmation that conservatives are misogynists trying to keep women down.

Is there some sort of sensitivity training that conservatives can go to without drinking the progressivist Kool-Aid?

Example #76,239 of sola scriptura in action

Not often I post twice on two related topics in the same day ....

Observe to your left two bumper stickers that would flunk a contestant on The Great American Bible Challenge. Let's dig a little deeper, shall we?

1. Jesus affirmed a gay couple.  No, he didn't — he healed a centurion's slave.   

The passage in question, Matthew 8:5-13, tells us nothing more than that the centurion wanted a particular slave healed, but didn't count himself worthy to receive Jesus as a guest. It doesn't tell us whether the particular slave was favored or not; in fact, the Greek word used, pais (παῖς), had the primary meaning of "child", and could be used of either male or female. While some slaves were used as sex toys by their owners in the classic world (as well as in any other culture where slavery has been found), not all slaves were sex toys; given that it's unlikely homosexual orientation was more prevalent in the Mediterranean culture of the Roman Empire than it is today, it follows that female slaves more than male slaves were targets of their masters' lusts. Moreover, slaves were not uniformly treated cruelly or inconsiderately; to be concerned for his servant's health, the centurion merely had to be a prudent man who took care of his possessions. 

In any event, Jesus said nothing about the centurion's relationship with the slave; he merely stated that he would heal the slave, and praised the centurion's faith for believing that Jesus could pull the healing off without even setting eyes on the man. Speculation is free and fun, but to turn speculation into an assertion of fact is to engage in wishful thinking.

Nothing to see here ....

That's right, I deleted my last post. It was written intemperately, and without full appreciation of the facts.

Anytime you write to be read publicly, you take the risk of looking like an idiot. I normally take more time to be sure of my facts ... which usually means that, when I do comment, the tide of affairs has already raced past me and I'm left stranded. Besides, when I don't wait for the facts to become clear ... this kind of thing happens.

I suppose I could have just deleted the post without further comment. ("What post is he talking about, anyway?" "Oh, the one about distributists bombing Boston, I think, and some crazy traditionalist.") But I owe it to the few but lovely people who actually read what I write to apologize for my goof.

Carry on with your normal surfing. That is all.

The Benedictines are back!

Click here to pre-order your copy!

If you liked their last album, Advent at Ephesus, then you're gonna love this! The Benedictines of Mary, Queen of the Apostles are coming out with a new album, titled Angels and Saints at Ephesus, scheduled for release by Decca Records on May 7th.

The Benedictines are a traditional order of nuns based in the Diocese of Kansas City-Saint Joseph. Originally formed in Scranton, Pa. under the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, their primary vocation is a life of prayer and manual work, according to the Rule of St. Benedict. Prayer means daily Mass, celebrated according to the Extraordinary Form (the traditional Latin Mass) and the Lectio Divina, or Liturgy of the Hours; work includes not only household chores and farm work but also making altar linens and vestments for the clergy, the sale of which goes to their support. They also run spiritual retreats for the clergy.

Singing, then, is not their primary concern; as one of the nuns says, they don't spend that much time in rehearsal. However, these amateurs spent six weeks in the #1 spot on Billboard's Classical Music chart, and ended up #1 Classical Traditional Artist(s) for 2012. That's because their sound is so pure and their harmony so spot-on it sends a frisson straight up your back.

Enjoy this promotional video from De Montfort Music. Then pre-order your copy through Amazon or through the Benedictines' website link above. A significant portion of the proceeds go to paying off their debt so they can begin some needed expansion (no, I don't get anything for the plug!). And give praise to God for their marvelous singing!

The Best is Yet to Come

I’d like to start with a story my cousin Greg sent me:

There was a young woman who had been diagnosed with a terminal illness and had been given three months to live. So as she was getting her things in order, she contacted her Pastor and had him come to her house to discuss certain aspects of her final wishes. She told him which songs she wanted sung at the service, what Scriptures she would like read, and what outfit she wanted to be buried in.

Everything was in order and the Pastor was preparing to leave when the young woman suddenly remembered something very important to her.

“There’s one more thing,” she said excitedly.

“What’s that?” came the Pastor’s reply.

“This is very important,” the young woman continued.  “I want to be buried with a fork in my right hand.”

The Pastor stood looking at the young woman, not knowing quite what to say.

“That surprises you, doesn’t it?” the young woman asked.

“Well, to be honest, I’m puzzled by the request,” said the Pastor.

The young woman explained. “My grandmother once told me this story, and from that time on I have always tried to pass along its message to those I love and those who are in need of encouragement.”

Read the rest at Catholic Stand!

"God forgives, I don't!"

Before Wolverine got a decent hair stylist ...
(© 1967 Cronocinematografica PEFSA)

No, the guy to the left is not Hugh Jackman in a test shot for X-Men. It's Terence Hill in a still from an obscure and ill-regarded Giuseppe Colizzi "spaghetti western" titled God Forgives ... I Don't! I don't think either Rick Ross or the printer of the T-shirt I saw today had this movie in mind; doubtless they thought they were being clever and original.

The T-shirt, oddly enough, didn't reference the rapper either; I say "oddly enough" because a Bing search of "god forgives i don't" overloaded the page with shots of the album cover. The T did, however, share a common color theme and font with another shirt the wearer's buddy sported, which announced "HATERS ARE MY MOTIVATION". Motivation for what we can only guess.

I didn't have time or opportunity to discuss their fashion (non)sense with them. But the first question would have been: "So ... you've decided you don't want God's forgiveness?"

Matthew 6:14-15: "For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."

Of course, these trousered apes may not have been Christian in any sense save that of being "cultural Christians" (i.e., just Christian enough to sing "Silent Night" and "Joy to the World" when Christmas rolls around, but not Christian enough to pray). But there are a lot of professed, church-going Christians out there who pride themselves on their Biblical knowledge but who act as though Jesus didn't draw a big "equals" sign between our regard for others and our regard for God.

Good Friday

First published April 22, 2011.

Dear God.

First, the frenzied, howling Sanhedrin. Slapping, punching, spitting all the while ... perhaps kicking him if he fell. During the night watch, his anxiety and fear for what he knew was coming was so great that the net of blood vessels around his sweat glands constricted, then hemorrhaged. Hematidrosis. As a result, his skin is extremely fragile and sensitive; every punch and slap is exquisitely painful.

The humiliation of the crowning as Rex Iudaeorum: not a wreath or circlet but a cap woven out of branches from the local thorn bushes, each thorn a nail in his scalp, with a staff made out of reed for a scepter ... a scepter with which he was struck like a club.

But that wasn't enough. Two Roman soldiers with flagella: whips of leather, with small bones tied to the ends which ripped the skin off his back and tore pieces of muscle out. Tied to a post, there was no way he could move, even involuntarily, that would avoid the clawing fragments that shredded his back. There's no way I can not hear him screaming his agony; slaves had been known to die as a result of the forty lashes.