The Catholic Circular Firing Squad, V. 3.0: Wherein Your Humble Blogger throws a spittle-flecked nutty—UPDATED

For those of you who missed it: Yesterday, Rorate Coeli, a traditionalist-oriented blog with which I’ve had issues before, broke a story screaming that Bishop Michael F. Olson, the newly-installed young bishop of Fort Worth (my home diocese), had rescinded Fisher More College’s permission to celebrate the Mass in the Extraordinary Form (aka the Tridentine Latin Mass, Mass of Paul V, or Vetus Ordo).

As RC presented the matter, the rescission was a thunderbolt from a clear blue sky. They printed a letter which Bp. Olson had sent to Michael King, FMC’s president, corralled a source called the Canon Law Centre to opine against Bp. Olson’s actions, then spent the rest of the news speculating how it could fit in with Pope Francis’ plan to abrogate Summorum Pontificum and destroy the Latin Mass forever. (Yeah, it’s that bad.)

Well, I followed the story all afternoon and evening yesterday, and all morning today (3/4/2014). You can read everything I learned on The Impractical Catholic; suffice it to say that RC didn’t check their facts or do any really serious inquiry into matters at Fisher More; they simply ran with a “bishop bashes TLM” story because it fit their “Francis Hates the Latin Mass” frame.

However, the Fisher More administration, particularly in the person of Pres. King, allegedly has begun to stray into schismatic territory, coming within an ace of sedevacantism. No less a person than Dr. Taylor Marshall, former chancellor and philosophy professor at Fisher More, also accuses King et al. of fiduciary mismanagement. It now appears someone at Fisher More — perhaps King? — played RC to make the bishop look bad and (perhaps) create traditionalist pressure to reverse himself.

What are you prepared to suffer?

Now that Arizona’s SB 1062 is dead as last week’s roast chicken, you might think some sanity might descend upon the public square. Don’t count on it.

Let’s set out the inarguables. SB 1062 was Arizona’s reaction to the case in New Mexico where a photographer was sued under that state’s human rights laws for refusing to provide her services for a gay wedding. The relevant passage, as noted by constitutional law professor Josh Blackman, is virtually cut and pasted from the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993: “STATE ACTION shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”

According to a bipartisan commission of law professors, SB 1062 would not have “allow[ed] any restaurant or bar-owner to puts up a sign that says ‘No Gays Served’,” as one email from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee hysterically asserted. Rather, under the law, “business people can assert a claim or defense …, in any kind of case (discrimination cases are not even mentioned, although they would be included), that they have the burden of proving a substantial burden on a sincere religious practice, that the government or the person suing them has the burden of proof on compelling government interest, and that the state courts in Arizona make the final decision.” Neither discrimination nor homosexuals were mentioned in either SB 1062 or RFRA ’93.

In any event, Gov. Jan Brewer’s veto message correctly pointed out that Arizona doesn’t have a New Mexico or Illinois-style human rights law to be used as a progressivist ratchet. And as Kevin D. Williamson correctly argues, “If anything, it is much more likely in 2014 that a business exhibiting authentic malice toward homosexuals would be crushed under the socio-economic realities of the current climate.”

Making Harvard a propaganda factory—UPDATED

Sandra Y. L. Korn, '14, progressivist Borg.
(Image source WND)

Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce you to Sandra Y. L. Korn, a Harvard senior double-majoring in history of science and studies of women, gender and sexuality (I heard you mutter, “Uh-oh”). In a Harvard Crimson post ironically titled “The Doctrine of Academic Freedom”, Korn has just advocated that Harvard remove itself from serious consideration as a center of academic research and become a generator of progressivist propaganda.

Not in so many words, of course. Her proposal, like Jonathan Swift’s, is modest:

… [The] liberal obsession with “academic freedom” seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has “full freedom” in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities. The words used to articulate a research question can have implications for its outcome. No academic question is ever “free” from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of “academic freedom”?

Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of “academic justice.” When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.

In a way, Korn’s argument is refreshing in its near-honesty. We already bias our research output by our funding and publication decisions, is the essence of her reasoning. We already have student activism to make sure conflicting positions are unwelcome here. Why be subtle about suppressing political heresies? Why not make it overt by writing it officially into school policy? I’m only surprised she didn’t suggest “academic justice” be written into Harvard’s hiring, retention and tenure standards.

Which makes me wonder: what are her grades in her history of science courses?

“Who am I to judge?”

The fateful post-WYD conference. (Photo: CNS)

Okay, let’s take it from the top: The Catholic Church exists to preserve and teach the revelation Jesus gave to his disciples during his earthly ministry. “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you …. (Matthew 28:19-20)”

That means the Catholic Church does not exist to teach whatever fashionable notions its members want to embrace today, even though Jesus’ earthly mission took place almost 2,000 years ago. Theological inferences and deductions are permissible; doctrine can grow and develop; discipline may change to a degree to better teach the faith according to the culture and the times. But where doctrine is settled and dogma defined, no change is admissible because it would functionally “change” (i.e. distort) the revelation.

Semper Ecclesia reformanda: “The Church is always to be reformed.” However, there’s authentic reform, and then there’s mere innovation. C. S. Lewis, in The Abolition of Man, described the difference between the authentic reformer and the innovator most memorably: “It is the difference between a man who says to us: ‘You like your vegetables moderately fresh; why not grow your own and have them perfectly fresh?’ and a man who says, ‘Throw away that loaf and try eating bricks and centipedes instead.’”

It should be no surprise that the Church doesn’t adopt all the “reforms” many Westerners think it should. And it should be no surprise that the Church’s sexual teachings haven’t changed. However, some people still manage to cough up shock and outrage that Pope Francis’ out-of-context quote, “Who am I to judge?”, didn’t completely undo 2,000 years’ worth of moral dogma.

The broken gate

There’s kind of a time warp in Facebook Land. On any given day, this strange phenomenon can cough up posts, videos and memes originally uploaded as long as seven or eight years ago. In Facebook Land, the Chuck-Norris-is-tough meme can never truly die.

Thus it was that I didn’t see the RantLifestyle article by Michael Peckerar, “The Girls You Marry vs. the Girls You Hook Up With”, until almost a month had passed since it was published. And not until I read Peckerar’s article did I know about the RantChic article by Regina Phalange, “Men You Marry vs. Men You Bang” to which Peckerar’s article is either a complement or a response. When a man uses an obscenity to describe sex, he’s crude and boorish; when a woman does so, she’s edgy and tough.

I played around with both articles on Monday, hoping to extend them into a commentary on role expectations and the standards of a good spouse. One thing I'd noticed was that, despite the provocative title of her piece, at only one point does Phalange suggest that a man from what we could call the “reject pile” might be good for a one-nighter or “friendship with benefits”; in the other seven categories, we’re almost forced to wonder why any woman would consider sleeping with such a loser, let alone marrying him. By contrast, on several points Peckerar leaves us no doubt that there are women a straight man should want to sleep with ... but not necessarily espouse.

Romance, self-sacrifice and St. Valentine

Sancte Valentine, ora pro nobis.

Post originally published February 14, 2012.

I fail miserably at romance. I’m like the guy in Billy Joel’s song, “Leave a Tender Moment Alone”: sometimes I get so tense, I’ll say or do something that completely spoils the moment … usually, it’s a joke. 

So if I were to write a post telling men how to win women’s hearts, I would be putting myself in a false position. I don’t even have the excuse of being a priest; a priest could at least form some conclusions from what he hears in confessions and spiritual counseling. In fact, I’m convinced that even Dr. Phil is making educated guesses when it comes to women. 

(“What do women want?” asked Freud in despair … to which cartoonist Mimi Pond replied, “Shoes.” Thanks, Mimi. Big help.)

It’s especially difficult to write about romantic love when, in one sense, both “love” and “romance” have lost meaning in the post-modern world. Saint Valentine, his day stripped of its sanctity in the name of secular commerce, now presides over a semi-ritualized gift-giving that drips the same sappy sentimentality with which American marketing saturates every major holiday. Where is the passion, the adventure, the hypergolic mix of eros and agapē? At the same time, why bother with the jewelry and the chocolates when you can just as easily get laid on Groundhog’s Day as Valentine’s Day?

The tragedy of the corporations

In 1968, economist Garrett Hardin published an article in Science magazine titled “The Tragedy of the Commons”. Although the article has been criticized for its factuality, the concept itself — also known as “the tragedy of the fishers” — has been applied in other areas. Briefly stated: One business’ best practice, when replicated throughout an industry, may become a suicide pact. That is, each business may be acting independently and “rationally” as economists define rationality (that is, according to each business’ self-interest); yet taken as a whole they’re acting in a manner contrary to the best interests of the industry … and perhaps the national economy.

One good example is the buffalo-hide boom of the 1870s: The failure of the clothing industry to put a limit on demand through high prices practically insured that the great beasts would be hunted almost to extinction, with devastating effects on the Plains Indians who had built their lives and tribes around the buffaloes’ migrations. But none of this was the suits’ intent — they were simply trying to give the customers what they wanted, that’s all.

Economics is supposed to be an empirical discipline, concerned with how people do behave rather than how people ought to behave. Part of the problem with calling self-interested behavior rational is that self-sacrificial behavior is subtly, subconsciously apostrophized as irrational; any behavior becomes “moral” so long as you can make a business case for it. The boundary between is and ought is not only frequently crossed but was probably blurred to begin with. Moreover, it creates a false position in which economic laws become not just observed (or at least theoretical) relationships but something inviolable and self-enforcing as the laws of physics; invisible, indefinable “market forces” create an economic karma which punishes the unrighteous and creates order in the house.

Dumb idea #6,258: Create jobs by paying poor people less

… [The] alternative to unbridled capitalism is not socialism but Catholicism.

Michael Coren, “Blessed are the poor”

The main problem with most non-economists’ economic analyses is that they take one aspect of economic relations and then ride it into the ground. Case in point: “How Democrats Kill Jobs”, a piece in Defining Ideas by Richard A. Epstein.

Epstein is a libertarian looking to make a case against government intervention in the market via an increase in minimum wages. He begins by looking at the most recent jobs report:

The latest government labor report indicates that job growth has slowed once again. It is now at a three-year low, with only an estimated 74,000 new jobs added this past month. To be sure, the nominal unemployment rate dropped to 6.7 percent, but as experts on both the left and the right have noted, the only reason for this “improvement” is the decline of labor force participation, which is at the lowest level since 1978, with little prospect of any short-term improvement.

So far, so good. But it’s his second paragraph in which he sets out his theme:

One might think that these figures would be taken as evidence that a radical change in course is needed to boost labor market participation. The grounds for that revision rest on a straightforward application of the fundamental economic law of demand: As the cost of labor increases, the demand for labor will decrease [bold type mine.—ASL]. There are, of course, empirical disputes as to just how rapidly wage increases will reduce that demand for labor.

From this point on Epstein’s line of argument wanders off course. How will getting rid of the minimum wage and extended unemployment benefits boost labor force participation? Will businesses and buildings stop needing janitorial services if their contractors have to pay $11.10/hour rather than $7.25? Epstein is more concerned with slamming Democrats than with explaining himself.

What is the problem with income inequality?

Click to view larger graphic.

Since Pope Francis promulgated Evangelii Gaudium, with its infamous passage on “‘trickle-down’ theories”, conservatives — especially conservative Catholics — have been rather touchy.

Most of them aren’t driven by their own personal greed. Many if not most aren’t even wealthy, but rather solidly part of the middle class. For the most part, they’re good, well-intentioned people … even the disciples of Ayn Rand. And most are well aware that capitalism rewards some ugly human traits even given positive legislation and effective regulation. They don’t defend the ugliness or the weaknesses; they simply hold that capitalism works better than do communism or socialism.

But while the increase of the “wealth gap” has been a source of some concern for a while now, from recent conservative reactions, you would never have guessed that anyone spoke of income inequality before Francis. “But what IS it exactly?” asks my friend Elise Hilton. “Does it mean that a teacher, a brain surgeon and a garbage collector should all earn the same wage? Does it mean the wealthy entrepreneur should simply give away her money, rather than investing it or leaving it to her heirs?”

These must be rhetorical questions. After all, with the exception of a handful of leftover Communists still dreaming in their academic refuges, liberals accept that different jobs will merit higher or lower wages. No one has a problem with entrepreneurs investing their income or leaving it to their kids; in fact, no one has a problem with people becoming or remaining rich.

It’s important to stress this because some writers, such as Pat Buchanan, dismiss the inequality issue as an attempt to ramp up class warfare based on envy of the wealthy. While this might be the case for some liberal politicians, the dismissal itself is an ad hominem; calling an opponent’s motives into question doesn’t disprove his argument or render it less credible.

Catholics can’t have “designated sinners”

Little Sister with a patient. (Source: Becket Fund.)

Barack Obama will not make the history books on the strength of his ability to compromise. At best, the Obama Administration’s “compromises” are the same demands made previously, spun differently to make it appear that concessions are being offered when in fact nothing is conceded.

So far, Obama & Co. have been able to get away with stiff-necking their agenda through Congress because they’ve had the backing of the majority of the mainstream media, who are more than happy to blame the opposition for failures to “compromise” (i.e., give in). Despite the ideological crystallization of the parties which has led to the near-disappearance of political moderates in Congress, there are a few Republicans who, as Theodore Roosevelt said of William McKinley, have “the backbone of a chocolate éclair”, and will sign off on fig-leaf “concessions” to end the confrontation and “save GOP face”.

However, such tactics don’t necessarily work when the opponent is a litigant party who isn’t elected to any office and thus can’t be scared off with the specter of defeat at the next polls. It’s amazing to see an Administration so driven by image politics risk that image by holding the HHS mandate line against the Little Sisters of the Poor, a company of Catholic nuns.

In a sense, the Administration’s tactics are determined by the wider context of their battle against the Catholic Church in America as the Last Bastion of Conservative Morality. However, the standard party ballyhoo about “the war on women” and “Church imposing its morality” fails to erase the image of a monstrous bureaucracy intent on beating down a bunch of ladies who take care of sick people. Nuns evoke the kind of sympathy that bishops don’t.