Thursday, January 31, 2013

The last Andrews Sister

  • Patty Andrews, 94. RIP.
  • From Damian Thompson: lying clerics. In the Internet age, carefully worded responses can be demolished with a few clicks of the mouse. Politicians worked this out years ago. Religious movements didn’t.
  • From Takimag. Not to beat a dead horse but: The combat arms — infantry, armor, and artillery — are closed to women for good reasons: they can’t do the job, and they keep men from doing the job.
  • From Steve Sailer: Oscar nominations, the sexes and inherited talent.
  • The exposition craze. This came up recently on a Facebook page: a list of churches around the country that have it. Well and good: if you reserve the Sacrament, you can do that. (It’s also a good quick test for soundness: Modernist parishes etc. don’t do it.) I love Benediction too but... regular readers know my line. Conservatives’ recent emphasis on exposition’s not traditional; it’s a reaction to liturgical abuse after the council. Keep doing it but put it back in perspective. Fix the problem instead of coming up with something new. The right order of things is Mass, office, devotions. Have more Tridentine Masses and high-church Novus, and promote praying the office including as church services (Vespers). (In short, dump the council and get back on track with what the liturgical movement wanted.) To give the liberals and Protestants credit, it’s true that the main purpose of the sacraments isn’t to be seen but used, and there’s a difference between the Eucharist (sacrifice made present, sacrament) and Eucharistic devotion (extension, sideline). Ironically, my parish church is a form called an exposition chapel, a very Counter-Reformation reform that brings the altar close to the people without the church-in-the-round nonsense. I’m in the front pew right next to the rail and can sometimes hear the priest read the consecration.
  • From RR:
    • UN panel: Israeli ‘settlements’ illegal.
    • Obama CIA nominee Brennan knew of torture. Of course not a word from the left.
    • Andrew Napolitano: immigration and freedom. Nativism is the arch-enemy of the freedom to travel, as its adherents believe they can use the coercive power of the government to impair the freedom of travel of persons who are unwanted not because of personal behavior, but solely on the basis of where they were born. Nativism teaches that we lack natural rights and enjoy only those rights the government permits us to exercise. Yet, the freedom to travel is a fundamental natural right. This is not a novel view. On that note, common sense from Rod Dreher: The problem is not necessarily immigration, per se. It’s who is allowed to immigrate, and in what numbers. Are they willing to live peaceably with their neighbors? Are they assimilating, by which I mean, do they maintain their own traditions, but adjust them to the general prevailing norms of the liberal democratic society into which they have chosen to move? If they’re not doing this, what kind of crackpot liberal democratic society accepts large numbers of immigrants from cultures radically opposed to the ideals it cherishes?


  1. Outside a tiny handful of classical-liberal Jews and Frenchmen, libertarianism is pretty much an exclusively Anglo-Celt, even Anglo-American, philosophy. That's why Napolitano just doesn't get it. He thinks since we invited his parents he gets to bring the whole village. If a bunch of Anglos traveled to Tuscany and proceeded to outbid the Tuscans so we could bulldoze vineyards to build strip malls, he'd be talking property rights out of a different side of his mouth.

    Bottom line, immigration is political and cultural suicide for libertarians.

    1. Good point but:

      While of course the ethnic British and the Tuscans should like being that, if you take your anti-immigrant line to its conclusion, we couldn't go to our churches, foreign imports in this Protestant land.

      That's why Dreher's talking common sense, a form of the do-no-harm principle. Freedom to travel and averting political and cultural suicide, balancing our rights and theirs. Fair.

      Regular readers know my line about libertarianism and the British. It may well be Anglo-American but to the modern socialist British it's like Beowulf, coming from deep in their culture but seeming foreign, scary and barbaric. (British conservatives including Red Toryism: a kind of ordered liberty that, like the social thought of Catholic churchmen, is more like the international left than the classic American right. Cf. David Lindsay here. Put another way, the Western left's a Christian heresy.) It's Anglo-American.


Leave comment