Colleges trying to force non-Christians on Christian student groups, conservative Anglican women priests, and more

• Colleges trying to force non-Christians on Christian student groups. The Christian heresy of political correctness (niceness as a weapon; very WASP) strikes again. Am I the only one here who sees irony in a female Anglican priest arguing for a mechanism to prevent "theological drift" in campus religious organizations? No. Then again, as someone born Episcopal and much formed by Anglo-Catholicism (my late rector offering novenas that "the scandal of the attempted ordination of women be removed from the Anglican Communion"), I would. I'm not mad at the Episcopalians anymore but it's still hard for me to admit that liberal high church is the New Anglo-Catholicism; if like the common man you identify Catholicism with Rome (our holy mother, the church), it is a massive betrayal of what some of us were trying to do as Anglicans. Sure, I did a double take. Started reading Rod Dreher's post assuming she's liberal. To this Catholic it doesn't make sense: the original "drift" of course was the "Reformation" (the Christian heresy that begat secular humanism/political correctness); I call good-hearted ACNA (they're not about self but Christ) "Slightly Less Liberal Protestant Denomination." So Cranmer's and Hooker's "reformed Catholic" religion allows for changing the matter of a sacrament (Anglicans are undecided if orders really is one)? Guess so. But it's fairly clear she's of the Evangelical persuasion (rare among American Anglicans; they could always leave for other denominations) and isn't claiming to be a Catholic priest. She's pretty. Pope Francis as imagined by Damian Thompson: "Join me in spreading the gospel." Of course such are more likely to come into the church the EWTN "Journey Home" way with other evangelicals (some do), not the ordinariates. Anyway, I agree with the post's point: this oppression is insane; illogical. Against freedom of religion. What it obviously really means: We all know the real reason for this, behind the legalistic pettifogging, is that those who’ve gotten themselves in charge are hostile to Christ and Christianity. Whatever is pretended to avoid the animus being perceived as blatant as it is. Trad/paleo rebuttal (not an endorsement): is arguing for pluralism part of Dreher's suspected surrender propaganda for conservatives, actually joining the other side and becoming part of the problem? The SSPX exists because it objects to religious liberty and ecumenism; It's Not About Latin™ and neither am I. (Latin's a template and the church's international second language, and it's beautiful, the mother of Italian.) Me: in that department, as in much else, America 50 years ago worked. We had arrived in American society without compromising (America even liked us: Going My Way?); we did not need Vatican II.
• Quip from the Rad Trad, remembering that experimental Masses facing the people were done in America in the '50s: Reform of the Reform? No, try FORGET the Reform. Sounds good to me. Since Vatican II didn't define doctrine, no problem. Let it collect dust on the shelf, a cautionary tale for the future against blind faith in never-ending progress, the '50s' Achilles' heel.
• The Fifties vs. the '50s. As I keep explaining to Donna, people 50-60 years ago didn't have little chrome and checker-tiled diners in their basements with new 45s stapled to the walls. (What the hell are you doing?) They walked to neighborhood places like the former Walt's like I did until recently. A post about Grease on Facebook got this started: Cute, average Sandy for most of the movie, yes. Fits the period. Although the music in some scenes was pulling towards the '70s. The travesty at the end? No. Musically and visually the scene ruined the movie, it was a bad lesson for the kids (girls, to get boys to like you, completely change who you are), and Sandy became a weird time traveler from the '70s (cf. most seasons of "Happy Days"). Grease is a mixed bag. The Fifties (concept courtesy of Sha Na Na, a bunch of Columbia students making fun of Italian-American resistance to the Sixties) are part of the real '50s; the fake Fifties are full of anachronisms. This movie was an example of that. John, I'm afraid the best thing about the '50s was Ike reading Zane Grey novels (ever been to Ike's house in Gettysburg, btw? Pretty nifty.) The movies and literature of the decade are crammed with the nascent '60s like a bad zit ready to pop. For this country at least, give me any time prior to 1914. As I now say, beware when the left gets nostalgic; that's what they're on about. Anyway, haven't been to Gettysburg yet. 1. I remember the old Middle America (Nixon's Silent Majority) fading away from 1968 to 1972. 2. Mid-century ("the '50s"): prosperity, technological advances (we're STILL flying B-52s), AND the old values (friend born in '53: "the grownups were still in charge"), so you had beautiful design (such as car design and space-age architecture: googie/doo-wop), for example; lots of experimentation (orchestral music and cool jazz; rock wasn't really radical: a continuation of boogie-woogie/r&b) but not a lot of ugliness. I see what you're saying, though, about the rot having set in. Faith in unending progress was standard. Ended up wrecking the church and the larger Western society. That's what Vatican II was about.
• Pro-abortion propaganda on PBS. Now that just about everybody has the Internet and cheap cable, do we NEED PBS? Years ago PBS would never have dared act so blatantly. With the entire pro-life movement called extremism like the Taliban, etc., nobody should be surprised by this. Years ago the Silent Majority was still at least passively pro-life and pro-straight. Guess the frog-in-a-pot brainwashing worked: "I'm personally opposed but" or worse.