Safe Haven

I do my share of criticizing ideas and people in my neighborhood of the political spectrum, so to speak. You've seen this if you've hung around. It behooves people to learn as much as they can about obviously political questions. What we find as we do is that our system only allows questions and ideas within a narrow range. In fact, "issues" are just hooks for what I might call, "socio-cultural tribal conflict." " We are like this, and They are like that." And never the twain shall meet. A sick and corrupted political culture produces "leaders" that love this sort of needless rage. We have the leaders we deserve. Yet new generations of leaders desire to rise up to make a better way. They can't please everyone, nor should they. But we can and must do better than we have done.

Have you ever wondered why the "wrong" people were so comfortable with Jesus around? We tend to turn this around and go, "Jesus ate with sinners. We should, too." That's not wrong. But what do the sinners see? What do they get out of it? The best kind of sinners know they are sinners. There is no pretense or hiding. There is no act to put on. Other sinners like to find Gripe Rooms (like bars) to hang out together and talk about those who judge them unfairly. If you hear about a megachurch or something that proclaims itself a "judgment-free zone," for example, you have found Christians who have fallen for the act. You can't lure the proud into a deeper union with God. They don't want it, and it's opposite of the Kingdom. Seriously, though, how are you gonna save someone from a disaster they can't name fully? What are you saving them from? The gaze of Jesus shows the truth without pushing away. The gaze of Jesus grants the freedom to ...

The chattering class is doing their best to make this early stage compelling. It's not, really. There is one fundamental question: Can progressives unite around someone with an actual chance to win the nomination/presidency? Look at this: Sanders and Warren are playing for the same voters. Biden loves this, because one compelling progressive who can convince moderates he/she can win is a problem; two or more is a gift. Full disclosure: The steady state of this blog in general will be nominally pro-Biden. As both a voter/participant and an analyst, I think Biden has the best and only shot to beat Trump. Booker and Harris are self-styled compromise candidates between the moderate and progressive wings, rather in the Obama mold. President Obama played that role to perfection in 2008. The problem is, well, there can be only one. Mayor Buttigieg is a moderate masquerading as a progressive, also, but he's white. Ditto Beto O'Rourke. Why is he still running? In a smaller field, ...

Scrupulosity is an excessive fear of having offended God, or the belief that what I have done renders me beyond God's mercy. Believe it or not, I have struggled with this. It's a species of pride. Last night, as I was contemplating the superabundance of God in various blessings--and noting ruefully that there must be some mistake--something just clicked. "Where do I get off, telling Jesus he made a mistake?" You see, my friends, Jesus didn't wait until any of us were "acceptably spiritual." Indeed, what does the Scripture say? "God shows his own love for us in this: that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Think about that, now. Are we trying to tell Jesus he doesn't know what he's gotten himself into? On the face of it, it's absurd. Do you think someone who hasn't received Confession in 40 years may have some shame? And that's another thing: All these ex-Catholics out there proclaiming the "good ne...

5. You have the right to keep a handgun in your house for self-defense. (And other types of guns for sport.) You have a duty to yourself and others to seriously consider whether you need one/them. 4. I don't really blame Black America for supposing that this passion for the Second Amendment is and would be less enthusiastic if Black men starting advocating for themselves in the same way. 3. We do have a white nationalism problem. 2. We do have a problem of angry white men in general. Terrorism, that is. 1. I know one way we can all do our part, and solve lots of problems: Stop getting divorced.

Anybody remember the show "Law & Order"? Yeah, the original. I used to think "SVU" was an abomination, but it's fine. I think back to those Lennie Briscoe episodes (RIP, Jerry Orbach, and thanks). More than once, Lennie discovered that he had a colleague or a mentor who was into some bad business. They'd look at Lennie and go, "Hey Lennie, I thought you and me..." and they'd find out Lennie believed in the ideals of the organization. Being Catholic right now is a lot like being Lennie. There will be those who seem like they're on your side, but they're not. They might even ask you or me to protect some beloved figure for the good of the Church. They might ask you to sell out for the sake of "mercy" or political power, or something else. And you and me will have to decide what we believe, and what we're about. And the thing is, I don't have time to disbelieve anything the Church teaches. It may be profitable for...

5. Biden 2020: Old, White, Male, But Not Trump 4. Biden 2020: The Candidate Of The Actual White Working Class 3. Biden 2020: Obama 2.0, With Less Racists 2. Biden 2020: Not Woke, But We Need Some Bush Republicans To Win, So 1. Biden 2020: You Know It Could Be Worse

That's a ridiculous question, but apparently, if you're wrong about something really important, you can't have a correct moral intuition about anything else. In fact, this is an ad hominem. You know, LOGIC and FACTS. Anyway, the president's infamous tweet was in poor taste, to put it mildly. It was unpresidential, unbecoming, dishonorable, mean-spirited, untrue, and a hundred other things. It feeds into dangerous notions of nationalistic racial purity, and encourages distrust of those who may look different than some of us. We are a country based upon a set of ideas. The downside of those original ideas--that people can be unmoored from culture, family, and traditional morality--are still there, but the good side is that people can come to America and start over. It doesn't matter where you came from, or who your parents are, or where they came from. A fresh start. Now, I could go through and talk about all the ideas of the women of this "Squad" which ...

"You're not stopping abortions, you're just making abortion less safe." Well, let's talk about that, shall we? It's not safe for the baby, first of all. Secondly, the data shows plainly otherwise.  I think a lot of left-of-center Christians would like to believe these comforting fictions about abortion, because they feel culturally alienated from right-of-center Christians, they dislike them acutely in many cases. I get that, I suppose. Let's obliquely refer to the ignorant, unfit elephant in the room. Ahem. Anyway, if what I propose to do does not include making abortion illegal at some point, I do not really want fewer abortions. I have to take my medicine at some point as a "bad" person denounced by popular talk show hosts as an extremist. Fine. If  we go through a spike in "unsafe" abortions after it's made illegal, that's tragic, but unavoidable. Just because people work around a good law and hurt themselves or others doesn...

I'm a little biased here, but my friend Casey Chalk is in a good habit of writing great pieces on the good life in some of the political magazines and websites. Here is one in The American Conservative. I endorse everything he says in this piece, but I want to take a little part of it and use it as a jumping off point for my own reflection here. Casey mentions fathers and sons especially, and how playing baseball, or even watching baseball, can bring them together. We don't talk enough about fathers. We don't talk enough about good fathers, and how necessary they are. More than this, we don't talk about what a necessary blessing it is to be part of an intact family. I say "necessary" because there exists an obligation for all people of goodwill to fight for intact families. I say "blessing" because the damage of experiencing a broken family is outweighed in the lives of those from intact families by a factor of 10, and perhaps much more. The bless...

I don't know if I'll have a dog, when I form a family. I suppose I should say "if" I form a family. It's true, you know, that people are keeping dogs instead of having children. It's absolutely true that some people are clearly compensating for their lack of having children--of being parents--by treating dogs like children. On the other hand, I love dogs. Almost every time someone says what I said in this first paragraph, they are a bunch of dog-haters. I don't like that. And it kind of blunts the force of your argument, to be honest. And it's a ridiculous juxtaposition in the first place, because I'm no sociologist, but there's a pretty strong correlation between having children and having a dog. Therefore, in the fine tradition of a popular meme, "Why not both?" It's just something I had to get off my chest. I hope you don't mind.

I'm not one of those people who thinks that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, a magic wand was waved, and racism ended forever. In fact, that's ridiculous. I am probably one of those people that would pass as a "liberal" on race in many respects. I believe in structural racism; I believe in principle in the idea of reparations for slavery and other degradations against African-Americans and others. Yet I had something happen to me the other day, and it has me feeling and thinking that I can see the other side of this issue more clearly than I could before. I saw an episode of the show "The Real World". Now you may know that it's a web series now, but it premiered of course many years ago on MTV. They try to get the most interesting and diverse cast they can. Quite frankly, especially now, TV producers are trying to get people that will conflict with one another. Anyway, I was watching this show, and one of the participants was a very militant b...

It wasn't a hoop I jumped through. When I said I believed and professed all that the Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God, it was literally the most important vow I have ever made, or will ever make. I made it without prejudice to other vows; that is, I may take others that do not conflict, and surely I will do so. It's another illustration of grace building upon nature, and of the interrelation of different facets of true reality. In this way, the profession of faith is the grounding for all other promises, and this makes sense, because the vow's truth rests on God, who can neither deceive, or be deceived. I have to therefore take this opportunity to say that I don't "get" pick-and-choose religion. I'm fully aware that people do it. I can even see that it would be appealing. After all, every time we sin, we're retreating into this pick-and-choose mentality. Anyway, I remain surprised at how many people go, "R...

Well, not the Stanley Cup. But there's a nun I see at Mass sometimes, and she LOVES St. Louis sports. She asked me in January--when we were the worst team, or near to it--if I thought they'd make the playoffs. "Yes," I replied, matter-of-factly. I think I caught her by surprise, and the way she responded let me know she was wondering if I was nuts. But for me, watching sports is a mixture of faith, and a keen eye for talent. I had watched a couple games in November and December, and thought, These guys are really good. Most people just see results and scores, and that's not wrong. Eventually, to be a winning team, you have to win. But winners also are the people who do the right things when it doesn't matter, or doesn't seem to. What I noticed right away is that these guys did their best to cover for each other's mistakes. They used most of their energy helping each other. The forwards came back to help the defense; the defense came forward to help...

If you’re dating someone, and they cheat, so to speak, it can only be a couple of things. If it’s actual sex, it’s called “fornication,”—sex between two unmarried people—and that’s a mortal sin. If it’s “fooling” around, that’s called “masturbation”—the intentional stimulation of body parts to derive sexual pleasure, with no intention of having sex—and that’s a mortal sin. Christian couples shouldn’t be doing this stuff anyway. In case you’re wondering, yes, I was provoked by one of those internet videos, where some guy of dubious credentials lectures other guys about how to be less skeezy versions of our culture’s worst, with the earnest piano in the background. Pete’s sake, maybe all these women are anxious because we expect them to be perfect wives, with none of the permanence? Sure, good people trying their best slip up sometimes. Seek Reconciliation, and move forward. But this culture is so far from good that we cannot even figure out why we’re unhappy.

I'm no Bryan Cross, or Roger Scruton, or Alasdair MacIntyre, but when I see a young chicken hatching from an egg, it's not a "potential" chicken; it's a chicken. If someone plants a young sapling of a tree, it's not a "potential" tree; it's a tree. Trees and chickens are supposed to be trees and chickens. Neither one--apart from what we decide to do with them--is a cow, or a brick. There might be different developmental stages of each, and we could call them by different names at each stage, but what the thing is should not be under serious question. We've got people out there (apparently) confused about what the thing is as it pertains to humans. A human fetus is a human person at a very early stage of development. This person is not a brick, or a tree, or a chicken. We don't become persons by exercising capacities; we are persons who exercise capacities. If we decide--as has been decided many times before, to disastrous effects--that ...

"All we are is an evolved monkey!" Or tons of similar things. While I'm at it, I don't think we should perpetrate a genocide against monkeys, either. At the risk of being glib and reductionist myself, how many wounded children of divorce are drawn to these Dawkins-esque origin stories? How many of these guys treated their own girlfriends like trash, and so, cloak themselves in euphemisms for abortion to cover the guilt? There was that one Fulton Sheen story on an airplane. Guy said he was a deacon in some parish, but he didn't believe, and didn't go to Mass. A bunch of hypocrites (true) believing in fairy stories. His Excellency looked at him and said, "How long have you been stealing from the collection plate?" In a certain way, all we are is souls. Wounded souls. Why cling so tightly to something like abortion, so obviously problematic at best, even in the hardest cases? Rage at me is fine. Most times, I probably deserve it. But I'm just ...

Our friend Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez got in a few mocking cracks about this, and while society at large is apparently pleased with themselves in deciding that any and all sexual activity has the same moral value and meaning, it raises an interesting question: Should the rest of us--especially faithful Christians--celebrate "straight pride" in response? I say "no." I have a couple reasons: Firstly, accepting the "gay/straight/other" taxonomy inadvertently sends the message that procreative sex between men and women is but one valid option among many. We do not celebrate the fact that we are sexually attracted in the normal way, but that this wonderful design is fruitful, intended, and a benefit to all of us. Calling it "straight pride" focuses on our sexuality and pleasure, instead of that sexuality's purpose. Secondly, even as we say that these Pride events celebrate a false anthropology that is contrary to humanity's purpose, the...

Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves wide acceptance: Most of the people who blather on about other people's "quality of life" have never actually lived. I used to be scared to lose my mind, to get Alzheimer's, or some other dementia. But you know what? I don't need my wits; I just need my joy. And if I have no consolation from the gospel, my faith is enough. Faith proclaims what is true, even if it has no companions. If people say of me, "He believed, and he loved, and therefore, he lived," then it'll be a good life, no matter what I suffer at its end.

It is often claimed that individuals have the right to claim absolute sovereignty over their reproductive faculties; it is argued that frustrating, blocking, or even mutilating them is an indispensable part of freedom. Let's simply call this "reproductive freedom." If every man and woman actually chose this option, we would literally all die, and there would be no one to replace us. The human race would not survive. Let's put it in a syllogism:  Reproductive freedom is the right to regulate the natural human capacity for reproduction, up to and including the absolute prevention of conception (or the termination of the products of conception at will); If every person chose to exercise this right--in the direction of prevention of conception or termination--the human race would become extinct; It is not good that the human race should become extinct; Therefore, the right of reproductive freedom as described above is bad.