ECR once again has the honor of presenting the commentary of Matt Anger, a traditionalist writer who has investigated the topic with considerably more rigor and seriousness than I have. Although Mr. Anger has the good sense to avoid the undisciplined habit of “blogging”, he has generously agreed to contribute to ECR as time permits.

***************************************************************

Race, Liberalism, and the Catholic Response

Race and racism are subjects that require a nuanced treatment; not the ham-fisted approach that’s common across the political spectrum. A pleasant exception to this are the articles of James Fitzpatrick here, a regular columnist for Catholic Exchange. He invariably defies the usual stereotypes and discusses race in an intelligent and balanced manner. For example, Fitzpatrick faults the apparent ethnocentric emphasis of Pat Buchanan in Death of the West. At the same time, he staunchly defends Buchanan against ill-founded charges of anti-Semitism. More recently, in his November 11, 2003 essay (“Left: One Point”), Fitzpatrick talks about a controversial “Caucasian Club” that a white student is attempting to set up at Freedom High School in Oakley, California.

Like any conservative Catholic, he is annoyed by the hypocrisy of liberal opposition to such a proposal. And many of us at one time or another, at least on principle, would probably have said, “Why not set up such a club? After all, if there can be Greek, Vietnamese, Black or Hispanic groups, why not a white one?” But Fitzpatrick refuses to be baited into a grouchy reaction. While Sam Francis and William Rusher have charged to the defense of the Caucasian Club, he acknowledges that there are greater subtleties at work:

Consider the difference with a Caucasian Club. This is still a country that is overwhelmingly white. (That may change some day in the future, which will change this analysis.) When a Caucasian Club is formed, it says in effect that there is a club that represents the society as a whole — one that is intended for everyone except a racial or ethnic minority, one where everyone belongs except unwelcome sub-groups. It is hard to see how that could be interpreted in any way other than as a relegation to second-class citizenship for those excluded. Which makes all the difference in the world.

Look: If black and Latino student associations are preaching racial hatred or subversion they should be criticized for doing so. The clubs should be disbanded. But if they are doing what the Gaelic societies and Italian-American clubs have done for decades now, there is nothing to object to. Forming “Caucasian Clubs” to score points against racial minorities is not just a case of turn-about being fair play. It delivers the wrong message.

The Sam Francis mentioned above is an important figure in the discussion of race. A former columnist for The Washington Times, his writings have appeared in Chronicles and the conservative Catholic Wanderer newspaper. In 1995, Sam Francis wrote an article for Southern Partisan which criticized the Southern Baptist Convention for adopting a resolution formally apologizing for slavery. As with similar apologies in recent years (on racism, sexism, etc.), these after-the-fact lamentations are ridiculous political posturing—or, one could say, political bowing and scraping to the ideological regime of the moment. Nevertheless, while anti-racism has degenerated into a thinly veiled weapon of leftist cultural strategy, that doesn’t mean I should necessarily defend what the left condemns. That is precisely Fitzpatrick’s point. What most often makes the left wrong is not its stated beliefs (usually disingenuous) but its underlying intentions. For example, no one thinks women should be “exploited,” or treated as “sex objects.” But the feminist answer of turning them into butch careerists and combat jocks is a cure worse than the disease.

I don’t have Mr. Francis’ original essay in front of me; however, some selected quotes indicate that he is, if not espousing racism (a charge that is tossed about much too lightly), going too far at times in his nostalgia and defense of the past. After all, Catholics don’t defend something on the basis of whether it is “old” or “new,” but right or wrong. Mr. Francis, however, believing that whatever the left hates must be good, defends all aspects of the Old South, including its “peculiar institution.” He adds that, “Not until the Enlightenment of the 18th century did a bastardized version of Christian ethics condemn slavery.” Come again?

In an article written a few years back, called “Race and the Church” (to be republished later this year), I noted that in 1462, Pope Pius II called slavery a “great crime”. He was condemning the enslavement of black Africans as the great European powers began their worldwide exploration and colonization. Let’s skip ahead a few centuries, to 1890, when Pope Leo XIII proclaimed that:

The maternal love of the Catholic Church embraces all people. As you know, venerable brother, the Church from the beginning sought to completely eliminate slavery, whose wretched yoke has oppressed many people. It is the industrious guardian of the teachings of its Founder who, by His words and those of the apostles, taught men the fraternal necessity which unites the whole world (Catholicae Ecclesiae, “On Slavery in the Missions”).

Slavery has always flourished in a society that is non-Christian or in some way compromising its Christian beliefs. That is not to say that we must disown our heritage wholesale. It is true that the Confederacy, for all its virtues, defended an indefensible institution. Likewise, Rome and Greece, the birthplace of Western culture, engaged in many practices (including slavery) that we would rightly abhor. But no sensible person thinks we should just toss whole centuries of cultural wealth and wisdom into the memory hole. I think that Sam Francis is right insofar as he senses the disproportionate emphasis laid on slavery. Firstly, Christians accept that we live in a fallen world and that there will always be temporal evils, though they may vary from one generation to the next. Secondly, we believe that servitude of the soul is a far worse thing than servitude of the body. But I admit to feeling a bit impatient with those who howl at the least imposition of the IRS, and the “slavery” of the federal government, yet think nothing of consigning whole groups (like non-whites) to a second-class status… especially if they are members of the exempt class.

My response to certain paleo-nationalists is that race-based theories of society, however benevolently conceived, are themselves Enlightenment-era by-products. While we may loathe multiculturalism and globalism, ethno-nationalism (the bugbear of the modern left) is itself a thoroughly liberal concept. It just so happens to be a variety of naturalism that has gone the way of older secular fads like mesmerism and phrenology. Racialism and extreme nationalism grew up in the Darwinian, materialistic climate of the 19th century. They were also at the forefront of anti-clerical movements in Europe. The real answer is not a return to an earlier error. It is, rather, a return to objective, transcendent truth, which is not the product of some historical epoch but is that faith which, as St. Augustine said, is “so old and yet so new.”

“An age of billions of years for the Universe has serious theological and scientific arguments against it. Since naturalistic evolution is rejected, it becomes necessary to resort to countless divine interventions to account for how life-forms kept coming into being. In contrast, Tradition holds that the Creation events reached finality soon after the events of Creation. The interdependence within diverse bio-systems necessarily requires fairly rapid creation. Fruit trees created on Day 3 need birds and bees to arrive on Day 5, not millions of years later. Why the quest to supplant direct creation with direct intervention, and which Scripture passages can be cited in support? ‘A day is as 1,000 years’ (2 Peter 3:8) refers to timeless eternity rather than to the Creation events. We know that God instantly created space, time and matter, and instantly turned water into wine and instantly brought the dead back to life. In keeping with Scripture passages, why not allow Him to instantly stretch out the heavens (i.e., the Universe) and lightwaves on Day 4, less than 10,000 years ago?

… The global Flood of Noah is usually denied by advocates of Progressive Creation in favour of local floods. But this means that God’s ‘rainbow’ promise, to no more destroy mankind through a flood, has been broken many times. (eg The Bangladesh tidal wave flood of 1971 killed 300,000 people.) … If a global Flood were to be conceded, the next question waiting to be addressed is this: did it occur before or after the sin of Adam? Genesis reveals that it occurred after Adam’s sin, thus it must have occurred less than 10,000 years ago. The strata and fossils thus cannot be any older than 10,000 years.

Those who favour eons of time have to address Leo XIII’s benchmark teaching in Providentissimus Deus (1893). He taught that there are various senses used in Scripture but insisted that the literal, obvious sense must hold ground until shown to be disproven. Since a meaning of 24 hours natural days was held by most of the Fathers and was permitted by the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1909 as the proper sense and thus is unlikely to be overturned, the onus of responsibility of proof lies entirely with those who prefer eons of years. It may not be possible to prove a young Universe scientifically but I contend that, ultimately, the long ages view is contradictory of Catholic Tradition.

Where is the proof beyond doubt that the Universe is billions of years old? Where is the indication in Genesis that a meaning other than natural days was intended to be conveyed and understood by the reader? The sacred writer could easily have informed us that the Creation took place over millions of years. Did the Fathers and Rabbis get it wrong, in holding that Genesis is primarily historical revelation, until the revisionist theological impact of the Darwinist era suggested otherwise? Where is the consistency of reasoning in arguing that the Days of creation were much longer, but the hundreds of years ages of patriarchs were much shorter than that?”

As I have said elsewhere, belief in a young earth may not be something on the level of doctrine, but it is an inference from established doctrine. To summarize:

1. The Bible is inerrant and Genesis is history;
2. Corollary A: There was a real worldwide Flood, and it occured after the Fall;
3. Corollary B: The biblical genealogies refer to real people and real events;
4. Adam and Eve are the first created man and woman;
5. Adam and Eve are the first and only parents of the entire human race;
6. Eve was created from the side of Adam;
7. Adam and Eve would not have died had they never sinned;
8. There was no enmity between Man and Nature before the Fall;
9. The world was created ex nihilo;
10. The world was created for Man.

The weight of these truths lend themselves to a young earth scenario, quite apart from scientific investigation. Which leads us to the subject of “neutrality” in science: any science worthy of the name should be about discovering the truth, and should therefore incorporate all relevent truths into its method. Some people do not think that this approach is “neutral” enough, and so they ignore any truths that happen to have a religious source. Science then becomes an entirely self-referential and tautological system that is purposely blind to significant truths about material reality.

Evolutionism is a theory that badly needs refuting, but you’re not going to do it by telling me that the creation of man and the creation of the fruit fly were equally miraculous events …

OK, I promise not to do that.

… nor by asserting vague reservations about the speed of light and the properties of matter.

These aren’t vague reservations, and this isn’t a peripheral issue. The laws of nature were not always what we observe today. That’s not speculation, that’s the truth. The creation events, as you would certainly acknowledge, were supernatural (or pre-natural) processes, in which earthly matter came into existance ex nihilo. If a team of scientists looked upon the world just one year from the date of creation, set up their laboratory, and attempted to date the rocks (or whatever you imagine was there) based on the assumptions they use today, what do you think the results would have been? The results would be inaccurate because their assumptions would not be valid. Similarly, if the universe is expanding, is it not probable that the rate of expansion was different at the creation than it is today, and that the stars began their life much closer to earth than they are today, and that the light we see today has not come from the stars in their present location, and that the stars cannot tell us their true age because they cannot tell us their true distances? Nevermind that the speed of light depends upon the medium in which it travels, and that medium was obviously different when the stars were created than it is today. All of this is only to say that estimating the age of the earth, or of the universe, is something entirely different from dating an oak tree or a horse femur. We can’t use the same assumptions about natural processes when we are dating something that reaches back to creation itself. I don’t see anything the least bit controversial about that.

You need to say when these things were not what they are, based on some evidentiary necessity and not on your sense that the evidence doesn’t sit well with Revelation.

The Creation, the period of incorrupt nature before the Fall, and the Deluge. These are the three historical times when it is certain that “nature” did not behave in the way we would expect from modern observations. Catholics have to keep this in mind when dating anything that may have been affected by them. Obviously, the age of the earth falls into this category. The evidentiary necessity is revelation itself. We know these things happened and that the laws of nature were impacted. Any scientific method that ignores them is suspect.

Do you really want a God who creates all things in maturity (which levels our sense of the miraculous), or who tinkers here and there frequently and unpredictably, thus rendering impossible our ability to distinguish the miraculous from the natural?

I don’t understand how this levels the sense of the miraculous. Anyway, belief in a young earth does not require a God who perpetually and arbitrarily tinkers with nature so that nothing is predictable. This is required by theistic evolution, but not special creation.

If you want to defeat evolution, defeat it on its own terms, not on terms dictated by the possibilities of spiritual truths.

That seems to be the approach of the Intelligent Design movement, which is well and good if it succeeds. But that’s not my approach. The terms of evolution are ultimately flawed, so why should Catholics accede to them at all? I agree that the “possibilities of spiritual truths” should not dictate the terms of the debate. Rather, evolution can and should be defeated by all the material and historical truths that are available to us, no matter their source. The problem with the ID crowd is that they generally want to exclude the facts of Christian revelation.

The girl you plan to marry is drop-dead gorgeous. She’s also a virtuous girl who is sweet, kind, and considerate of others. Her intelligence is apparent to all, and her many talents will be of great benefit to your household. While she is neither frivolous nor flighty, she enjoys life and has a wonderful sense of humor. Most importantly, she loves children, and she promises to be a loving and devoted mother. She obviously loves you very much, and I hope and pray that she fills your life with happiness.

But consider what marriage really is. You are promising to love and cherish one woman, not only for the present, but for the indefinite future until you are parted by death. You don’t know what the future holds. Your wife’s natural beauty may one day be ravaged by accident or fire, leaving you to adore a horribly scarred face for forty more years. Her ability to be sexually intimate with you could be ruined by illness or disease: thus, your marriage vows might well include a lifelong vow of celibacy. She may go blind or deaf at an early age. She may have her breasts removed to save her from cancer. Her personality may be devastated by drugs or alcoholism, and she may end up hating you. She may experience depression or mental illness. She may be unfaithful. She may walk out on you, and she may never come back. She may — heaven forbid — abuse or neglect your children.

And your job? Your job is to love, pray, and suffer for her. Your job is to forgive her seventy-times-seven. Your job is to avoid any thought of being free and finding another. Your job is to keep your vows unflinchingly. Your job is to be there for her when she needs you, when she hates you, when she ignores you, when she doesn’t know you are there, when she loves you again – at any cost except that of your own soul and those souls in your charge (*an important caveat). Your job is to love her as Christ loved the Church. Your job is to be a man. There are no exceptions.

“If you want to have children and value the security and love that marriage has the potential to offer then you will vastly lower the risks of marriage by seeking a non-Western woman … As I said before, looking for a wife is a game of numbers and opportunities; it’s just like fishing. Now, the river of the feminist-indoctrinated countries has a high percentage of fish that are poisonous to you, but the river of the traditional countries is largely stocked with healthy and delicious fish. Which river will you choose to fish in? I’m not a hater of Western women and I am not saying this because I believe Western women are evil to the core. The reason that ‘no’ must be considered an option for men thinking of marriage is that the lifestyles, culture and expectations of Western women are now such that its an uphill struggle to successfully marry one. Even if we totally destroyed feminism tomorrow, its effects would continue for years.”

How’s that for a little controversy? Before some of my readers begin hyperventilating, let’s first sit back and work up some compassion for this clearly embittered lover. He does not seem to be the type who wants an unthinking doormat for a wife, so we can rule out the Archie Bunker motive. Nor is he someone who is operating from strong racial motives of any kind. The fact of the matter is that virtually all American women are feminists, consciously or unconsciously, and feminism is the diabolical arch-enemy of men and marriage. The traditional Christian man has little chance of finding an American-born lady who would not chew him up and spit him out upon his first assertion of anything remotely resembling “headship”. Of those women who have courageously begun to accept a traditional view of marriage after a lifetime of feminist indoctrination, most retain deeply rooted feminist instincts that can do a lot of marital damage before they are finally put to rest. Take Dr. Laura, for instance. She talks the talk, but can you imagine being married to the woman? The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak …

In my own experience I have only known a few classes of feminine women or girls. First, there was my grandmother, my great aunt, and the old-line Protestant women of their acquaintance who carried themselves with a most elegant and attractive femininity. Sadly, they did not succeed in “passing the baton”. Second, there were a few virtuous Mormon girls in high school, alone in a tumultuous sea of dysfunction and promiscuity. Third, there were the Vietnamese refugees in college — graceful, kind, confident, and gloriously feminine. I married one of the best of them. Fourth, there were the devout women of Russian Orthodoxy and Tridentine Catholicism whose radiant femininity was nurtured in the shadow of the Blessed Virgin. These I encountered only at the end of a long journey.

The topic is important, because many of us will have sons of marriageable age in a few short years (if we don’t already). What advice shall we give them? How will they find wives? It isn’t really that Western men should look for non-Western wives, but that all men should seek non-feminist wives, and today it is likely that many of these will be foreign-born. Still, finding a wife with a non-Western upbringing isn’t enough. Contrary to the ridiculous opinions of some commentators, immigrants today assimilate faster than ever thanks to public education, corporate publishing and advertising, and the steady corrosive influence of our ubiquitous mass anti-culture. It is necessary to find a refuge from all of this in order to keep marriage safe from feminism.

It is true that the majority of today’s rootless young men, like the author of the article above, have very few options. But the sons of traditional Catholics should fare much better. In my opinion it is vitally important to belong to a traditional community that is large enough to produce a decent variety of potential spouses for one’s children. Arranged marriages should not be out of the question. If wives cannot be found there, don’t give up: send your boys to Thomas Aquinas or Christendom where their chances of meeting someone wholesome are pretty good. Many immigrant communities are also worth considering, whether Filipino or Lebanese or whatever, provided your sons can hustle their wives into an orthodox Catholic enclave somewhere fast before assimilation takes place. Unfortunately most immigrant groups tend to trust the schools and the media too much and don’t really provide a viable counter-culture. And then — some of you aren’t going to like this — there are the fundamentalist Protestants. Many of these sectarians have preserved a Christian sense of femininity within their families and have insulated their daughters from popular culture. Sometimes their daughters can be enticed to convert for love. Finally, single men shouldn’t rule out the possibility of finding a late-in-life convert who is serious about traditional marriage. With grace, all things are possible.

“…almighty God and Maker, we worship you…”

“…Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Maker …”

“…in the Glory of God the Maker …”

“Gentle Woman … you were chosen by the Maker; you were chosen for the Son. You were chosen from all women and for woman, shining one.”

“Blessed are you among women, blest in turn all women too.”

The liturgy concludes with an “Apache Wedding Blessing” and a reflection by Helen Steiner Rice.

Different worlds, same Church.

I believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old. This is not in itself an article of faith, and I might be wrong about it, but the burden of proof is on the old-earth promoters. The scientists, who have no tool but naturalistic extrapolation, have certainly not proven their case. Scientists calculate the age of the earth by extrapolating from natural processes they are capable of observing. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar. Now, these extrapolations usually work, because natural processes are usually a pretty reliable indicator of natural history. But this is not always the case, as Mark Twain humorously illustrates:

In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. This is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolithic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

In the ten minutes I have remaining, let me summarize the reasons why I believe in a young earth:

1. I believe that Genesis was written as history and that the biblical genealogies are reliable. They are not precise, they can be confusing, there are inexplicable gaps, and reasonable scholars can disagree about a few hundred years. But they are not off by 4.6 billion years. Even old-earth evolutionists admit that human civilization is not more than 25,000 years old.

2. An old earth would therefore require me to believe that the earth was around for billions of years before the creation of man. But our Catholic Faith tells us that the earth was made for man. How do we explain God’s purpose for the earth for so long without man?

3. Sin brought corruption into the world: not only human death, but the corruption of all creation. That is the biblical teaching and the patristic consensus. In an old earth scenario the cycle of natural conflict, death, and decay is established long before sin entered the world through Adam’s transgression.

4. Which brings us to Adam and Eve, who, according to Catholic doctrine, are the first-created man and woman. How does their creation fit into an old-earth scenario? Most old-earthers believe in an old earth because it is the only thing that makes the biological evolution of mankind seem remotely possible, and they desperately want to be believe in some form of theistic evolution. Yet the biological evolution of mankind cannot be reconciled with Catholic revelation, which holds not only that Adam and Eve were the first created man and woman, but that they also were the first and only parents of the human race.

Let us assume, for a moment, that a biological mechanism for human speciation has been discovered and it is now possible to imagine that man could have evolved from primordial seaweed. If man truly evolved from some lesser form of life, via natural selection, how likely is it that the first man and the first woman happened to have emerged, after billions of years, at the same time and in the same place via the same natural process? (I anticipate: “Because God intervened and overrode the natural process!” To which I reply: That is precisely what I believe happened at the creation of man and the world, events which natural processes cannot explain.)

5. Scripture and Tradition clearly allow for the creation of man and the world in a state of maturity. If you are a theist and believe in creation ex nihilo, then you must at least believe in this possibility. Although the possibility of maturity at the moment of creation doesn’t say anything one way or the other about the age of the earth, it does say something about modern techniques used to date the earth: things may have an appearance of age. The closer we get to origins, the less we are able to assume that apparent maturity is the product of age.

6. There was a time when nature was not. The creation itself was a supernatural event and cannot be explained by nature. What are the implications of this basic truth? It means that the speed of light was not always what it is today, the properties of matter were not always what they are today, the laws of physics were not always what they are today, etc. Nature and science are insufficient: old-earth theory assumes that they are sufficient.

“There are relics of Saint Joseph which have been left to us: the marriage ring which he gave to Mary, and which is at Perugia in Italy; his cincture, which was at Joinville in France; his cloak and his staff. His body, as we know, is in Heaven. Just imagine the Holy Family in Heaven with one body missing, if Saint Joseph were not there! Saint Bernadine of Siena and Saint Francis de Sales both declared their belief in the resurrection of the body of Saint Joseph from the dead, and his ascension into Heaven along with Our Lord, Jesus Christ. No Holy Father ever scolded them for so speaking, and Our Holy Mother Church canonized them despite this utterance … Saint Joseph ascended into Heaven with Our Lord on Ascension Day, and was there with Jesus to greet Our Lady on the day of her Assumption. And what must it not have been to him to see her crowned as Queen of Heaven and Earth!”

Is not this rather the fast that I have chosen? loose the bands of wickedness, undo the bundles that oppress, let them that are broken go free, and break asunder every burden.

Deal thy bread to the hungry, and bring the needy and the harbourless into thy house: when thou shalt see one naked, cover him, and despise not thy own flesh.

Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thy health shall speedily arise, and thy justice shall go before thy face, and the glory of the Lord shall gather thee up.

Then shalt thou call, and the Lord shall hear: thou shalt cry, and he shall say, Here I am. If thou wilt take away the chain out of the midst of thee, and cease to stretch out the finger, and to speak that which profiteth not.

When thou shalt pour out thy soul to the hungry, and shalt satisfy the afflicted soul, then shall thy light rise up in darkness, and thy darkness shall be as the noonday.

And the Lord will give thee rest continually, and will fill thy soul with brightness, and deliver thy bones, and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a fountain of water whose waters shall not fail.
–Isaiah 58:6-11

Ivan Kramskoy, Christ in the Desert

Lenten Eucharistic Novena
Did you know that you can gain a plenary indulgence by spending simply 30 minutes in adoration? Think of it–a mere 30 minutes wipes away all your time in Purgatory. Or, if you’re offering it up for a holy soul in Purgatory, it ends that soul’s suffering and brings him into eternal bliss in the presence of the Holy Trinity. How generous our God is by providing us such avenues of grace. Not only does adoration draw down abundant graces for oneself, it also draws down graces for loved ones, living and deceased. So many blessings, for so simple an act as sitting before our Lord and letting Him love you.

Why not try to make a Holy Hour daily during the 40 days of Lent? If this is not possible, perhaps one hour a week. If there is no adoration chapel nearby, you can adore Him right from your home, by clicking on the link in the post directly below. It brings a live image of Jesus exposed in the monstrance–and from the testimonials, it is clear that Jesus truly does bestow graces on those who adore Him through this medium.

I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.

In a little while the world will no longer see Me, but you will see Me, because I live and you will live.

On that day you will realize that I am in my Father and you are in Me and I in you.

Whoever has My commandments and observes them is the one who loves Me. And whoever loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and reveal Myself to him.
John 14:18-21

I finally realized that disappointment might be what the season’s all about: disappointment with one’s sinful self. Lent is for penitence. If I want to feel good about myself, I’ll turn to Oprah and Dr. Phil.

Some have criticized the media, bloggers, and pro-life activists for creating a "circus atmosphere" around Terri Schiavo’s terrible plight. These critics miss the point entirely. Of course it is true that other brain-damaged and disabled individuals have suffered similar injustices in this country. Of course it is true that the abortion mills in your town commit worse crimes every day. But this case is unique in one very important respect: there are thousands of people ready, willing, and able to feed this woman, at no expense or inconvenience to her husband or her caregivers, and the courts have FORBIDDEN anyone from so doing. It has now become a crime for two parents to provide their daughter – innocent of wrongdoing – with the minimal basic care necessary to preserve every human life. That’s not worth a media circus? That’s not worth the energy of pro-life activists? That’s not worth the attention of every father and mother in America who may one day see their own child in the same situation?

I may have been guilty of hyperbole is saying that the Schiavo case proves our system is "damaged beyond repair". Our system, like any system, is only as good as the people within it, and with better men the system would not have failed Mrs. Schiavo. But we’ve got to realize that it is impossible to have justice without real authority invested in our so-called "executives" – monarchial, hierarchical, patriarchal authority. That simple truth is not likely to please republicans, democrats, or federalists, and therefore we are not likely to see meaningful change anytime soon.

Barring any substantive change, what should be done? There is only one realistic solution, and that is for decent, traditional-minded Christians to concentrate their numbers regionally. And so we’re back to my favorite hobby-horse, Catholic resettlement. If you live in a region where the vast majority of residents share core values on the things that matter most, in all likelihood your daughter will not be dehydrated and starved to death by judicial order. In the first place, no court would award guardianship to a man who wants her dead. And if it did, no court would order a hospice to comply with his homocidal wishes. And if it did, no local hospice would be willing to comply with the order. There would be no nurses willing to remove the feeding tube. There would be no policemen willing to guard the doors. The local bishop would make a few phone calls, and contracts would be cancelled, tenants would be evicted, services would be denied, products would not be shipped, and the enemy’s whole economy would come crashing down on his head.

Speaking of Catholic resettlement, Amy Welborn hosts an excellent discussion pertaining to the Catholic community forming in Front Royal, Virgina very exciting.