Level Wise

At the bidding of a friend, I am reading Lord of the World by Robert Hugh Benson. The night before last I came across this astonishing passage:

“Then he waited for communications, and they came, so soft and delicate, passing like shadows, that his will sweated blood and tears in the effort to catch and fix them and correspond. . . .

Here’s my take on The Passion of The Christ. There is no subject more worthy of meditation. There is no event more important in the history of the world. Mel Gibson’s movie, I predict, I pray, will convert thousands. It is not in the least anti-Semitic, except to those who believe the Gospels and the Christian Faith are inherently anti-Semitic.

With that said … I am very reluctant to give unqualified support to any theatrical depiction of Christ. Some of the Eastern Orthodox claim that a theatrical portrayal of Christ is against their canon law. I don’t know, but I would not be surprised. How could a movie, a play, not diminish the reality of Christ in the mind’s eye? He was — He is — the incarnate God. GOD! Can any film possibly do Him justice?

Dr. Peter Chojnowski’s blueprint for Distributism here highlights six elements of a Catholic economy: Guilds, Family-Owned Businesses, Homesteading, Apprenticeships, Barter and Credit Unions, and Neighborliness. The article is a good reminder of distributist ideals, even if they seem unattainable in our time. Perhaps the most salient characteristic of Distributism is the emphasis on Property:

“First, we must commit ourselves to the goal advanced by the economic teachings of Pope Leo XIII (Rerum Novarum), Pope Pius XI (Quadragesimo Anno), and the Distributist theorists, the attainment of real property for families. It is only with the attainment of real property (i.e., not mortgaged to the modern day usurer) that we shall establish fixed ‘realms’, footholds of Christendom capable of sustaining over a indefinite period of time families dedicated to the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

here’s one of Peggy Noonan’s finest articles from last November:

“A short word on smokers. They are people who?ve made a deal. They are old-fashioned, and it?s an old-fashioned deal. Their sense of life is essentially conservative: They know it is short, they know part of how you say thank you for it is to really feel it and enjoy it, and they know this life isn?t the most transcendent and important one you?ll be living. Smokers are disproportionately Catholic, did you know that? They know that eventually something will kill them. They accept death and illness as part of the equation. They love smoking so much, it so enhances their enjoyment of each day, that they?ll gamble. Some of them, they know, will die in a car accident next year, so it won?t matter if they smoked; some will die of old age at 97; some will get emphysema or lung cancer at 50 and pay the price. Fine. You buys your smokes and takes your chances.”

Kathy the Carmelite won our little “Name That Theologian” contest some weeks ago, and she would have been followed by Alicia and perhaps a few other well-read ladies. (Do we have educated women at St. Blogs or what?) This one should be a little harder. The excerpt is taken from a book that was moderately influential in shaping my own worldview — a book that, in my opinion, should be much better known. I’ll give you a couple of clues: the philosopher is a European, and the book was first published in 1926.

A sad article (now deleted):

“Part of the problem seems to be that, in plain terms, boys aren’t being allowed to be boys. So what has begun to surface in pop culture is a masculinity reclamation project, a defense and validation of beleaguered boys and men. In much the same way that specialized television programs, movies and publications evolved over the years to cater to women, a whole new breed of guys-only offerings are cropping up. Much of the new go-guy fare gleefully plays to the lowest common denominators — the beer-guzzling, belching, T&A sort of entertainment generally associated with the average bachelor party.”

At one time there was a billboard in town that displayed in large, bold red letters the following message: 400,000 SMOKING RELATED DEATHS THIS YEAR. As I recall, it also showed the face of a child or a young woman. Most of you have probably seen or heard this figure tossed around before, and perhaps you have wondered where it came from. A study by the Cato Institute titled “Lies, Damned Lies, and 400,000 Smoking Related Deaths” here examines this number and the deception behind it:

Permalinks aren’t working now, but Fr. Jim Tucker has some common-sense things to say about “centrism” as the strategy of those Catholics who want to oppose “extremism” (scroll down to “Centrism the Answer?”). Another problem with centrism is that it is entirely dependent upon where the shifting extremes of Left and Right happen to be. But Truth, and the prudential judgments that should flow from Truth, are completely independent of an ideological sliding scale. To be a Centrist, therefore, is to be a relativist.

I understand why mothers are constantly tuned into the needs of their babies, why they are born multi-taskers, why they have eyes in the backs of their heads, and why they can survive on very little sleep for extended periods of time. It is all built into women, with few exceptions.

But can anyone tell me what it is, exactly, that keeps a sleeping father from rolling over and smothering his 4-month old baby night after night? Can anyone tell me why the whole night long he seems not to move from the very edge of the bed?

“I keep hoping that this feeling will pass, the constant gnawing that ebbs only for an hour or so after dinner. Other than that brief respite, I feel it constantly — upon rising, after breakfast, mid-morning, after lunch, throughout the afternoon, into the evening, and upon settling down to sleep. I find myself awaking in the early morning hours, ostensibly to visit the restroom, but really because my body and subconscious mind have partnered to save me from myself. To prevent me from starving…”

A very good friend of mine has decided that he wants to lose weight the old fashioned way: he’s starving himself. The Starvation Journal is Brendan’s idea of radical accountability, as well as providing some relief for his urge to write. So read his journal, scold him severely when he falls, and consider yourself to have done a good deed.

Traditionalists are often accused of having a “hermeneutic of suspicion”, meaning that they don’t trust the hierarchy enough, that they are too critical of new ways of doing things, that they suspect whatever proceeds from the post-conciliar Church to be somehow an agent of Modernism. In fact, this criticism is fair, although there are as many degrees of suspicion as there are variants of traditional Catholics. This suspicion sometimes becomes irrational, uncharitable, and excessive, making a fine carciature for our enemies to toy with. But to some degree it is necessary. I myself automatically and reflexively distrust the USCCB, and find that most individual bishops are safely ignored (except when they must be opposed). I realize this attitude is totally backwards, and it goes completely against my establishmentarian instincts. I dread the day when my children, who piously pray for all bishops and priests, discover that most Catholic bishops and priests in this country are, shall we say, doctrinally challenged.

A reader writes:

“A few months ago in our local catholic church, I saw a holy card or [something] similar that depicted a contemporary ’saint’ or some other ‘venerable’ person. He was pictured standing on a rural hillside in perhaps Switzerland or Germany and was clearly ’smoking a pipe’ … Several weeks later when I thought to look again, the table had been rearranged and cleared and I could find no trace of him. I was wondering if you might know who this was?”