Chateau Lloyd

The news this morning that Pope Francis passed away seemed oddly fitting given all that has been going on.  I imagine that he held on for one more Paschal Feast and, with the task accomplished, shrugged off the mortal coil.

He brought enthusiasm and chaos to the Catholic Church, and it seemed inevitable that a quieter, more consistent candidate will be chosen to succeed him.

For all the problems he caused, the Church is growing, vocations are up, and there is a real possibility that the schisms between Rome, the Copts and the Easter Orthodox may well be resolved.  Certainly, I think there is more sympathy for a less authoritarian papacy, and some sort of stricture may well be enough to resolve long-standing disputes.

Papal politics are famously opaque, but one gets a sense that Francis' turbulent tenure has been exhausting.  Even his liberal allies in the College of Cardinals have to be breathing a sigh of relief that there will be no more off-hand statements that require a careful walk back.

And that's really all the Church needs at this point.  

At several points this week, I intended to write something, but events invariably called me away from the keyboard.

I didn't resist because real life should take priority.  Each day I've gone to bed relatively early and immediately fallen into restful, healing slumber.

This Easter will be one of my busiest in years, and there remains much to be done today.  Indeed, the operational tempo around here is probably not going to  ease until June, but it is all positive, productive work.

In the wider world, the usual anti-Catholic antics took place, but they seem to be either ineffective or counterproductive.  The report that 40% of young adults in England go to Catholic Mass each week sent shock waves through the religious community.  By contrast, only 20% attend Anglican services.  While England is something of a basket case at the moment, its future within the Church seems bright.  I can't help think that the nonsensical attempt to ban silent prayer has people wondering what it is like.

I must be powerful stuff if you're willing to lock up old ladies over it.

France is having another banner year of adult conversions, and the final number seems close to 18,000, which is yet another increase over the previous year.  This trend has been going on for a while, and while 18,000 in a nation of millions seems paltry, it is happening year after year.  Indeed, much of Europe seems to be seeing similar trends.

The great exception, of course, is Germany, where the numbers of Lutheran and Catholic alike are crashing down.  The actions of the Catholic leadership can only be explained as either insane or demonic.  It is insane because all of the "reforms" they are pushing have already been tried by state Protestant churches for decades without any positive effect.  Indeed, the one comfort Catholics might derive is that they will soon outnumber the Lutherans because the rate of loss among Protestants is higher.

The other predictable result will be schism and excommunication, which is why I say it is demonic.  They know that Rome is not going to bend the knee on questions of core doctrine like sexual morality and the ordination of women.  

In a sense, this challenge has been coming for a long time, and presumably the liberal Catholics who dominate the upper ranks of the German Church see this is their last opportunity to ram through their long-desired 'reforms.'

Another miracle was announced this week at Lourdes, bringing the grant total to 72.  It should be noted that this list is far from comprehensive - these are only the most well-documented and completely inexplicable healings.  There are plenty more where people found healing, but it was within the tiniest margin of probability.  

Finally, archeologists working beneath the Holy Sepulchre have found evidence that there was once a garden on the site, closely following the Gospel  of John.  It is interesting that scientists constantly denigrate the Catholic Church, yet it tirelessly subjects its beliefs to scientific validation.  

Over the past few months, I've noticed the appearance of a strange new creature: the Calvinist Catholic.

These seems like an oxymoron, but as with so many things, contradiction can often coexist in the disturbed mind.

Catholic Calvinists are people who have bought fully into the idea that the Utterly Depraved are incapable of doing good.  One can never judge them by the fruits of their action, but only by their perceived motivations.

The Case Zero for this is of course Donald Trump.  Objectively speaking, Trump has been the most pro-life president of my lifetime.  Not only did his appointments overturn Roe v. Wade, but his subsequent actions (including recent executive orders), have further hammered abortion providers, forcing Planned Parenthood to close numerous clinics.

Yet when presented with these facts, one gets a remarkable set of excuses, such as Trump was motivated by DEI to hit Planned Parenthood, and the pro-life aspect was unintentional.  Similarly, his economic and governmental reforms are always characterized as chaotic and random even when it is clear that they are moving an a long-planned progression.

Maybe this is vanity.  Maybe the Catholics in question have much knowledge of theology and little of economics or politics.

It is tempting to write this off as the all-too-familiar Trump Derangement Syndrome, but these people are otherwise sensible and important voices in the Church.  It is illogical to expect them to change their opinion of Trump personally, nor should anyone ask that they do so.  He is a polarizing figure.

But when we move into the realm of policy, such distinctions assume a secondary character.  This is especially true when there is no moderate alternative.  The opposition has wedded itself to abortion without any limits at all, and their other policies are equally morally abhorrent.

When Trump is wrong, Catholics should speak out, but their criticisms will be much more effective when coming from voices that were hitherto friendly and supportive.  Simply carping at him non-stop, qualifying any praise while indulging in personal attacks are unwise and counterproductive.  It is also not particularly Christian.

Over the weekend someone recommended this lengthy essay about mental illness in general and delusional behavior in particular.  It is a long, repetitive read, and the summary version is that an increasing number of people seem unable to deal with reality and resort to creating delusions as a way of avoiding reality.

I think there are two reasons why this kind of behavior is even possible.

The first, and probably the easiest to fix, is that we live in a secular society driven by materialism.  As the pandemic lockdown showed, most of our elites regard religion as a secondary thing rather than a first thing.  Religion to them is a form of self-help, fine so long as it doesn't challenge the secular materialist worldview.

This is why the UK feels it appropriate to ban prayers near abortion mills.  Prayer is not a human right, it's a thing you are permitted to do only if no one else objects (unless you are Muslim, of course).

Restoring religion - and in particular, Christianity - to its rightful place at the center of Western civilization has seemed like an insurmountable challenge, but we are now seeing a wide-ranging revival, in part because Christians have ceased trying to be "nice" and are returning to moral language and moral condemnation.

Surging Bible sales are another indicator that people feel the "faith of things" has failed.

To bow before God is to be humble and remain grounded.  Christianity teaches a rational and ordered worldview, and also that good people can - through no fault of their own - experience bad things.  The key is to understand why, to learn from them, and continue in the faith.  I will say that I am having the worst Lent of my life.  Between sickness, a painful medical procedure with lengthy recovery, and the normal fasting, I'm not having a good time.

On the other hand, I'm having a great time, because this is some serious Lenten suffering.  What a blessing to offer up all this misery to God!  I have taken so much for granted and as I heal, I rejoice in so many small things.

This leads us to the larger problem, which is that society is increasingly alienated from actual work, and our connection with the natural world has been severed.  The woman in the essay is a programmer, which means her labor has no direct connection to her pay.  She pushes buttons and gets (digital) money in return.

This is a far cry from tilling a garden and watching it crow, or raising livestock.  All of her relationships are built around an artificial Californian society that was built in a couple of generations without any roots or continuity.  It is no accident that Hollywood dwells so much on suburban alienation.  Few, if any, have the sense of rootedness one finds in middle America.

As the lockdowns slowly lifted, I went to northern Michigan and sat on the beach at Rogers City, watching waves come crashing into the shore via a strong north wind.  I sat there for about an hour, watching the sun set over a vast sky and darkening horizon.  The enormity of it all exposed how futile it is think that we are worth of CIA surveillance or trans-national hit teams.  In the greater scheme, we are as insignificant as one of the rocks on the shore, and as fleeting as a frothing wave.

When you are in the world, interacting with it, you become aware of how many other stories are taking place around you.  The prayer intentions at Mass sketch out other hardships, deaths and illnesses.  The baptismal announcements and weddings also point to new things emerging, seemingly spontaneously.  You didn't will them, had nothing to do with them, yet there they are.

For a time, people are able to function in the abstract, God-free environment, usually because they are preoccupied with building up their wealth and status.  They are worshipping the god of the two-car garage, and it can be quite fulfilling at first.

But after a while, the pursuit of things and status rings hollow and is no longer fulfilling.  Without any spiritual formation or connection to tangible things, the mind will start roving, seeking meaning in any way it can.

The author stresses that people can't be forced out of a delusion, but there are two answers to this.  The first is that one can't replace something with nothing - you cannot take away one vision without another to replace it.

In addition, modern American society has uniquely evolved to cater to these people through cheap transportation, easy movement, and our boundless affluence.  Whether one mooches off of wealthy relatives or exploits public assistance, it's remarkably easy to start over, and repeat the cycle without learning anything, and the essay shows this quite clearly.

The American obsession with individualism - even when it is deeply harmful - buttresses this.  We used to lock people up for their own good, but that became viewed as totalitarian.  It is now seen as better to tolerate sidewalk encampments than put people in supervised living where they do various chores to renew their understanding how work is connected to fulfilment, and labor can have a tangible, immediate result.

Society itself now labors under several delusions regarding fantastic Russian conspiracies, hidden Nazi cells, and the notion than men can actually become women.  These beliefs substitute for actual faith, and lead to still further fantastic notions that allowing one's lawn to grow wild in May will please Gaia or something.

And yes, there is a spiritual aspect to this as well, because demons love souls in torment.  The wrath and energy that comes with these delusions helps sustain them.  It is like a drug, and a great many people are addicted to it.

The upshot is that these people don't have a single thing go wrong, and many of them have multiple factors that drive them into insanity and keep them there.  Reason is useless, and in many cases I think an exorcist is more effective than a therapist.

One of the most disturbing - and yet comforting - revelations of the past few months is just how much money is wasted on bogus aid programs.  It's disturbing because most people assuming that the US was incapable of Third-World level corruption.  We're not.

At the same time, it is comforting because we now know that there are vast amounts of resources that could be redirected to do immense good (or at least lowering the tax burden and reducing the national debt).

There is also newfound scrutiny being directed at the almost entirely useless "non-profit" sector.  Most of these organizations serve as pass-through recipients, who take a cut of whatever grant they get and then pass it on to others who then take a cut and pass it along again.

The mission statements of these entities is invariably open-ended.  They "advocate" or "raise awareness" or "build networks" and so on.  Their staff is well-compensated, with the CEOs living in luxury.  It was not always so.

Before women became preponderant in the office environment, actual charities were primarily staffed by volunteers, typically housewives whose kids had reached a point where they no longer demanded close supervision.  My grandmother was one of these women - having raised five kids, she now turned her attention to various societies and right up until her death, she was constantly busy organizing and attending meetings, events, and so on.

In those days, women gained status by having thriving families and doing good works (yes, she was Catholic).  To not contribute one's time was shameful.  How could you sit around the table at the country club without recounting your various activities, many of which you shared with your dining companions?

We have long since replaced this concept of charitable obligation with charity as an income generator, and the very uselessness of non-profits is held to raise them above grubby for-profit business, which of course are what powers the economy that keeps them afloat.

This shift is one of the engines that has powered Yard Sign Calvinism, which has no concern over whether any of their labor accomplishes anything, it is all about looking good and feeling good.  Pulling down hundreds of thousands of dollars in salary while running a food bank into the ground is the epitome of this mentality.

There is also the problem of where the money that isn't wasted on staff perks actually goes.  In the above example, some of it went to electioneering, which is clearly fraud.  

The fact is that we live in a fallen world, and one way to avoid aid being misused is to keep it close to home and under close observation.  Even nominally religious organizations can fall victim to a bureaucratic mentality.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, my parish bulletin is simultaneously asking for help in resettling foreign migrants while also lamenting the depletion of the food pantry and housing resources.  We are literally robbing Peter to pay Paul, all the while preening about our virtue.

Indeed, there is almost a perverse delight in this, as the Protestant work ethic is weaponized against native-born poor, who are condemned as lazy, ill-educated and of course racist, while those from overseas bear none of the sins of this blighted nation.

Our charities are increasingly uncharitable, designed to comfort the comfortable, and punish the suffering.  I see these discoveries as an opportunity to make a radical change, sweeping out the corruption and refocusing on truly good works.

On the Feast Day of St. Joseph last week it was announced that a major Planned Parenthood facility in New York City was closing down.

This is glorious news, and it highlights the need to press forward against the evil of abortion on all fronts.  It is well and good to lobby for legislation, or file lawsuits, but another key theater of the war is in the hearts of both workers and those seeking abortions.  I've remarked before on how strange it is that highly secular England bans prayer around abortion mills.  Note that this does not refer to open services, but simply standing silently can now land one in jail.

Clearly, the prayer makes the demons uncomfortable.  The British also seem troubled that women might change their mind, which is now an illegal form of coercion.  That admission gives the game away, because we know for a fact that many abortions are coerced, either by men who want to avoid child support or families who fear the scandal or burden of a teen mother.

I am often frustrated by Right to Life organizations that collect money but seem to have no real legislative strategy other than endless "trainings," but this is proof that street presence matters.

It also shows that the economics of abortion are shifting against its profiteers.  It would be nice to see more on this front, something similar to what happened in Lansing some years ago, when an abortion clinic's lease came up and a Catholic parish bought out the property, forcing the clinic to close.  The building was given an exorcism and now is a pregnancy resource center.

In recent years, the Enemy has played up the fears of women through lies about ectopic pregnancies.  These lies must be exposed and the reality of abortion made clear, as well as the sordid wealth gained from it.  As abortion demand falls, there will inevitably be pressure for tax dollars to sustain it.  This will only play well in the most lop-sided jurisdictions, and even there it will not be without controversy.  

In the mean time, we must continue our prayers, which are clearly proving efficacious. 

Back in 2013, we still had a dish, and watched lots of the various streaming channels.  That was supposed the new Golden Age of television, thanks to programs like Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, Justified, and so on.  While Hollywood was busy getting woke, the streaming services and networks were able to produce long-form dramas without being bound by a 22-episode season.  What was more, it was easy to catch up on a sleeper hit, and when each season was released, one could binge-watch it in a week or so.

That time has passed, but it produced a number of shows available on DVD, and one of them we liked was The White Queen, a series based on Philippa Gregory's historical novels of the Wars of the Roses.

The concept of telling history through the eyes of women is nothing new, and goes back to the beginning of writing.  For every story of a king or warrior, there are parallel tales of the women who influenced them.  Feminists like to pretend that The Patriarchy silenced women, but most have never bothered to read the Bible or Homer or any other ancient work.

Anyhow, the story of Elizabeth Woodville lends itself to this approach and it is one of those remarkable historic events that turns everything upside down.  For those who don't know, one day King Edward IV is riding along after having won a battle  and sees a beautiful young woman waiting by the side of the road for news of her husband, who was a knight on the side opposing Edward (the Lancastrians).  She learns she is a widow, but the King offers to "comfort" her.  Remarkably she refuses his advances and insists that he marry if he wants to get it on.  So he does.

This completely upends the power structure in England, because it is bitterly divided between competing factions vying for control, and Edward was supposed to make a political marriage, not a romantic one.  Anyhow, drama ensues.

This is not a lavishly produced show, but it does a good job of conveying the period, and there's some battles and sword fights because leading characters did die in the conflict.  In fact, the Wars of the Roses were something of a sideshow for the commoners but a bloodbath for the nobility, and many royal lines were 'pruned' from the family tree.

The show has excellent performances, and follows the history reasonably well, but does veer into the all-to-familiar conventions of showing secret witchcraft influencing events and indulging in pretty graphic sex scenes, which at this point my life I find really boring.  It get it, they had sex.  Why is this is any way interesting to watch?

If one knows the history well, it will be maddening at times, but it does try to keep things reasonably close to accurate, and the various personalities are presenting in interesting ways.  The dynamics of the York brothers is well done, as is the way the various factions maneuver for control. 

I will particularly single out Amanda Hale's Margaret Beaufort, the mother of Henry VII, who comes across as an absolute fanatic.  Given that her son was something like 10th in the line of succession when the story starts, I'm not sure I buy the notion that she thought he could somehow overcome Henry VI, his son Edward, the three York brothers (Edward, Richard and George), and their sons and potential sons.  It think in reality it was more of a "Well, who is left?  You're up, Henry!"

Anyway, I've watched it through a couple of times, and it still holds up well.  Folks who like Game of Thrones will particularly enjoy this, in large part because the ending makes sense.  Indeed, once you see it, you'll realize who derivative George R.R. Martin's work was.

Ash Wednesday holds a peculiar place on the liturgical calendar.  It is not a holy day of obligation, but most Catholics treat it as one.  Indeed, I can think of several holy days of obligation with far less participation.

What is more, Protestants are increasingly embracing it.  In a time of rising Christian persecution (both at home and abroad), it is a bold way to state one's Christian witness, and I'm sure many Protestants want to "reclaim" it rather than let Catholics have all the fun.

What was different this year was how many government officials openly wore ashes.  I don't recall ever seeing this before.  Ash Wednesday was always a local thing, but social media prominently displayed cabinet officials, celebrities, podcasters, etc. wearing their ashes.  It was so blatant that the secularists were quite upset.

The sudden prevalence of ashes is a necessary reminder that human societies are non-linear.  They can peak, fall and then peak again.  Decline is rarely irreversible, and usually leads to a transformation rather than total destruction.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the Catholic Church, which survived the fall of multiple empires, plagues, internal dissent, heresy and much, much more.  In the current age, I think a great many people want something old, traditional and proven rather than yet more innovation.  The notion of having ashes placed on you is wonderfully archaic.

This is why I regard the prevalence of "nones" (people with no particular religious preference) as an opportunity rather than a problem.  Many of them likely were raised in the Church, and drifted away due to the scandals and (to be blunt) general cowardice on the part of the bishops.  It is telling that far more hue and cry is being raised about deporting illegal immigrants than lawfully admitted Catholic clergy.  People notice this sort of thing.

Strong, outspoken leadership can easily reverse this, and attract non-Catholics as well.  

As I've written before, "nice" Christianity is a dead end.  People want to be challenged, and they also want a religion that projects confidence in its beliefs, especially the "hard teachings."

Going out into the world carrying an ashen cross is a sign of faith and confidence, and I think both draw otherwise uncommitted people in.

I recently watched Tomorrow Never Dies for the first time since seeing it in the theater.  I had a blast, really enjoyed the movie, but part of that was that it seems so absurd and campy.  The 1990s were a tough era for spy movies because the ultimate showdown of the Cold War was over.  Russia lay prostrate, and who could possibly challenge the triumphant West?

The idea of a media mogul serving as an arch-villain seemed something of a stretch, but it worked, and the fact that he had a stealth catamaran (we were all about "stealth" in the 90s) and vintage-looking henchmen made for good fun.  There was also a nod to Communist China's increasing influence and importance and the naive hope that maybe China might open up more.

Pierce Brosnan is excellent, and the sequence of him driving his car from the backseat is just brilliant.  Tense, bordering on the absurd, and there are a couple of moments when he smiles to himself that almost breaks character, but doesn't because Bond would also be enjoying himself.

Jonathan Pryce's Elliott Carver was a thinly-disguised parody of Rupert Murdoch, long a conservative bugbear to the left (particularly the British left).  The notion that a private citizen should gain the ability to weaponize information against democratic government was somewhat sinister, but nothing compared to what actually happened, which is that oligarchs aligned themselves with governments to subvert democracy at the source.

Since the film came out in 1997, that's exactly what happened, with hoaxes and manipulation rapidly growing in scope and sophistication.  At this point, its pervasive, and one can only look at Carver's plot as amateurish.  Why foment a war between Communist China and Britain if you can simply make Britain into Communist China?

I think this is the only Bond movie with actual social commentary.

Back in 1987, Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers created a huge discussion within the strategic community.  It was a sweeping survey of international power politics using extensive data sets to map out the strengths and weaknesses of the various hegemons.

I devoured it, and was delighted to find that was on the required reading list for one of my classes when I went to college.  I was more than a little smug when I set my battered hardcover edition down on the table, where it stood out from the paperback editions everyone else had picked up at the student book store.  My was a first edition, meaning I read it as a freshman in high school.

Anyhow, in retrospect Kennedy has been spectacularly wrong in his analysis.  "Imperial Overstretch" does not exist.  Empires often rise and fall simply because of a leadership crisis.  As we are seeing in real time, the ongoing decline of many nations is simply a choice of the ruling class.  They prefer poorer, squabbling subjects rather than independent, prosperous one.  The post-war dissolution of the British Empire was not economically or strategically necessary but instead the result of a socialist political agenda.

Of particular note was Kennedy's prediction that Japan would soon displace the US at a global power.  Talk about a miss!  

Anyhow, I do like Kennedy's book as a survey of history and also the framing he used in terms of describing the power structures over the centuries.  He described the 20th Century as the crisis of the great powers and the coming of a bipolar world, which was the one he was describing in 1987.  That note that the US was about to collapse because of the Reagan buildup was widely regarded as absurd, and the facts bore it out.  The Berlin Wall fell in 1989, and the bipolar world became a unipolar one, with the United States standing unchallenged.

That world no longer exists, and there are three great powers, along with several rising contenders.  The final nail in the coffin to the unipolar world was the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which proved decisively that all the blather about Russia having a GDP the size of the Netherlands was bad propaganda.

In fact, the very measure of GDP is now highly suspect, since it rates government spending as the same as consumption and investment, which is clearly is not.  We need a new measure to measure, which cuts out government spending that does not product tangible things like roads or warships.

The growing understanding in American circles of this strategic reality means that we can perhaps finally put away anti-Russian animus and a Cold War mentality and look at the world as it is.  Russia and China are superpowers in their own right, and will not accept dictation from Washington.  Weaponizing currency and banking only creates incentives go create alternative means of exchange that are less vulnerable to external manipulation.

India is another rising power, though less strategically ambitious.  Brazil remains the nation of the future and always will be (to recycle an old joke).

The upshot is that we are in a new strategic environment where realpolitik and strategic necessity must supersede ideology.   Gone are the days when presidential pronouncements produced immediate and positive results.  The blindness of our leadership greatly increased the risk of miscalculation that could have had catastrophic consequences.

I think the new US leadership understands this, and as a result I'm sleeping a little better at night.