Overheard as I walked past two college students speaking to one another about their classes:

"I write good."

Quiz round-up

Well, it seems that:
a. my inner European is Irish, thank heavens.
b. I'll live till I'm 85. Here's hoping...
c. I apparently belong in the year 1960. Sure, is 1860 an option?
d. The English-speaking country I most belong in the UK, which doesn't mesh too well with my inner Irish I might add.
e. I speak 40% Modern English and 40% Yankee -- how appalling. Indiana is having a bad effect on me.
f. I should learn Latin as my second language. The Pope will be pleased.
g. And I am 100% Roman Catholic, RC, Papist, baby! Ben-e-dict! Ben-e-dict!

Viva il papa! Life is all about making the right people mad. And won't all the right people be mad today.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict XVI, a lovely choice of name suggesting (1.) St. Benedict and his famous book of Order, (2.) that much like Benedict XV followed St. Pius X, Benedict XVI (in an amazing gesture) will do the same for a future St John Paul II, and (3.) a quieter pastoral papacy after a time of tremendous intellectual controversy and energy. Still perhaps that last bit won't hold true. He'll undoubtedly travel less than JPII but probably write as much or more -- when Cardinal, he was prolific.

My oh my, what a wonderful day.

Here's a detail I hadn't heard before, since I did not watch. The cardinals applauded Ratzinger's homily. Common courtesy or sign of genuine agreement? Black smoke ... I guess less than 77 applauded? ...

Black smoke. No papa.

Isn't there something lovely about the world fixating its gaze at an old brown-gray metal stovepipe propped up on the Sistine Chapel roof, looking for smoke signals about who will be the next pontiff? What a refreshing breath in an era when transparency is the orthodoxy -- a "what are you doing, what are thinking, what are you feeling" world, where all of life now seems a reality tv show or Oprah -- that this secret meeting fires our imaginations. We need this little bit of tradition, magic, and mystery.

Cardinal Ratzinger's morning homily certainly gained a lot of attention, some seeing it as brazen electioneering and others as merely restating what he has always said and believed. It certainly won't make him any friends among Catholic liberals (big surprise there) but, in combination with his funeral homily, gives you a "rounder" glimpse of the man: an intellectual with clear pastoral gifts and certain ideas about the problems and directions of the Church. Here is an excerpt from the homily, from the Vatican Radio site (Thanks to Against the Grain for the tip):

How many winds of doctrine we have known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking… The small boat of thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves – thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and so forth. Every day new sects are created and what Saint Paul says about human trickery comes true, with cunning which tries to draw those into error (cf Eph 4, 14). Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and “swept along by every wind of teaching”, looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today’s standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires.

However, we have a different goal: the Son of God, true man. He is the measure of true humanism. Being an “Adult” means having a faith which does not follow the waves of today’s fashions or the latest novelties. A faith which is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ is adult and mature. It is this friendship which opens us up to all that is good and gives us the knowledge to judge true from false, and deceit from truth. We must become mature in this adult faith; we must guide the flock of Christ to this faith. And it is this faith – only faith – which creates unity and takes form in love. On this theme, Saint Paul offers us some beautiful words - in contrast to the continual ups and downs of those were are like infants, tossed about by the waves: (he says) make truth in love, as the basic formula of Christian existence. In Christ, truth and love coincide. To the extent that we draw near to Christ, in our own life, truth and love merge. Love without truth would be blind; truth without love would be like “a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal” (1 Cor 13,1).

By the way, several journalists have totally misread (perhaps willfully) Ratzinger's remarks on "fundamentalism." Taken in context, he was clearly saying that some label fealty to Church doctrine, in a way to dismiss it entirely, as "fundamentalism," thereby linking it to nasty extremists in other faiths -- a pretty deliberate bending of the truth and Truth. Running from this, many settle in with relativism, an anything goes, self-centered anti-philosophy. The traditional teachings of the Church are neither.

I keep wondering if perhaps this man doesn't really want to be pope. He became the "chief doctrinal officer" (back-handed mediaspeak for head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) reluctantly, and was talked out of retiring several times by JPII. Now everyone has him as a papal frontrunner and politician for the job. Could it be that this morning's homily was the Cardinal's way of saying, "Are you sure you want me?" and a way to retire quietly? This way he can be the kingmaker (or popemaker) and not be pope. Just a theory, one that I hope is wrong. Ratzinger is "one" on my short list.

By the way, check out the fantastic Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club. Why has it taken me so long to find you? All my fault. They actually have a gift shop where you can buy t-shirts, hats, mugs, etc. with the Cardinal's picture on them and various messages like "Papist" and "Putting the smackdown on heresy since 1981." My word, where is my credit card...

Going Nuclear

Friends have been asking Dr. Potomac for his views on Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s proposal to end the practice of unlimited debate (read: filibuster) against presidential nominations to the federal judiciary.  Dr. Potomac asks readers to bear in mind that he speaks as one who has spent nearly half of almost a 20-year federal career working for Senators of both political parties and has a quaint attachment to its somewhat arcane habits.  He has seen great evil and great good done through the Senate practice of “holds” on judicial nominees which are basically filibusters without all that annoying chatter.  On the one hand, you have Lani Guinier stopped in her tracks by the threat of Senate floor donnybrook.  On the other, you Chuck Schumer picking his teeth with the desiccated bones of federal appeals court nominees.  Geese and gander line up for the same Senate sauce.  The real question is whether, in the long-term, the Republic (as opposed to the Republican Party) is better served by unlimited debate for judicial nominees or a relative fast-track to confirmation.  This is a prudential question on which reasonable conservatives can, and do, disagree.

Dr. Potomac would add one more consideration that in his (reasonable) view lends itself toward limiting debate.  The federal courts are the playground of social liberals.  (This is in large part the fault of previous Republican administrations who allowed a lot of winking and nodding to take the place of clear expressions of judicial philosophy resulting in unfortunate “growth” among certain members of the federal bench.)  Pardon Dr. Potomac’s cynicism but is it likely that the Left has suddenly seen the wisdom of the counter-majoritarian nature of Senate processes and procedures?  It seems much more likely that People for the American Way, the ACLU, the Alliance for Justice, et. al. are really worried that no one dilute the liberal judicial philosophy which dominates the federal courts.  To prevent this outcome, they are willing to join hands with the doctrine of unlimited debate which blocked civil rights legislation for 100 years – and they are even leaning on Senator Robert C. Byrd, he of Klan heritage, to help them do it.  That’s enough to meet the “recommended daily amount” of irony for any thinking person. The bottom line here is that the federal judiciary needs reform (personnel is policy, remember) if the imbalance of power between the branches is to be corrected. Democrats, entirely dependent on the anti-democratic nature of the courts to enforce policies that would be laughed out of any state legislature, will do anything to prevent this reform from happening. Republicans, constrained by too many scruples, ought not to flinch from their duty.

Which brings Dr. Potomac to his final point:  whether Dr. Frist wins or loses (and Dr. Potomac has it on good authority that he will win) this fight demonstrates once again that American liberalism, like an army in full retreat, is engaged in nearly constant rear-guard actions and defensive entrenchments.  Meanwhile, through the attrition of election loses and public-relations setbacks, Democratic ranks continue to thin out.  Conservatives can and should expect to lose battles.  The war, however, is going our way.

It says everything about our age that, were a judicial nominee in America to echo the views of John Paul II on human life, the Democratic Senate would unanimously filibuster his nomination to death and denounce him as an extremist. Patrick J. Buchanan, "Pius XII and John Paul II"

Don't you just hate it when things fail to go your way? The Anglican Bishop of Lichfield attacked the late Pope's legacy this week, claiming that he appointed too many "conservative" (read: those who adhere to RC doctrine) cardinals. "His practice of replacing ecumenically-minded or modern-thinking bishops with very conservative ones has led to a trail of destruction in parts of Europe and South America." Pray tell, mine Anglican friend, where this "trail of destruction" is found in South America with its ongoing Catholic boom? Or in Europe, which has been madly secularizing for over a century? You can see the Bishop's smiling mug and article here.

And the Union-Leader has a perspicacious editorial this morning, pointing out the inanity of polling Catholics and somehow connecting that to Church doctrine and direction.

And now another idiotic statement from a Congressman

Proving once again that brains are a hindrance in elected offices:

   " Would you like to “spring forward” a month earlier each year? Stay tuned. Daylight-saving time would be extended by two months under an amendment to the energy bill that is expected to reach the House floor in a couple of weeks. The proposal, by Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., was approved yesterday by voice vote as the Energy and Commerce Committee began its line-by-line markup of the legislation. Under Upton’s amendment, daylight-saving time would begin on the first Sunday in March and run through the last Sunday in November. That is a month earlier in the spring and a month later in the fall than current law specifies. “The more daylight we have, the less electricity we use,” Upton said." --- CQ's Midday Update

I don't know what it is about Congressmen. They seem to have no grasp of the laws of nature. They always seem to think that Daylight Savings Time somehow increases the amount of daylight in the world, that the incantation "We are now in Daylight Savings time! Oogah-Boogah!" somehow pauses the earth's rotation. Is there some ancient scroll in the Library of Congress that says this is how God and Joshua worked the sun stopping scheme? And God said "Let there be Daylight Savings TIme!" And lo, the sun stopped in its course, and Joshua and the Israelites fell upon the host and slaughtered them, without having to use any electricity."

Really, it makes one despair.

The Dirt

In baseball, apparently dirt is a crucial substance. So crucial that one NJ "farmer" makes his living from selling dirt to the major (and minor) league. I must say I had no idea. The thought never occurred to me when watching a baseball game, "From whence cometh the dirt?" I knew that the mud used to treat the balls comes from NJ, but I had no idea NJ, which doesn't have a major league team (and let's keep it that way), was the source of so much major league dirt. Of course considering the state of politics in my native state there is a certain logic to this...

A reasoned post, SE, although your offense at my "score one for our side" (from whose side Brown comes from is unclear, and hence hardly ground for too much offense) seems a bit outbalanced by anyone seriously engaging in a discussion, days after his death, of whether the Pope is the anti-Christ and burning in hell. Give. Me. A. Break. Being satisfied, at least externally, with someone accepting the divinity of Christ seems a matter of good taste and manners as much as reasonable theology, I agree. I've always considered this blog in that spirit. Neither of us see much of that in those other blog comments, however.

One of the many reasons it took me by surprise is that considering the dire straits of Christianity in the West, I think it simple good sense to make common cause with conservative, doctrinally-grounded Christians (very much in the spirit of JPII, I might add). We may not all know what we like, but we certainly know what we do not like and who the problems are. Hence, I've had no problem and enjoyed immensely the Lutheran spin on these pages, and have happily linked to others of the same ilk despite the fact that I am (as your brother the O-man well knows) a triumphant Catholic curmudgeon. I have so much more in common with the Bunnie Diehls of the world than the Gene Robinsons. Hence the anti-Catholic talk puzzles me.

Back to the Style Channel

As he is our RC rep, I shall leave all updates what's going down in the Vatican to the Doc, and I suppose the Ombudsman, should he be so inclined. (One should never speak for the Ombudsman. Although last I saw of the him, he was so deep into matters concerning the Revolutionary War that it may be news to him that Pius VI still isn't in power.) I will merely say that I am a bit surprised that the Doc doesn't remember any other Popes. Even though I was ASTONISHINGLY young at the time (well not that young), I do remember the short reign of John Paul I, and I can't imagine why as it had nothing to do with food, which is usually the only fixative of the memories of my youth. (Unless it was the rumors at the time that had to do with his being poisoned. That would involve food and might explain an otherwise anomalous occurrence of memory.)

We now go back to the regularly scheduled programming expected of the Style Editor, which is to say fluff and food, and the occasional exception for serious matters that I do not think are getting enough attention like the situation in Zimbabwe. However, Nick Kristoff at the NY Times wrote an excellent op-ed on the topic (and a multimedia piece too ) so Zimbabwe is getting more attention than I could ever bring to it, although not as much as it should be getting. But there is also the ever present evil brought to the world by viruses.

You did not know that viruses are the bringers of ever-present evil? Oh dear yes. It is well known that such is the case. It is true that I, the Style Editor, have a bit of an idee fixe about viruses. As some people are about pesticides causing all ills, so am I about viruses. Indeed the only difference between the pestilential pesticide purveyors and me is that I have a lot more science on my side. Some days I muse that perhaps I am too extreme in these matters, but then I read reports like this where it turns out that the dear sweet E. coli, bacteria, our usually charming and necessary digestive friend, mutated into its evil fiend form, such as E coli O157, as the result of A VIRUS. And then I think really my position on viruses is really FAR too moderate. (I once attended a National Academy of Sciences dealio on Emerging Infectious Diseases, where one participant announced that it was well known that viruses are the root cause of cancer, heart disease, and really just about any ill that affects man for which we do not already have a microbe, virus, or parasite as a root cause. What astonished me was not that someone held this position (I thought it eminently reasonable.) but that no one rose up crying, "You, sir, are a heretic, sir, and I want nothing to do with you!" No indeed, the entire assembly simply stroked their metaphysical beards and murmured their assents.)

Of course when viruses aren't involved, my other possible automatic answer is...malaria. Did you know that recent research shows that malaria could be the reason why African American men have a higher rate of prostate cancer? I shall be most interested in any follow up studies. (This is of course entirely possible explanation given that a similar one exists for the existence of sickle cell anemia.)

Coming up later: important posts on peduncle elongation and, in honor of the Charles and Camilla nuptials, thoughts on hats.

Doc dear, I know what you mean about those postings. You get indignant and peeved and perhaps even somewhat enraged when you read them. You think “??!!” and “Isn’t this rather missing the point?”. You breathe deeply and repeat to yourself several times over ,“Love thy neighbor; Love thy neighbor.” Yes indeed I know EXACTLY what you mean: it’s what I feel when I read the posts debating whether Karol Wojtyla is in heaven. It's also exactly what I feel every time a Roman Catholic says “Score one for our side.” when a Protestant becomes Roman Catholic or pushes the canard that CS Lewis had a deathbed conversion to Roman Catholicism or any variation of this common tale. “Heelloo!” says I, “isn’t the ultimate point “he that believes and is baptized shall be saved”? I don’t see the term Roman Catholic or Orthodox or Lutheran or Baptist or Presbyterian worked into that sentence.” Or as I put it to a RC friend of mine who was exulting that a Protestant friend had become RC, “Go convert someone who does not believe in the saving power of Christ and then color me impressed.”

Some people who proclaim themselves Roman Catholic may be going to Hell, so may some Presbyterians, some Baptists, some Evangelicals and yes even some members of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, and bless us all, they won’t all be from the “Jesus First” gang either, even some members of the LCMS who proclaim themselves to be “Confessional” may actually end up on the real "other side". But whether this is certain and who these people are is unknown and always will be unknown to me and every mortal who has ever walked or ever will walk this Earth until the Last Day, save for One who has always known. But this I do know: it is foolishness, and not the foolishness of God, for anyone other than He to think that we know and thus to speculate on the matter upon a person's death. God’s ways are not ways, for which I heartily thank God, because they are far better than ours could ever be.

So personally when people proclaim themselves to be Christian, I presume in their favor that they acknowledge the saving power of Christ above all things. When they die still claiming the name of the Redeemer as their own, I look forward to rejoicing with them before the throne of the Triune God. As we say LCMS “Grant this, Lord, unto us all.”

(Incidentally my view is hardly shocking. I find upon cruising on the pages that it is merely a badly expressed version of the official position of the LCMS. I blame my poor expression not on the doctrinal training which so many Pastors and fellow members of the LCMS have tried to beat into my thick skull, but rather on my skill with words. )

Since I am the token Roman Catholic on this blog (even though it carries my moniker, harrumph), some thoughts on the passing of the Pope and what is to come:

1. Count me as one of the many who can remember no other pope. Being only seven when Paul VI died, John Paul I elected, died, and then John Paul II was elected, for me there has only been one pope. Thus it will be very odd and a tad disconcerting to see anyone else referred to as pope.
2. Thus the funeral and conclave holds great interest for me (I was glued to the boob tube for wall-to-wall pope coverage all weekend), both in its rituals as in its outcome. This process is something from old footage and books, but now we can see it work again.
3. Having been “inside” the Catholic Church for a few years, I’ve been enjoying myself by noting how many of the pundits (read: priests and professors) I’ve actually met. As of this morning, count me down for 5.
4. My eyes roll, the face turns red, the blood pressure rises, and inevitably I change the channel whenever I hear the chattering class talk about how the Catholic Church needs to “face the issues” of modernity. Of course this is another way of saying, “surrender entirely to modernity and begin ordaining female clergy, support birth control, back abortion and euthanasia, etc.” In other words, according to these dunderheads, the problem with the Church is that it does not think enough like us. Message to the aforementioned: “in the world but not of it.” Few greater disasters could befall the Church than if it made a conscious effort to resemble further the world around it. One of the greatest allures of the Church is its bold principled stance against the time and its many easy temptations. This was a core reason for JPII’s greatness. Take that away, and try making the Church look like any neighborhood institution (democratic and “modern thinking”), and its ceases to become an alternative in a very grubby world. And when it ceases to be that alternative, and going to Church is like going grocery shopping and your priest dresses like the local banker, no one will attend.
5. You want vocations? Reject the time. Stand boldly out there and say there is another way, and it is not found in the silliness around you. Only when put in stark contradiction to the modern world does the Church hold out hope. After Vatican II, the vocations slipped away. What makes us think further liberalization will bring them all back? Young Catholics, as so many polls and studies have shown, are through-going social and theological conservatives, thanks in large part to JPII. They are conservative because JPII’s message so rejected the times, challenged them, and offered a different path, one fixed in man’s nature and backed by two thousand years of Church teaching.
6. Another reason my eyes roll at the pundits calling for Church liberalization is that they absolutely misunderstand the place of American Catholics in the worldwide Church. Americans simply are not all that important in the Church anymore; they have an inflated sense of importance. As their numbers dwindle, and the rolls of Third World Catholics burst, American “issues” do not resonate with Rome. US liberal Catholics blather about married priests and women in the Church, while most Catholics around the world are thinking about social justice and globalization problems. Americans wonder why Father Joe is not Father Jane, and Third World Catholics are wondering if they’ll eat this week. Which do you think the Church considers more important?
7. When the pope doesn’t do as these liberal Catholics please, they charge him with being a reactionary, and become casual Catholics. They say the Church as “abandoned them” and does not reflect their ideas. Better put, they have abandoned the Church (the doctrine hasn’t moved a jot, brothers and sisters, it is you who have decided to move away from it) and they no longer reflect Church ideas. This is, in Evelyn Waugh nice turn of phrase in Brideshead Revisited, “setting up a rival good to God’s.” What greater sin, what greater threat to salvation, can there be than this?
8. A modest proposal: if the problem of American vocations is so extreme, isn’t it obvious that America needs to be evangelized by the Third World? Import to us Brazilian, Nigerian, Honduran priests to man our parishes and give missions in our cities and towns. Reverse the direction of so many years, of the First World bringing the Church to the Third World. They have God now. Unfortunately we have lost him. Send us your priests and missionaries.
9. I think Aaron Brown of CNN is on the verge of converting. Score one for our side. I also predict that this month will cause a noticeable up-tick in both conversions and vocations worldwide.
10. Check out this outstanding lecture given by George Weigel last January on the importance of the next pope. Spot-on.

11. One last thing. I like Bunnie Diehl quite a bit, and my blogging compatriots speak very highly of her. I refer to her blog almost daily and have happily linked to her for many months. But what is all this anti-Catholic stuff that is appearing on the comments about JPII? Some Lutherans have used the Pope’s death as an opportunity to discuss the Pope as “anti-Christ,” Church doctrines as “insidious,” and if the Pope is now actually enjoying salvation or hell. Now, I am no ecumenist, but somehow I doubt whether upon the death of a leading Lutheran (come to think of it, I don’t know of any) I’d be out there blogging about schism, error, and the fires of hell tickling eternally at the underside of Martin Luther. Call it class, respect, or just realizing the futility of such an undertaking, I wouldn’t do it. Clearly some others disagree, and that is a shame. Glad to see Max Goss over at In Hoc Signo Vinces is on the same page.

Just a few thoughts. I’m sure a few more will be coming in the days ahead.