Compassionate conservatism was a thing in the late 1990s and 00s. For the life of me I can’t recall the last time I heard the expression used in a serious conversation. Maybe that’s because compassionate conservatism, like most political orientations packed into a slogan, wasn’t serious. It certainly didn’t help that the expression conjured up an image of regular old run-of-the-mill conservatism as downright mean, even frightening. Anyway, I don’t expect it to return to the forefront of our politics anytime soon, especially not in the era of “Tea Party” conservatism and, on the opposite end of the spectrum, a gross mixture of social libertinism and state-managed capitalism. This is why I am issuing a modest, measured, and above all mirthful call for #friendlyfascism. In a day and age when so many traditionally disenfranchised, even oppressed, groups have “taken back” certain words of derision, is it not time for us, concerned citizens of the United States who have grown indifferent toward, nay, disgusted with the present socio-economic ordo to take back the original F-Word?
St. Pius X and CST
My latest piece for The Josias, “A Reflection on St. Pius X and Contemporary Approaches to Catholic Social Teaching,” is now up online. From the reflection:
Lest one assume that Pius X, who continues to hold the reputation of being an arch-reactionary in the minds of many contemporary Catholics, limited himself to attacking radical social movements with nothing to say to those who are today attached to neoliberal/libertarian visions of the unbridled marketplace, it is important to look further at the text of Fin Dalla Prima Nostra which, inter alia, binds capitalists in justice to pay just wages, to not injure workers financially through usury, and to ensure that their family lives are protected (article VIII). In union with his predecessor, Leo XIII, and eventual successor, Pius XI, Pius X’s vision of capitalist/labor relations is a harmonious one maintained through private aid, insurance, trade, and professional associations. Instead of first seeking centralized, state-based solutions, Pius X advocated a fresh form of Catholic Action dedicated to reforming the socio-economic order.
Review: Byzantine Liturgical Reform
Thomas Pott, Byzantine Liturgical Reform (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press 2010), 293pgs.
Projects, Seeing, and Options
A couple of months ago, in one of my “Weekly Reading” posts, I linked to a piece by Rod Dreher where he describes a First Things (FT) conference “discuss[ing] the future of religion in the public square[.]” The three conference papers have now been published. They are as follows:
A Critical Remark on Linklater’s Boyhood
Friends, acquaintances, and movie critics told me I needed to see Richard Linklater’s ambitious film Boyhood. Shot over a 12-year period, Boyhood attempts to show the physical, mental, and emotional development of a six-year-old boy named Mason in an unprecedentedly realistic manner while chronicling the ups-and-downs of his (divorced) parents’ lives. The mother, played by Patricia Arquette, has a rough go of it as a single mother who enters into two disastrous relationships with alcoholics before pulling herself out of dependency with a college education. The father, portrayed by the often insufferable Ethan Hawke, is the quintessential deadbeat dad: obsessively cool, self-justifying, and locked in adolescence for 80% of the film, he manages to finally “figure it all out” with his second stab at marriage and children. No negative consequences flow from his actions (or, rather, inaction and inattentiveness). Not even Mason appears noticeably harmed by his father’s absence; he even remains immune from harm by the aforementioned alcoholics, which is distressingly convenient. What would the audience think about Mason’s actual father had his son took a beating or suffered emotional harm at the hands of other men? But then that might raise more troubling questions about the social acceptability of absconding fathers.
Revisiting the Blasphemy Question
On his blog yesterday, Fr. John Zuhlsdorf called attention to a Reporters Without Borders initiative to compel religious leaders to acknowledge that blasphemy is a right—one which is higher than (the liberal conception of) religious liberty. Today, in the course of his visit to Asia, Pope Francis had some other thoughts on the matter. Here are some excerpts taken from the translation up at Rorate Caeli.
Looking Back, Looking Ahead
Several days ago I mentioned that Pater Edmund Waldstein’s 2014 talk, “The Politics of Nostalgia,” has been on my mind. Among the many excellent points Waldstein makes in the lecture, the most interesting to me is his refusal to submit to what one might call “nostalgia shaming” or the belief that a position is unreasonable, specious, or invalid because it is nostalgic. Waldstein, whose commitment to Catholic monarchism and integralism is well known, differs markedly from his fellow intellectual travelers insofar as he is neither a hopeless romantic nor a defeatist. Having a deep and intellectually serious attachment to the past, or principles which were still upheld int he past, is not the same as being indifferent to present realities. One of the most often heard — and ultimately unpersuasive — critiques of monarchism, integralism, and the restoration of Christendom is that they belong to the past. That they were all part of the past is a point no one disputes; that they must remain there forever is a bridge too far. People assume that, of course. But then again, people assume a lot of things are permanent which are not. That poor Egyptian, dialoguing millennia ago with his ba, likely didn’t see all that much on the human horizon given what his people had already accomplished.
Modestinus, R.I.P.
I write to report that on the 12th day of January, in the year of our Lord 2015, Modestinus, the worst kept secret identity in blogdom, cyber-reposed after a long battle with irrelevancy. Having outlived his usefulness, Modestinus has decided to hand the reins of Opus Publicum over to one Gabriel Sanchez, occasional contributor to various publications and self-proclaimed know-it-all on aviation law. A traditional Viking funeral will be held in Modestinus’s honor on the banks of the Grand River in due course.
Theme
After more than a year of experimenting with a new theme for Opus Publicum‘s layout, I have decided to return to the one I used when I launched the first version this blog in 2011. While I am not insensitive to some of the “Manifest” theme’s drawbacks, I am not particularly fond of the old theme hiding the “About” and “Writings” pages under a tab which few first-time visitors notice or click on. Further, by hiding the “Categories” for each post, the previous theme was not conducive to visitors searching the archives for additional commentary. A casual comparison of my stats under the previous two themes as opposed to this one reveals a substantial drop in “clicking around.” As usual, if you have any feedback or suggestions to offer, I am all eyes.
Addendum, 1/13/15: After soliciting feedback from various quarters, I have settled on a new design altogether. Basically what it came down to is that the previous template was not mobile friendly; and as one faithful reader put it to me, “Everyone reads your blog on the Blue Line in Chicago.” If only that were true.
A Final Comment on Charlie Hebdo
There is so much commentary on the Charlie Hebdo (CH) killings and related violence that it’s impossible to digest it all. As best as I can tell, much of it isn’t worth reading anyway. Right now much of the mainstream media’s attention is focused on two things: (A) Who perpetrated the attacks, how, and why; and (B) What the Right, as represented by France’s Front National party, will do to “exploit” this tragedy. Anything which appears critical of CH itself or “the cause” for which 17 people lost their lives is, of course, anathema. The last thing anyone wants to do right now is reflect on what the violence in Paris says about liberal ideology and its attendant pieties, and yet that is exactly what thoughtful persons ought to do at a time like this. Granted, it isn’t easy, as I found out last week when several blogging sites, particularly Patheos’s The Friendly Atheist and the Free Thought Blogs’ Dispatches From the Culture Wars, held my initial reflections on the CH attack up for scorn because I suggested—consistent with traditional Catholic thought and saner periods in Western jurisprudence—that neither blasphemous speech against God and His Church (not Allah and Islam) nor inflammatory speech lacking artistic and intellectual merit deserves legal protection. No, that does not mean CH “got what it deserved.” We might still wonder, however, if the attacks would have occurred at all had French society had not turned a blind eye to barbarism long ago.