(a) – Imperial Conservatism

I’m clearing out drafts of ideas I had this week but which I was too busy to write. Got a couple more in the hopper. One that I haven’t thought about enough to make it’s own post, but an idea I wanted to share for your consideration, is this one:

America, on the geopolitical scale, is conservative, even though run by liberals. Our foreign policy amounts to “Keep everything the same”. Are the “evil empires” of history geopolitical Liberals?

If you think about it, any nation once it gets to the top of the food chain must be conservative in order to preserve the environment in which it is dominant. Every other nation must be either conservative (to preserve itself) or liberal (to put itself on top).

In this dynamic, Peace is only preserved when one nation is unfailingly dominant, and all other nations accept that dominance.

In the Microscale, this describes a Kingdom, with a solitary ruler whose Authority is accepted without dispute.

Food for thought!

ADMG

CCCXXIX – An Apologia For Idiocy

The Greeks took their democracy seriously, coining the word “idiotes” to refer to someone who did not participate in civic life. We get this from the word “idios” meaning “ones own”–in essence, an idiotes was someone who was “on their own” and didn’t join in the crowd in their demonstration of voting.

So this is an apologia for not voting, based on the conversation ongoing at Chivalric Catholic’s combox.

Here’s CC’s comment in full, partly so I can quickly reference it and partly so you can see the substance of what I am responding to:

---

Scoot: thanks for the comment. Let me explain my line of reasoning:

-You could argue that [consenting to the process requires consenting to the outcome], but I don’t think it makes much sense to act from a pragmatic perspective in such a way. I mean, the same argument could be used in any form of government. You could say that in a monarchy, perhaps there is a king who is crowned at a time when abortion is legal. He wants to make it illegal and has the power, as king, to pass said edict. If he tries to pass an edict that makes abortion illegal, isn’t he consenting to the same process as made abortion legal when a previous king passed the edict to legalize abortion? In that case, is he agreeing that the criminality of abortion is something that can validly be decided by lineage and edict?

-(I am slightly disappointed you did not use the examples of Rusty Carson and Muddy Hoggard, but…) I see what you’re saying. However, what about the aforementioned king? Say he lives in a constitutional monarchy and tries to pass an edict that illegalizes abortion. However, this kingdom also has a parliament who overrule it. Is the king wrong in passing the edict according to the law because by doing so he is consenting to the parliament’s overruling to being a good way to solve a problem?

In other words, I think this reasoning can go down a problematic hobbit-hole where by inaction and by telling orthodox Catholics not to act, it could potentially cause harm in and of itself. Obviously there are other ways to act against abortion, such as protests and whatnot, but the popular vote—if orthodox Catholics vote as a collective—can matter.

---

The challenge here, CC, is that you are begging the question as regards Liberalism. That is to say–your comments seem to me to arise from a presumption of liberalism, which my comment and suggestions clearly violate. What I am suggesting to you spills the banks of political theory–I will try to elucidate where this Liberalism is begged, and make plain why my suggestion is orthogonal to the political reality. This is the closest thing to political 4D Chess, so please be patient with me–it took me a long time to come around to these ideas and I am not trying to force you into certain political thought, the goal is to present a worldview that is new and different and which I found valuable and maybe you will find valuable too. Maybe you will not find it valuable, but my goal is that you will accept this is new data and food for thought.

All that said as prologue, here are some illuminating questions:

1. Take two situations: One where a King declares, by decree, that Abortion is legal; another where a population votes unanimously to legalize abortion directly. Who has committed an evil act?
   1. Would your answer be different if the Population voted 60/40 to legalize abortion? If the vote was 50/50, with the legalize abortion crowd winning by 1 vote? What if the population voted unanimously, minus one dissenting vote?
   2. Would your answer be different if the King requested the legislature legalize abortion? If the King asked the population to vote directly to legalize abortion?
2. If a King decrees that Abortion is legal, is the process of issuing decrees evil or is the act of the King on this subject evil?
   1. Would your answer be different if it was a population voting by any given ratio to legalize abortion?
3. Let’s suppose that in one of the previous scenarios, where there was one dissenting vote, that dissenting vote was a well meaning and well formed Catholic who believes that Abortion is intrinsically evil. Given your answer to (2) and (2-1), is that lone dissenting vote a good or evil act?
   1. If abortion is evil, why must that truth be decided by a vote?
4. Does the Law follow society, or does the Law lead society?
5. Where does Authority come from? How does the source of that authority affect the legality of Abortion, when it comes to either a Kings decree or a popular vote?

I’ll leave the questions there, and let you answer them on your own (feel no obligation to answer them publicly, feel free to ponder them on your own, though I would enjoy hearing your thoughts).

Here are some places where you assume Liberalism: The King in your scenario lives in a constitutional monarchy. A constitutional monarchy is still a Liberal polity. A Monarch, properly understood, is unhindered by limitations and bills of rights. This is where I would be interested to see your answer to Bullet (5) above. How you view the source of authority affects how you view exercises of authority.

Let’s suppose also that Catholics vote as a singular unit. This assumes Liberalism because it assumes voting at all is important. Catholics acting in concert could take over a political system, and probably could use that system for some good. But that is consequentialism–the idea that the ends justify the means.

The ironclad truth is that Abortion is evil no matter what the Law says. Another ironclad truth is that the losers of a vote are bound by the results of the vote as much as the winners. When Trump won the presidency, the people that said “Not my president” were wrong–just because they didn’t like the outcome didn’t mean the outcome didn’t affect them. Same with Abortion–just because they don’t like that the courts threw out Roe v. Wade, doesn’t mean it’s not complete.

So that’s a lot of hole-poking in the existing system. What is the alternative?

The most influential thing (on me) Zippy had to say on the subject was this:

Power is a material capacity to make this thing happen rather than that.

Authority is a moral capacity to oblige a subject to choose this thing rather than that.

Enforcement is a power associated with an authority, specifically to punish those who disobey authority and extract restitution from them.

Tyranny is a false pretense of authority, frequently accompanied by enforcement of the false claim.

A basic problem with modern people is that they don’t believe in authority: they don’t believe that other men can oblige them to do or not do particular things independent of consent to the obligation.

This one post unlocked the political continuum to transcend Liberalism, for me. These are the only forces that matter in politics, and they apply equally in a Monarchy and in a Democracy. A decision is not made more virtuous by being agreed upon by the Masses–it is an exercise of all of these forces.

This was a lot and I left a lot of hooks and hanging threads for you to pick up or ignore as you so desire. I look forward to hearing your thoughts!

AMDG

CCCXXVI – From Athens to Tyranny

There’s a video about the Constitution of Athens on Youtube which is really interesting. It made me realize a logical argument contra democracy, which I will share with you here.

The evolution of Athenian democracy goes like this: They began with a council of elders who chose the three top bureaucrats who divided the executive power of government. This was the Oligarchy period, which came to a close when a prolonged dispute between factions in the council of elders stopped all public business. They appointed a reformer to fix the issues to one of the top three bureaucratic spots, and he began turning Athens into a democracy. His first reforms expanded voting rights, changed some of the duties of the bureaucrats. After some time and this reformer was gone, this limited democracy experienced severe factionalism. New reforms were implemented to further expand voting, further subdivide the factions, and further reduce the importance of the bureaucrats. The video goes into all of these steps in more interesting detail.

What this made me realize is that factionalism is a feature of democracy, not a flaw. It is impossible to have democracy without factionalism.

Consider this: A new government exists with two factions evenly split, Faction A and Faction B. The deadlock causes political and social friction, but over time most of society begins adopting Faction A. Eventually all of society belongs to Faction A, and they can implement their policies without opposition. They have “Won” democracy, and are now a tyranny. Democracy is “stable” precisely because it has many factions in tension, and when any faction gets power they will seek to wield it with tyrannical authority to remove the opposition to their faction. This creates a counterbalance in favor of the opposition, and the pendulum swings the other way for a time.

All democracies either swing between factions or rest on a singular authority. There is no avoiding this. It is possible for a democracy to exist in a kind of equilibrium where it is A) Culturally homogeneous, and B) not under any polarizing tension from within or without.

Cultural homogeneity is required for a peaceful equilibrium because it means there is a common agreement as to values and no faction would deviate too significantly from those values. The second a faction does deviate, there would be an extreme backlash. This creates a negative pressure on reform, and leads to factions that are not too different from each other so they all enjoy an evenly spread appeal among the electorate.

Avoiding polarizing tension is required for a peaceful equilibrium because as long as a state exists in a peace, and given that it is culturally homogeneous, then there is no force which would polarize its populace. No invaders, no sedition.

Switzerland is a democracy, and is stable because it is cultural homogeneous and stays (mostly) neutral in foreign conflicts. Sweden is a democracy and has been historically neutral, but has had some instability introduced due to an influx of middle eastern refugees and recently due to threats from Russia. Sweden is actively grappling with these issues, as I understand it, and has not returned to a stable equilibrium.

America is a democracy, but does not have cultural homogeneity, and is not free from internal or external polarizing factors. As a consequence our factionalism is strong and intense, and will remain so until the equalizing factors are achieved.

Monarchy is stable, in contrast, because stability is imposed on it from an authoritative central figure. Legitimacy, Validity, Licity are the factors for a stable government, in addition to cultural homogeneity. The culture must accept the terms of succession, and the succession must happen a particular way–then there will be no issues.

AMDG

CCCXXII – Sunshine On Democracy

I watched a movie recently called “Sunshine“. I had watched it before, many years ago, […]. Obviously since then I have changed a lot and so I was primed to notice some key moments that perhaps they hoped would go unnoticed.

If you have not seen the movie, here’s the quick premise: The sun is dying and humanity mined all of the fissile material on earth to launch towards the sun and detonate it, and so reignite the sun. The crew is riding on a ship called the Icarus II, the Icarus I lost contact and their fate is unknown. There are 7 specialists as the crew on each ship.

There are two votes that happen in this movie–two demonstrations of democracy in action. I will share the parables and then we can break them down.

The first vote happens when the crew discovers the location of the Icarus I. The “antagonist” opposes diverting the mission to see if they can help the Icarus I. The psychologist on the mission believes that using the resources aboard the Icarus I–including the undelivered payload–could be helpful. The antagonist says “Let’s vote!” but the psychologist says “This is not a democracy–we are a bunch of astronauts and scientists, we are going to make the best decision available to us.” Rather than consult data and begin weighing options, the decision is handed to the Physicist (the protagonist) to make unilaterally.

The second vote happens in the middle of the third act, the visit to Icarus I has gone horribly wrong and several people have died as a consequence. The crew member whose hapless error caused a death is on a suicide watch. Their mistake also caused the burning of the Oxygen-generating eco lab, so oxygen is now a limited resource. The same antagonist from earlier proposes killing the suicide-risk member of the crew–but proposes the other crew vote on it and demands a unanimous decision. Three of the four people vote in favor, except for one, the pilot, who opposes. The antagonist decides to kill the crew member anyway, despite not receiving the unanimous vote he requested.

What the heck is going on?

In the first case, a vote is proposed, but they declare “no need” because of their intellectual pedigree, and allow one member of the crew to decide unilaterally. In the second case, a vote is proposed, and they demand consent, but in the face of opposition one member of the crew decides unilaterally. In both instances, the resulting decision was unilateral and indifferent to other viewpoints.

The first situation falls to scientism, the religious-like belief that the intelligent and scientific form a priestly class. This is why the decision was handed to the Physicist-Astronaut–the ultimate priest of scientism. In the film, the decision ultimately came down to a utilitarian one: two bombs is better than one, lets see if we can get a second payload to deliver to the sun. There was no gnostic, hidden wisdom–it was a numbers game. The democratic choice may have considered other points of view, irrelevant data. A truly scientific approach would have spent more time on analysis and running scenarios. Both of these represent an abdication on the part of the captain to authoritatively rule his crew. The decision, and it’s consequences, ought to have rested with him. The first vote represents the abdication of a kingly sovereign to the masses, and the masses make bad decisions under a pretense of legitimacy they invented for themselves.

The second situation falls to tyrannical utilitarianism. It is tyrannical because it did not follow the rules it set for itself. It is utilitarian because it weighed the value of a human life, which they did not have the authority to do. The one opponent–the conservative–voted no, and when told that her vote didn’t matter, simply shrugged and said “find some kindness” when you murder the crewmate. Conservatives and right liberals do that a lot. They vote, and when told their vote was meaningless, they shrug and say “please abuse us nicely”. Rules and procedures exist for a reason, and if the Captain had been alive he at least would have had some semblance of authority and legitimacy to add to the proceedings. The captain is one of the people who died in the blunder after the first vote, so he was not present. It is telling that the King died when the people took control.

There’s a lot more I could read into this, but I thought it was interesting. It’s a good movie in it’s own right, and there’s lots of little symbolisms that I hadn’t noticed on previous watch throughs. I hope you watch it, and if you can’t take your traditionalist-reactionary hats off, let me know what you think of my analysis of democracy from the movie.

AMDG

CCCXVII – Checks, Balances, and Implicit Liberalism

Here’s a quick way to determine whether a given political idea is classically liberal or whether it is “traditionalist reactionary” (I don’t really know the name for this).

Does the political idea require a model of authority that originates in the self, the individual, and flows up? Then it is classically Liberal. Does the political idea require a model of authority that originates in God and flows down? Then it is “traditionalist reactionary”–though, in fairness, it wouldn’t be reactionary if it wasn’t out of vogue. The “God-down” model was the original political theory and modernity has subverted it.

Anyway.

The American system is classically liberal. You can tell because it supposes that authority originates in the self and flows up–you see this in the idea of “rights”, in the emphasis on sacramental voting, and in considering local government a way to represent your wishes “up” the chain. Because the American system is an Atheist system–it does not originate and center on God–it self-consciously requires a system of checks and balances. The American system knows that a moral conscience is not intrinsic to the system and so must have controls. These controls serve to delay the inevitable corruption that will happen when a political system is devoid of morality. Sometimes these controls can work for a really long time–sometimes these controls become institutions unto themselves.

The “traditionalist reactionary” political philosophy is one that originates in and centers on God and flows authority down from Him. Everyone at every step knows he is answerable to everyone up the chain from him, and must take care of everyone below him with custodial care and guardianship. This philosophy is possible because the first check and balance on power comes from our fear of God. Absent a fear of God, all other tyranny becomes not just possible, but inevitable.

This is why checks and balances imply a classically liberal system–we don’t trust ourselves and aren’t going to try to become better people, so we need other people whose job is to watch us and make sure we don’t step out of line. It would be easier to lose weight if someone was watching us all the time and telling the newspapers every time we ate something we shouldn’t. But losing weight is a matter of self conquest, and must be motivated from within. Likewise a political system fat on tyranny cannot get lean until it’s members are motivated from within to do penance and amend their lives.

AMDG

CCCXI – Scoot and Hambone Talk About Stuff (Ep. 3)

Regarding Obedience and Authority:
(Ep 1 | Ep 2)

Hambone: There’s a video [a blogger] posts every Palm Sunday – I think we’ve talked about it before. It’s the French traditionalist congregation literally using a battering ram to remove the cinder-block wall blocking the front door of “their” church. Hundreds are singing “Christus Vincit, Christus Regnat, Christus Imperat” in the background the entire time. It’s hard not to get emotional.

Scoot: Oh Yeah! That video left a profound impression on me.

H: It touches on a vein we struggle with. Where is the line? When is it OK to disobey? (It’s my understanding the bishop had it bricked up)

S: Yeah. It’s a tough question.

H: There was a Papal Bull in the 1500s that essentially says they can’t abrogate or change the Latin Mass. That’s why they just made a new Mass and pretended the old one wasn’t allowed.

S: If I’m a peasant, the local church is my only access to the sacraments, so to be cut off from that is to be cut off from life, right?

H: I imagine there were “Novus Ordo” Churches nearby.

S: The video looked old.

H: 1987

S: Wow. So, I don’t know man, bricking up a church seems like an OK thing to undo, right? Like, if it wasn’t a bishop who ordered it, it’s a no-brainer. Can a bishop lawfully order a parish to close like that? Well–we’re getting away from peasantly considerations.

H: So my understanding is he is a prince of his diocese. They close churches all the time, you know? And the parishioners are devastated.

S: It’s very weird. What happened in the aftermath of the battering ram incident?

H: To be honest, I don’t know. I can’t imagine they were allowed access from then on. The Church probably got sold and turned into condos.

S: What were the priests telling people?

H: The priest was set up to say Mass outside the Church. I think it was grassroots indignation.

S: Because the priests are the immediate Shepherd. If they said “Tear down that wall” then it’s ok for the laity to tear it down–it becomes a conflict between Shepherds (Priest vs. Bishop). But if the Priest said “Listen to the Bishop even though it sucks” then the Laity was wrong.

H: It’s tough–like, was the American revolution “wrong”? Can a person lawfully disobey God given authority? And under what circumstances?

S: I think the American revolution was wrong, to be honest. But since it happened, we are not bound by the sins of our fathers, you know? I think we should take great pains to NOT disobey lawful authority. It’s a kind of martyrdom to obey an unjust edict from a lawful authority. Not immoral, but unjust. Saying “This Church is closed” is a valid act, exercised poorly.

H: So how do I develop my standard? “Hey, cheat on your wife” is an easy order to disobey. But am I supposed to parse hundreds (thousands) of years of Church documents to figure out what is right? How deep into shades of grey do I go, you know?

S: No–you’re supposed to trust in the apostolic succession. Bishop is the representative of the Chair of Peter, not an elected official. The Holy Spirit works in them, through good or ill. You and I are powerless. The things we must disobey will be as obvious as “hey, cheat on your wife”. The things we ought to obey might be hard and might suck but out of obedience to the Church God gave us, I think we have to bow to an unjust prince no matter what we think.

H: So disobeying an order to pinch incense to the point of death is bravery. But so much nowadays it seems like they try to empty the divine of its meaning, rather than trying to get you to abandon it. And allowing the former doesn’t feel brave.

H: It’s a unique sort of punishment.

S: That’s why home worship is equally important to public worship (Mass).

S: Yeah, it’s a poetic kind of justice. We try to empty the divine of meaning and God says “Alright, disobey me? Have fun guys.” And we have to suffer under our own ideas, until we realign with God the way He intends. All of these problems are because we took on the weight of the world. And we are finding it heavy. Give it back to God–we need to do that as a Church. But until then we can only do that as individuals. Home worship, home sacramentals, are sufficient to keep the fire alive, in conjunction with any valid Mass. It might not be bright, but it will be alive.

H: You’re right, there’s just such a predisposition to “be right” or have an image of yourself standing up for the little man or thumbing your nose at “tyrants”.

S: Modernity makes us think the Church is a democracy. But we don’t get a say. And that’s hard, in a democratic world: to be actually powerless. It’s important to get to the point of understanding that.

H: We never did, but coming to terms with it fully is demoralizing–and freeing too.

S: Yes. It’s the true meaning, in my opinion, of “I am dust and to dust I shall return.” Dust can’t vote, or form itself into pottery. Dust settles where it is and it’s on the ones with the power to clean to move the dust where it needs to be. It’s demoralizing insofar as I thought I was capable of more; freeing in that I don’t need to be capable of more.

H: And in most peoples cases, it’s truly just their ego, not their reality. The battering ram is an interesting case because the people involved actually had the power to do something.

S: Yeah. And again–it’s the priests who were responsible for managing the flock. If the shepherd closes the gates to let a field lay fallow, and the sheep ram their way in, it’s the shepherds fault for not controlling the sheep. People are allowed to feel sentimental and affectionate to their parish. The priests are in the awkward position of explaining bad news in a way that calms the parishioners and obeys the bishop. These priests seem to have not done one of those two things to avoid awkwardness.

H: No, you’re right. The only excuse I’ll give was France was and is like, peak awful. But it’s important to realize that for everyone except Joan of Arc they were just sort of expected to live up to their station in life. And those called will be given the tools to “prove” it to those of good faith.

S: Well said. God gives graces to those called to a higher purpose. He gives graces to the rest of us too, but those of us not called to be Joan of Arc just need to worry about being good sheep.

---

AMDG

CCCVII – Harsh Doctrines

A harsh doctrine practiced with kindness: this is not a formula for hypocrisy, but the secret of all ancient, rich, and mature civilizations.
-Nicolás Gómez Dávila (Don Colacho)

---

48 I am the bread of life. (…) 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.(…) 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum. 61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?

62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? (…) 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. 65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him. 66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.

67 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.
– John 6:48-67

---

18:20 And the Lord said: The cry of Sodom and Gomorrha is multiplied, and their sin is become exceedingly grievous. 22 (…) but Abraham as yet stood before the Lord. 23 And drawing nigh he said: Wilt thou destroy the just with the wicked? 24 If there be fifty just men in the city, shall they perish withal? and wilt thou not spare that place for the sake of the fifty just, if they be therein?

(…) 26 And the Lord said to him: If I find in Sodom fifty just within the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake.

(…) 31 Seeing, saith he, I have once begun, I will speak to my Lord. What if twenty be found there? He said: I will not destroy it for the sake of twenty.

32 I beseech thee, saith he, be not angry, Lord, if I speak yet once more: What if ten should be found there? And he said: I will not destroy it for the sake of ten.

19:24 And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven. 25 And he destroyed these cities, and all the country about, all the inhabitants of the cities, and all things that spring from the earth. 27 And Abraham got up early in the morning and in the place where he had stood before with the Lord, 28 He looked towards Sodom and Gomorrha, and the whole land of that country: and he saw the ashes rise up from the earth as the smoke of a furnace.

29 Now when God destroyed the cities of that country, remembering Abraham, he delivered Lot out of the destruction of the cities wherein he had dwelt.
–Genesis 18:20 to 19:29

---

7 But increase you and multiply, and go upon the earth, and fill it.

8 Thus also said God to Noe, and to his sons with him, 9 Behold I will establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you: 10 And with every living soul that is with you, as well in all birds as in cattle and beasts of the earth, that are come forth out of the ark, and in all the beasts of the earth. 11 I will establish my covenant with you, and all flesh shall be no more destroyed with the waters of a flood, neither shall there be from henceforth a flood to waste the earth. 12 And God said: This is the sign of the covenant which I give between me and you, and to every living soul that is with you, for perpetual generations. 13 I will set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be the sign of a covenant between me, and between the earth. 14 And when I shall cover the sky with clouds, my bow shall appear in the clouds: 15 And I will remember my covenant with you, and with every living soul that beareth flesh: and there shall no more be waters of a flood to destroy all flesh.
–Genesis 9:7-15

---

14. Certainly many remarkable authors, adherents of the true philosophy, have taken pains to attack and crush this strange view. But the matter is so self-evident that it is superfluous to give additional arguments. It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth Itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members. For we have a surer word of the prophet, and in writing to you We speak wisdom among the perfect; not the wisdom of this world but the wisdom of God in a mystery. By it we are taught, and by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and that no other name under heaven is given to men except the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth in which we must be saved. This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.
–Ubi Primum, Pope Leo XII, 1824

AMDG

(Previously)

CCXCIII – Joel Osteen and the BLA: A Study in Contrasts

This morning I went to Mass at a different parish than I usually attend, and was met during the homily by the same homily every mass at every parish around the diocese received today, and that is the Bishop’s Lenten Appeal (BLA). The last several weeks have been spent professing the virtues of the BLA but this week we received the step by step instructions on how to fill out the form and make a pledge.

I am a certified curmudgeon, and I have always been a little uncomfortable with how the Church executes this maneuver. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the BLA, but something about asking for money from the pulpit feels off. It is worth noting that the Bishop is well within his authority to do this, and that supporting the BLA is a good and noble thing, and the Bishop is not requiring participation but encouraging, so the duty of obedience only extends as far as tolerating the pitch during a few Masses out of the year. If I was master of all things, I would simply say that 5 Sundays of the year–ten percent of a 52 week year–the weekly collection goes straight to the Diocese. But maybe that tells you how little wisdom I have and how blessed we are that I am not master of all things. I simply prefer the Bishop would issue commands as commands, and this busking from the pulpit feels like an underutilization of the Bishop’s lawful authority.

To the credit of this parish I attended, the choir is one of the most beautiful I have heard around the diocese, perhaps even taking the first prize. The most beautiful piece of singing I have heard was a single organist singing and playing Schubert’s Ave Maria on All Souls Day three years ago, and it moved me to tears I am not ashamed to admit. It doesn’t take much to be beautiful, and sometimes simplicity does the trick.

After Mass I went straight to the Barber because I haven’t had a haircut since before Christmas and I was beginning to look like an abandoned sheep found in the wilderness. Blessedly, I arrived just as “Meet the Press” was ending and, unfortunately, I arrived just as Joel Osteen’s television ministry was beginning. Thanks to the diligent work of my barber, I could not hear anything that Joel Osteen was saying, but I did pay attention to what message he was sending visually.

Before I elaborate, I want to point out why this is important. Communication is more than just the things we say. Everything about how we present the message, when we present the message, and where we present the message is important. As it happens, this ties in well with todays readings at Mass. I don’t watch a lot of TV these days, but when I did I used to think sometimes about how I would evaluate an advertisement if I was the president of an ad agency. I think the first thing I would do is watch the ad with the volume muted, to see what message I get without hearing what is said. Communicating your message visually is half of the battle, especially in advertising.

I have a half remembered anecdote from my undergraduate education. There was a marketing conference–for some reason my memory says “it was in Spain” but that’s not really relevant. During the conference, an ad was shown highlighting a new product–a sweet beverage. The ad said a lot of things about it’s nutritional benefits and how it’s part of a complete breakfast or something like that. But the ad displayed a child drinking the product. Before the conference was over, orders for the product were being called in at a high volume–the ad didn’t say anything new, but what it showed was that the sweet beverage was a children’s product, and that was an innovation at the time. They had opened a new front in the brand wars–the child market for sweet beverages.

So Joel Osteen. I was watching (and not listening) his program while I was getting my hair cut and seeing what I could absorb. First thing I noticed: There was not a single Cross on display anywhere in the program. Not behind him, not on the Bible he held up, not anywhere in the football-stadium crowd of people when they panned over the audience. Not a single cross anywhere. The name Joel Osteen was visible on the TV Screen many times–every 5 seconds there would be a blurb on the bottom of the screen, “Buy this book! Pre-order that book! Subscribe to social media! Listen to the Podcast! Contribute now, call this number!”

The Joel Osteen program exists to serve Joel Osteen. I thought about–well, there is a football stadium full of Christians, can that be so bad? The answer is that I can’t say–not that I don’t have an opinion, but that it’s not for me to say. God may be working on the hearts of some people in that stadium–and certainly, a friend of Christ is a friend of mine. But do they understand properly? Isn’t protestantism heresy?

The contrast just stuck with me today. The BLA, while discomfiting to me, is at least executed in the context of worshiping and honoring God, and providing almsgiving to the Diocese so the Diocese can serve those in need. Joel Osteen, it is hard to say his program is even Christian–where is the Cross??? Why would that be missing? Was that an oversight? Was it not important? And it’s hard to say any contributions made goes to anyone other than Joel Osteen.

Let’s pray for those sheep following false shepherds, and let’s pray that we find in our hearts to give alms to those in our lives who are in need.

AMDG

CCLXXXVII – High Bloodline Pressure

There’s a new blog I discovered in my poking about wordpress, the Catholic Monarchist and it’s author JackYankton, who has been writing an interesting series on the virtues and values of Monarchy. I don’t know if he realizes he is a traditionalist reactionary, but I encourage those of you interested to check him out and I hope he finds his way to the broader traditionalist reactionary circle which inspires my writing here.

His latest article led me to comment about the stability of bloodlines, which connects to a thought I’ve been considering for a long time, regarding how to prevent a monarchy from devolving into tyrannical despotism.

First, regarding bloodline driven transfers of power. The least stable time in any government is always the transfer of power. In America they have become decreasingly peaceful over time, and in Medieval times they were almost always perilous (as I understand it). The important thing when any transfer of power happens is 1) That the incoming sovereign has a legitimate claim; 2) that the incoming sovereign is seated using valid forms; 3) that the incoming sovereign is seated using licit forms. Legitimacy, Validity, Licity, are the three pillars that make for a stable transfer of power. The popular acclaim will accept a new sovereign only if he has all three. If any one is questionable, there will be instability. This is true of any political system.

The advantage of a bloodline based system is it creates unambiguous legitimacy. Either you are or are not the child of the previous sovereign. Questions arise when a monarch has no children–then you turn to siblings or other more distant relatives. But there is a definitive hierarchy: if the previous sovereign was the eldest child, and is himself childless, then rule transfers to the sovereigns next youngest sibling, or their child. This is all made much more simple if the sovereign is a Perfectly Formed Catholic (PFC), as mistresses, divorce, and the like make determining the hierarchy confusing. If the Monarch behaves, then bloodline can be an extremely stable source of legitimacy.

Coronation Mass is a very stable form of ensuring a Valid and Licit sovereign. Once Legitimacy is established, the throne must be claimed following the prescribed rites and then the transfer of power is complete. In the biography of Joan of Arc by Mark Twain, St. Joan refused to acknowledge Charles as King until his coronation, until that point referring to him as “The Dauphin”.

In America, instead of bloodlines we have elections; instead of coronations we have inaugurations. Both serve the same purpose–establishing legitimacy and creating a rite which ensures the popular acceptance of the new leader. Elections are more ambiguous than birthright, so inherently introduces an element of instability which can fester and grow. We saw this throughout the Trump presidency–around that time I stopped paying attention to politics, so I don’t know if anyone is making similar agitations about the current president (please don’t tell me if they are–ignorance is bliss).

There is a natural question which follows from this: Once a leader has taken power and received popular acclaim, what stops him from descending into tyranny? We know as sovereign his filial obligation binds him to a duty of custodial care. But what if he ignores that duty? Really–what can we do if our father is a violent abuser? We have recourse to the Mother, she in prudence separates for a while to protect the health and wellness of herself and her children. In a Monarchy, it is really only the Queen Mother who plays that role (like Mama Mary). That is not a great control because the Queen Mother is as likely to be tyrannical as the Sovereign. The American Revolution felt that tyranny must inherently be overthrown, and took the attitude that all monarchy was tyrannical–this is too much of a reaction, as well.

There are three protections for the subjects from a bad sovereign. First is Tradition, which limits the sovereign in behavior and custom. Second is formation, which inoculates the sovereign against being tyrannical by forming him in the first place to have strong and positive values. Third is agitation, which is when the peasantry voice their discontent to the sovereign in varying degrees of peacefulness. Argument is a natural part of a family life, sometimes it is normal that a husband and wife should argue, or that children should argue, to ensure their demands are heard whether they are reasonable or not. The sovereign is not required to oblige every demand voiced, but the sovereign cannot address a problem he does not know about. A sovereign who is confronted with the ill fruit of his decisions on a daily basis must necessarily come to realize that he is the source of that fruit.

If a sovereign does not value tradition, is not formed with strong values, and is protected from hearing the vox populi, he will surely become a tyrant. This is true in a democracy as much as it is in a monarchy. Once a tyrant becomes a tyrant, we must pray for a change of heart, obey his lawful commands, and wait for him to die a natural death, and pray that his issue are more just than he is.

AMDG

CCLXXXVI – Currency and Taxation

Let’s return to the ideas surrounding currency, sovereignty, and taxation. I believe Taxation was one of the open questions from my last thought-sprint on the topic, but I had to step away for a while to let the seeds of thought germinate and allow the spiritual focus of this blog some elbow-room. So lets see what thoughts remain after some time away!

The question at hand is what is taxation. Zippy, again, referred to currency as Tax vouchers because he didn’t have a model of currency or taxation that fit closely. For his purposes it worked, because he framed a lot of his thinking in terms of contracts and titles to real property. I feel fairly confident in my description of currency as delegated authority of the sovereign, so that influences what taxation is.

In one of my articles, I take this glancing blow at answering the question: Sacrifice (or, Worship generally) is the practice of giving back to God the things that are Gods, so taxation is giving back to Caesar the things that are Caesars. But why do we owe anything to Caesar at all?

First, we have to accept that taxation is a morally permissible act, and indeed one aspect of the sovereign duty to care for his subjects. The basic idea is that when the sovereign has some goal to be undertaken for the good of the state and his subjects–be it war, infrastructure, bureaucratic reform, anything–it requires people and resources to accomplish. A Draft is a sovereign levy of personnel; a tax is a sovereign levy of property. A tax is a sovereign levy of actual property–any currency received is provided in lieu of the property needed by the sovereign. Sometimes it might be food, so the sovereign requisitions grain. Absent grain, some amount of dollars will do. This is because dollars represent future property which can be purchased with the sovereigns authority to provide for necessities.

In a previous draft of this article, at this point I went in to talk about all the different kinds of tax systems–but I think that is a moot point. The underlying principle of taxation is sound. How taxation is implemented might be just or unjust in type, amount, or character. In democracies, taxation tends to be unjust because of the inherent flaws in absence of a true sovereign.

If we accept the premise that all ownership is derived from the Sovereign, then really all taxation is, is recalling property which was delegated to the people from the sovereign in the first place. And the people have a duty to provide it, the same way there is a duty to comply with a draft if one is implemented.

“But Scoot, what about private property? Isn’t that Natural Law?”

You’re right–private ownership is an element of natural law. But this concept of taxation doesn’t abrogate that. Private ownership is a kind of authority and that authority flows from God through the sovereign to you. That shovel is yours, you and the shovel are the King’s, the King and all his subjects are God’s. No other person can eliminate your claim on that shovel, but the King can requisition it for a higher purpose to which you owe a duty out of filial love if not obedience.

I think that is the last point which remains to be made clear, and I might write about in more detail later on, disambiguating ownership, authority, and sovereignty.

AMDG