Reflecting on Father's Day

 I originally composed this in response to a group writing challenge posted by Jennifer Fuwiler, "What are three things your parents did right?" It's mainly about my Dad, rather than both of my parents, because I've come to realize that he did in fact lead our family in nearly every respect. The older I get, the more like him I want to be. Of course, I've rambled on beyond three things.

The most difficult, and the most important thing he did right for me was that he threw me out of his house. I could visit any time I wanted, but I wasn't allowed to sleep there.  I grew to be very grateful for it, and I was glad to be able to tell him so before he died. I was a selfish, sessile, immature ingrate of twenty-three years when he did it. It put me through some hard times, but I would not ever have become self-sufficient had he not compelled me to do so. The number of blessings which have come from this are beyond counting, believe you me, and thankfulness is foremost of them.

He always resolved his disagreements with my mother. It might have taken time, involved obnoxious debating tactics and yelling, and been difficult and trying, but not one of us ever for a moment imagined that either of them would leave. Somehow, in spite of reading dictionaries to relieve boredom from the age of seven, the word "divorce" never entered my vocabulary until age 10. He may have been motivated by the fact that my mother was the only woman he met who actually liked his rotten sense of humor. From this I've taken the lesson to be absolutely faithful and committed to my marriage. I also learned from both of them to use and respect reason and logic, and I'm grateful that they attended Marquette back when that was part of the curriculum.

They set limits and made us responsible. They didn't compel responsibility, but rather enforced consequences when we overstepped the boundaries or failed in our responsibilities. One example of this was that after about age 10 or 12, I forget which, each of us was expected to earn our own spending money; this was before the near elimination of minors as paper carriers. It helps to explain why I had no real anger or resentment when my dad decided to throw me out.

Another example that I think deserves wider application, was the TV ration (though they didn't call it that). We were each given one hour a week where we could tune the telly to whatever we wanted (of the 3 major networks, CBC, PBS, and the three independent stations that they had in Detroit at the time). One of the by-products of this was that I read a lot, learned a lot from reading, and listened to a lot of good music. In fact, I credit about 20 points of my Intelligence Quotient to this policy alone.

But the ways we benefitted from it do not stop there.  It taught us that resources are limited and the wisdom of planning. Every Sunday, we'd all pore over the TV listings, planning where we'd spend our allotted time on the TV. We would carefully weigh the merits of all the shows we wanted to watch, and which was the very best on which to spend our time. It taught co-operation and risk-taking. Most movies are broadcast over two hours, so in order to see an entire movie, we had to either obtain the co-operation of one of our siblings beforehand, or watch the first hour and hope that one of them (or one of our parents!) would be sufficiently engrossed to watch the rest.  It also taught us that most of popular telly is crap.

And finally, it taught us that the recipient of a positive externality does not owe anything to the person who provides it. If my brother the Geek happened to choose in advance a program I was seriously considering choosing, that freed me to choose something else, without any concern over whether he'd like it or not.

This is a lesson that also applies to the rest of life, and far too few people seem to grasp this. As an example, suppose you live in a neighborhood with a neglected home that is such an eyesore that it has depressed the value of your own home, and those of your neighbors. I move into the eyesore, kill the rats, mow the lawn, fix the windows, scrub off all the graffitti, install fiber-cement siding, plant a garden, repair the sidewalk, and pour a new concrete driveway, making the former eyesore into a model home. The value of your home, and the others in the neighborhood, increase, along with the equity position of each of the homeowners. In short, you have benefited from my action. You will get more money from them if you choose to sell or obtain a second mortgage/ home equity loan. And you don't owe me a cent!

The same goes when the situation is reversed, however. If I were to sell that home to a postmodern "artiste" who painted it blaze orange and fuchsia and nailed assorted bits of trash to it and the trees I'd grown there, and pruned the trees into phallic topiaries, it could very well decrease the value of your home, perhaps even leaving you owing more on your mortgage than you could get from its sale. But just as you didn't owe me anything for making your home more valuable, neither does the artist owe you anything because its value has dropped.

The most splendid example I have seen of how to morally handle positive externalities, also known as the "free rider" question (i.e., 'how do we make free riders pay?), was from L. Neil Smith's libertarian novel, Pallas. The terraformed world of Pallas is populated by a libertarian society, that tolerates no coercion of anyone, and especially not gun control, fiat money, or taxes. But it suffers an orbital change, resulting in an ice age. There is a technological means to survive, but it is hugely expensive. The villain of the book promptly demands that an armed band be formed to demand "fair shares" of the needed money from others. The hero, who has become filthy rich from a couple of very GOOD inventions counters, essentially, "Don't bother. I'll pay for it all. Why shouldn't I? What good is all the money to me when I'm dead? And how is it any skin off my nose if, by saving my own life, everyone else lives too?"

If you do yourself some good, be glad! If that means you do somebody else some good, be glad! If the good you do yourself is good enough by itself to get you to do it, how on earth does it hurt you if that helps somebody else get ahead too? The idea that just because somebody else gets ahead means you must have been put behind is silly at best, counter-productive or even evil at worst. Besides, if the other has any sense, he'll be grateful and kindly disposed to you for the incidental good you did him.

Surely there's more; they both encouraged me at all times to seek to do and be better; they brought me to Mass every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation for at least the ten years from age 5 to Confirmation at 15; they demonstrated by example that what we could prudently afford was always good enough. And Dad left his copies of The Freeman around for me to read, so that I learned to love liberty. The list goes on and on. But I won't.

Happy Father's Day to all men who are fathers of any type, and may God bless you and all those under your paternal influence.

Mercy, Compassion, and the Prodigal

I am a huge fan of These Stone Walls.  Fr. Gordon Macrae has an entirely unique point of view in the blogosphere -- a priest sent to jail, probably for life, for crimes of sexual abuse he did not commit.  His voice is consistently one of justice, mercy, and compassion.  He deserves your attention and prayers.

In this post (go read it first.  Go read it now.), he takes Raymond Arroyo and Laura Ingraham to task for their expressed desire that soon-to-be nonogenarian Theodore McCarrick be sent to jail for his crimes.  They argue that because McCarrick has not repented, he deserves no mercy.

Perhaps he doesn't, Fr. G will admit.  But he is eighty-nine years old.  The elderly and frail are treated very badly in prison by the young and thuggish who make up the majority of its population.  Justice perhaps need not offer mercy to the unrepentant, but compassion says we should not put a man who will soon be ninety into a population that greets those like McCarrick with chants of 'Kill the priest!  Kill the priest!  Kill the priest!'  And if we are not going to kill McCarrick ourselves, then it is unjust to put him among those whom we can reasonably foresee will do so without our sanction.

Read the comments too, where compassion is likewise extended to Arroyo and Ingraham.

Deo Gratias!

Deo gratias! Habemus Papam Franciscum. Gaude!!

I've looked over Jorge Bergoglio's biography at CNS, and his Wikipedia page, and I have great hope. May God bless him and keep him, and richly bestow upon him the graces of his charism.

Who We Should Occupy

Salute to John C. Wright, who had this on his blog:

I like this guy. He tells the truth, and he has his head on straight.

One of his points that I'd like to more strongly emphasize is that smaller businesses are crowded out by regulation, and megacorps are the natural adaptation of business to extreme regulation. Furthermore, a megacorp is always going to have an easier time ensuring that no regulations to onerous to survive will affect them, by buying legislators, sending its lackeys as moles into regulatory agencies, or both.

Another is that subsidy and bailouts are theft, not laissez faire or capitalism.

A third is that we in the US also have a central bank, and it's the Federal Reserve. And it is almost entirely outside the law.

Towards More Civilized Discourse

I find myself a little dismayed when I check out a blogroll and I DON'T find These Stone Walls. Father MacRae is an excellent writer, a light to the world, and a stunning example of obedience and charity while under duress. Case in point: His post entitled, Holy Hostility, Batman! He ably decries the nastiness, name-calling, spite and vituperation prevalent in a fairly large number of blog comboxes and other online communities. He makes the case that it's not enough for the blogger to refrain from such behavior; it is also incumbent upon the blog admin to prune nastiness out of their comboxes as well. In fact, this is one of the reasons I moderate comments.

(another is so that I'll have notification of some sort that a comment has actually been posted. It's not something that happens a lot around here.)

And I fully agree that one of the hallmarks of a good blog is a good community participating in the combox. But what do you think?

The Draft Is Coming

Salutes to The Western Confucian, leading me to Terry Nelson's Abbey Roads and thence to Catholic Citizens of Illinois.

Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt is convinced that the Armed Forces are about to severely curtail the religious liberty of orthodox Christian chaplains, by forbidding them to denigrate or oppose homosexualism in any way, shape or form, except perhaps from the pulpit. He cites this document. On p24 of the memo (30th page in the PDF) we find

If a chaplain is unable to reconcile serving with or caring for gay and lesbian Service members with his or her faith, the chaplain may request that the relevant endorsing agency withdraw its ecclesiastical endorsement for him or her. This would trigger an administrative separation under DoDI 1304.28.

And on pp50-51 of the memo (the 56th and 57th pages of the PDF) we find

• Service members remain obligated to follow orders that involve interaction with others who are gay or lesbian, even if an unwillingness to do so is based on strong, sincerely held, moral or religious beliefs. As expressed in the Manual for Courts-Martial regarding a Service member’s obligation to obey orders: “the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.”
• Ser v ice members may, in appropriate circumstances and within the limitations of law and policy, express their moral or religious beliefs regarding sexual orientation. However, Service members may not make statements detrimental to good order and discipline and must obey lawful orders. Service members who feel that their religious beliefs regarding homosexuality require religious accommodation, may request such accommodation of that belief under DoDI 1300.17.

From this, he concludes that any attempt to counsel gays to abstain from homosexual behavior or suggest that it is a sin will be construed as "statements detrimental to good order and discipline" with the only available recourse being administrative separation (for the chaplain).

Now look at this post from Marc at BadCatholicBlog, claiming 45% of the military is Catholic. And every chaplain ever to win the Congressional Medal of Honor has been a devout and orthodox Catholic.

Insisting that Catholics deny one of the truths of their faith could well blow a giant hole in enlistment and re-enlistment. But this failure to retain volunteer troops will do nothing to dampen our leaders' craving for empire. And when the volunteer army can't carry the load any more, you can bet they will return to the draft.

I love the Rev. Know-It-All

Here's a man I admire, because he has taken his stand for a liturgy by the rubrics. More importantly still, he has stood up for the life of the unborn. More important still, he has stood up for valid theology. See it all in Part 19 of A Short History of the Hootenanny Mass. I can recommend the entire series with a whole heart.

You may wish to argue my priorities. I agree with Father Z, good liturgy is good for the world. But lives are more important than good liturgy. And the truth about God is the most important thing in the world.

Blogrolling number... 65. I checked.

I find blogs I like all the time. I find blogs I add to my bookmarks and blogroll regularly.

I have found no more than three or four blogs where I feel compelled to go back to the first post and read all of the archives.

BadCatholic is such a blog. Marc Barnes may only be 18, but his writing is full of love of life, orthodoxy, and Christ, His Blessed Mother, His Church, and His saints, not to mention such delightful neologisms as "badassery" and "destupidification," combined with a stark humility, demonstrated by his free and open admission that no Catholic on earth since the Assumption, least of all him, is anywhere close to perfect.

I can't promise that you'll enjoy any of it, let alone all of it. Still, I would do you a disservice if I didn't suggest you go and look.

In Which I am Too Busy to Create Content of My Own

so I refer you to this post by Simcha Fisher. She ably demolishes what is in truth a presentist attack upon George Washington.

In related news, the NAACP requested that a national boycott be made upon the city of Charlotte, NC, because they had the nerve! the effrontery! to allow the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School Board to make up for snow days by scheduling classes on Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Why, that's proof positive that Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools are the center and pinnacle of racism in America today!

Do you think for a moment there will be similar protests, should they go and do it again next month, on President's Day? My respect for Dr. King is enormous; he took a principled stand against evil at great cost to himself. This makes me wonder if the NAACP is verging towards idolatry. Dr. King was a man and a hero, not a god.

A Blast From the Past

This was originally posted August 7, 2007. I got to add a reason, and it's so AWESOME I had to repost the whole thing with the new reason at #37.

The Top 100 Reasons Burt Gummer is Better than MacGyver

Americans have a fascination with how-to, and even more so with improvisational technology. The popularity of shows like "This Old House," "Junkyard Wars," "Battle Bots," and yes, "Tremors: The Series" all reflect this fascination. But, of course, the first show to use improvisational technology as a gimmick was "MacGyver."

But let's face it. MacGyver was nowhere near as cool a character as Burt Gummer, the tough guy of "Tremors." Nothing about the show was as cool as "Tremors." And so, in tribute to Burt Gummer and all the people who've composed and posted their lists of the top 100 reasons why the original and Next Generation Star Trek captains, first officers, science officers, chief engineers, and doctors are better than each other, I'm posting this.

I know, I don't have 100 reasons. But hey, I came up with 30 all by myself in a day or two, and a couple more while typing this up, so I'm sure there must be at least that many. Maybe my four readers, if they've seen both "Tremors: The Series" and "MacGyver" could add some more.

37. There would never be anything like this for MacGyver.
36. Two words: Excessive force.
35. There is absolutely nothing contrived about Burt Gummer.
34. When Burt Gummer meets an obvious nutcase, he says so.
33. Burt Gummer is a serious opponent, while MacGyver is only an annoyance.
32. When something's out to kill Burt Gummer, he kills it first.
31. Other people actually want to be like Burt Gummer.
30. Burt Gummer has backups and reserves of everything.
29. You can readily believe that Burt Gummer could survive naked in the wilderness with nothing more than a Leatherman.
28. Burt Gummer remains devoted to his first wife.
27. Burt Gummer cynically uses the forces he hates against each other for his own benefit.
26. "Tremors: The Series" is nothing like "Knight Rider."
25. Burt Gummer doesn't have hateful animated middle-aged chain smoking DMV clerks lusting after his body.
24. Burt Gummer is not politically correct.
23. Burt Gummer worries more about his own welfare than that of his foes.
22. Burt Gummer likes weapons and is proud of it.
21. The people who turn to Burt Gummer for their safety are nearly as clever, inventive, and tough as he is.
20. Burt Gummer doesn't have to narrate himself to get his exposition done.
19. Burt Gummer's 4 wheel drive would eat MacGyver's Jeep Wrangler for breakfast.
18. Everyone in Burt Gummer's community is a working entrepreneur.
17. Burt Gummer would never wear his hair in a mullet.
16. Burt Gummer can inspire even lifelong federal bureaucrats to take decisive and necessary action in a crisis.
15. Burt Gummer isn't a pansy.
14. Burt Gummer tries simple solutions first.
13. Burt Gummer doesn't need a Babe of the Week to prove his manhood. (warning: that link is to TVTropes!)
12. When Burt Gummer gets stuck with a youthful twerp, he turns the situation to his advantage.
11. Burt Gummer is famous, but he doesn't let it go to his head.
10. Burt Gummer treats lethal menaces as such.
9. Burt Gummer and his neighbors cooperate well, in spite of their diversity and individualism.
8. Burt Gummer doesn't take unneccessary risks.
7. Burt Gummer knows Hollywood tough guys for the idiots that nearly all of them are.
6. Burt Gummer works for a living.
5. Burt Gummer makes contingency plans.
4. Burt Gummer lives in an environment that would kill MacGyver.
3. Burt Gummer sniffed out a secret underground lab from hundreds of miles away by following graboid tracks.
2. Nobody could ever just slug Burt Gummer.
1. One word: GUNS.

If you have more to suggest, oh please oh please DO. If you want to debate any of these, go ahead. But if you want to post the top 100 reasons why MacGyver is cooler, post on your own blog. I'll link to it here. I'll even give you a freebie: If anyone said "maggot DNA" on MacGyver, Mac would point out that maggots are the larval form of flies.

Victory!!

I remember reading once that the only reason that Star Wars didn't win the Oscar for Best Picture in 1976 was that so quintissentially American a picture as Rocky came out the same year.

But Rocky is not so much quintessentially American as it is Christian. Christ's victory comes only through His destruction at the hands of His enemy. If He had not died, then He cannot be risen. If He is not risen, then there is no ressurrection. Without His ressurrection, there is no victory over sin and death.

The exultation and glory we feel when Rocky Balboa returns to again challenge and then defeat Apollo Creed, is but a pale, blurred and indistinct shadow of the exultation and glory we feel in the Resurrection of Christ.

And it is because Rocky Balboa is a type of Christ, one whose victory over his opponent is born of his defeat at the same opponent's hands, that Rocky is so powerful a film.

A Profile in Heroism

Salute to NYPD Green, of the Catholic Cavemen.

Would that all of our clergy would confront the egregious evils tolerated and even celebrated in our society with the courage of Karl Malden's Father Barry, in On the Waterfront.

More Blogrollin'

Salute to the Western Confucian, as he does it again: I sincerely hope that each and every law enforcement officer and member of the armed forces would take this oath, and defend these principles.

Needless to say, I'm cross posting this to the Catholic Cavemen and adding them to the blogroll.

The Art of Manliness

I just discovered the Art of Manliness; salute goes to Jay Anderson of Pro Ecclesia. I have barely scratched its surface and already added it to my blogroll and bookmarks. It is a delightful antidote to the sort of PC stupidity that is currently held up as better than manliness, as well as the immature oafishness exemplified by the pornographic culture. Even more so than Waiter Rant or Ask Sister Mary Martha, I am motivated to read everything posted there. It's that good; everything about manliness I hope to promote by my (occasional) focus on heroism is promoted in nearly every aspect of life there. And it is my guess that the vast majority of women would love to have the sort of man that the good men at the Art of Manliness hope to help us become.

36% of the Top 100

The Top 100 Reasons Burt Gummer is Better than MacGyver

Americans have a fascination with how-to, and even more so with improvisational technology. The popularity of shows like "This Old House," "Junkyard Wars," "Battle Bots," and yes, "Tremors: The Series" all reflect this fascination. But, of course, the first show to use improvisational technology as a gimmick was "MacGyver."

But let's face it. MacGyver was nowhere near as cool a character as Burt Gummer, the tough guy of "Tremors." Nothing about the show was as cool as "Tremors." And so, in tribute to Burt Gummer and all the people who've composed and posted their lists of the top 100 reasons why the original and Next Generation Star Trek captains, first officers, science officers, chief engineers, and doctors are better than each other, I'm posting this.

I know, I don't have 100 reasons. But hey, I came up with 30 all by myself in a day or two, and a couple more while typing this up, so I'm sure there must be at least that many. Maybe my four readers, if they've seen both "Tremors: The Series" and "MacGyver" could add some more.

36. Two words: Excessive force.
35. There is absolutely nothing contrived about Burt Gummer.
34. When Burt Gummer meets an obvious nutcase, he says so.
33. Burt Gummer is a serious opponent, while MacGyver is only an annoyance.
32. When something's out to kill Burt Gummer, he kills it first.
31. Other people actually want to be like Burt Gummer.
30. Burt Gummer has backups and reserves of everything.
29. You can readily believe that Burt Gummer could survive naked in the wilderness with nothing more than a Leatherman.
28. Burt Gummer remains devoted to his first wife.
27. Burt Gummer cynically uses the forces he hates against each other for his own benefit.
26. "Tremors: The Series" is nothing like "Knight Rider."
25. Burt Gummer doesn't have hateful animated middle-aged chain smoking DMV clerks lusting after his body.
24. Burt Gummer is not politically correct.
23. Burt Gummer worries more about his own welfare than that of his foes.
22. Burt Gummer likes weapons and is proud of it.
21. The people who turn to Burt Gummer for their safety are nearly as clever, inventive, and tough as he is.
20. Burt Gummer doesn't have to narrate himself to get his exposition done.
19. Burt Gummer's 4 wheel drive would eat MacGyver's Jeep Wrangler for breakfast.
18. Everyone in Burt Gummer's community is a working entrepreneur.
17. Burt Gummer would never wear his hair in a mullet.
16. Burt Gummer can inspire even lifelong federal bureaucrats to take decisive and necessary action in a crisis.
15. Burt Gummer isn't a pansy.
14. Burt Gummer tries simple solutions first.
13. Burt Gummer doesn't need a stream of babes to prove his manhood.
12. When Burt Gummer gets stuck with a youthful twerp, he turns the situation to his advantage.
11. Burt Gummer is famous, but he doesn't let it go to his head.
10. Burt Gummer treats lethal menaces as such.
9. Burt Gummer and his neighbors cooperate well, in spite of their diversity and individualism.
8. Burt Gummer doesn't take unneccessary risks.
7. Burt Gummer knows Hollywood tough guys for the idiots that nearly all of them are.
6. Burt Gummer works for a living.
5. Burt Gummer makes contingency plans.
4. Burt Gummer lives in an environment that would kill MacGyver.
3. Burt Gummer sniffed out a secret underground lab from hundreds of miles away by following graboid tracks.
2. Nobody could ever just slug Burt Gummer.
1. One word: GUNS.

If you want to debate any of these, go ahead. But if you want to post the top 100 reasons why MacGyver is cooler, post on your own blog. I'll even give you a freebie: If anyone said "maggot DNA" on MacGyver, it would be pointed out that maggots are the larval form of flies.

Captain America

This post uses the names of a whole bunch of copyrighted characters. Such characters are property of the copyright holders, and I in no way wish to present the notion that I am such.


It's time to write about the late, great Steve Rogers, alias Captain America! I have meant to do so for some time now. For those who don't know the story, it's at Wikipedia. You'd think an Irish-American who grew up in New York in time to come of age during World War II would be strongly Catholic, but for fairly obvious commercial reasons, Marvel never particularly portrayed him that way.

I didn't properly appreciate Cap back when I read comics. Spider-Man was my kind of hero; brainy, smart-mouthed, unconventional, and mighty. Cap was staid, convetional, and (so I thought) utterly stolid. But Captain America was always THE most stand-up hero in the Marvel Universe, bar none. And Steve Rogers was the best man ever to carry the shield. No other was ever so worthy.

Part of the reason I think Cap is so worthy is that, according to his origin stories, he is not particularly superhuman -- his strength, agility, endurance, and toughness are very closely matched by Batman and the Punisher, for example. Thus, he goes forth against insanely powerful enemies with essentially human abilities and an indomitable spirit, and wins. Thus, he has less of the Neitzchean Ubermensch overtones than others in the genre.

Steve Rogers was a man whom I would be glad to see emulated, by ANYONE. He stood for the American Way of truth, justice, service, and liberty. Never mind our failure to live up to our way, that's what he stood for, in costume or not, and he always did his best to live up to it -- doing so better than any other hero in the entire superhero comics genre. Not once can I think of any action he took, which he did not see as being the best way to live up to the ideals of the American Way, and almost always rightly so.

And it is for depriving us of this paragon of adherence to the virtues of truth, justice, service, and liberty, by having him shot to death by a sniper, that I am so very disappointed with the writers over at Mighty Marvel. The more disturbed and distorted the American Way becomes, the more we need a man like Captain America to show us how to truly live up to it.

Ghost Rider

I saw Mighty Marvel's most recent DVD, Ghost Rider, last night. I had tremendous fun watching it, even though I have never been a great fan of the Ghost Rider comics. It stars Nicholas Cage, Peter Fonda, and Sam Elliot, all of whom I consider to be top performers. It is a ripping good yarn, IMO.

Naturally, being Hollywood entertainment, it is rife with bad theology and bad choices. Superhero entertainment is particularly susceptible to this, with all of its Nietzchean overtones. But for a story to be enjoyable, it has to have some truth in it, so there are also good bits you can take away from it.

Like a lot of people, Johnny Blaze's first encounter with the supernatural was with the demonic, in the character of Mephistopheles, the personification of Satan's deceptive ways. The first lesson is, when you do not promptly send evil away, you can get shafted before you know it, and the good things that are offered are really only a cheat.

From his father's death until Mephistopheles activates him as the Ghost Rider, Johnny searches for an escape from his contract and asks if it's possible that he can have a second chance. This is the same mistake that Faust made in Marlowe's play; he remains blind to God's ability to save him , no matter how far he falls. (The notion that one must deliberately sell one's soul to the Devil for him to have any claim on it is likewise deception; rejecting God will do it.)

Blaze seeks to use the power Mephistopheles has imparted to him to do good. This is at best suspect. On the one hand, God can do whatever He wants, including turn around the most horrible of situations. On the other, there really isn't any way you can hope for a good end by doing evil. This is why good ends cannot justify evil means. In the real world, magic comes from the devil, and its use will not lead to good. (See this story and this one for examples of what I mean.) The Devil isn't about to hand out the power to punish evil, as the character Mephistopheles does. On our own, we do not have the power to resist the Devil; such power comes to us only from the grace of God.

The Caretaker tells Blaze that, because his motivation for dealing with the Devil was love, God was with him. This is truth; God loves everyone who seeks to do good and all good works, no matter who does them or why.

In the end, Mephistopheles offers to remove the curse he placed on Johnny Blaze and restore his soul. This time, Blaze refuses him. This was the right decision. First, whatever the Devil offers is a cheat and a lie. Second, since his power gives retribution to evil, it is good. Third, he recognizes and accepts the redemptive power of suffering.

Franz Jägerstätter, martyr, Beatus

I'd finished with Catholic Caveman, and wandered over to Catholic Anarchy. Yeah, the two are very different. I fully agree with the Caveman on the need for more manliness, particularly in the Church. And I agree with Michael Iafrate over at Catholic Anarchy, that we ought not have invaded Iraq. I expect that he and I are fellow=travelers regarding the War on Terror as well. But this here is my blog, and I'd like to write about Franz Jägerstätter, who came to my attention via Catholic Anarchy.

Jägerstätter was one of many Catholics martyred by the Third Reich. St. Benedicta of the Cross (Edith Stien) was martyred for being a Jewish convert to Catholicism in a city where the Catholic Church decried the Nazi deportation of Jews from every pulpit. St. Maximillian Kolbe was arrested and sent to Auschwitz for sheltering some 2,000 Jews in his Franciscan friary and speaking out against the Nazis via amateur radio. He was killed because he thought it better that he should die than Franciszek Gajowniczek, who had a family. But Jägerstätter was killed for one reason only: he refused to carry a rifle for Hitler. And he refused because he recognized, as Pope Pius XII made clear in Summi Pontificatus, that Naziism was clearly incompatible with authentic Christianity. He offered to carry medical supplies and serve as a medic in the Wehrmacht, but that wasn't enough, and he was executed for it. Refusing to aid in evil, regardless of the cost, is heroism worthy of our respect, and emulation if possible and/or necessary.

Most of what I've seen praising Jägerstätter comes from voices that seem to abhor war unreservedly and praise pacifism in every case. (edit: thanks to The Western Confucian, I have found this exception.) Nothing I've seen suggests that he would have been such a voice. He saw that the Nazi Party, in both ideology and action, was completely unChristian, and he refused to take even the most limited part in their evil. But I saw no sign that he would have had similar objections to bearing arms in just defense of his nation. In my opinion, the war against the Axis was a just war, though at times conducted unjustly. Of course, the Axis made it so much more difficult by how they conducted themselves. The point I'm trying to make is that first, it is necessary to fight evil in every case. But even in fighting great evil -- and the evil of the Axis was very great -- one must not succumb to the temptation to fight evil by doing evil.

Pastor Johannes Lerle

Pastor Johannes Lerle is a Lutheran minister in Erlangen, Bavaria. For the third time, he has been sentenced to jail, this time at a bench trial, for the crime of Volksverhetzung, or incitement of the people. His sentence shall be one year in jail.

What did he do? He said that murdering unborn children (i.e., abortion), is no better than gassing Jews at Auschwitz. I consider this an obvious parallel. Unborn people are people, just as Jews are people. But Judge Erda Erdenhofner has construed it as denying the Holocaust!

I beg to differ. A law saying that an unborn person is not a person is every bit as bad as one saying a Jew is not a person. In order to accept abortion, one must depersonalize the unborn, just as accepting the Final Solution required depersonalizing the Jews, Slavs, homosexuals, handicapped, and Catholics who were its victims. It's not like we're talking about cattle or chickens, here; we're talking about people. (Although it's possible, albeit revolting, that he would have been commended for comparing a meat-packing plant to Auschwitz. Pamela Anderson would be proud of anyone who did that.)

You could suggest to Amnesty International that they add Pastor Lerle to their list of prisoners of conscience, but I wouldn't hold my breath. They have capitulated to the strident and bellicose purveyors and promoters of abortion on demand, and are unlikely to have the courage to defend somebody imprisoned for describing abortion as what it actually is, when they no longer have the courage to do so themselves.

Heroes

I've decided that heroism is a fitting theme for a manly blog. Our culture denigrates manliness, and winds up losing heroism by extension. So it is my intention, whenever I find a fitting example of heroic manliness, to post about it here.

For example, consider The Servants of God, also known as the Georgia Martyrs. These five men had no discernable fear of death. They preached the Gospel, and by extension, monogamy, to a culture that was completely polygamous. When the chief's heir married a second woman, they told him they could not support his political aspirations unless he ceased his bigamy. He got some friends together, and they killed all five of the Servants of God.

The Servants of God are vital heroes for today; we needneed men who will stand up and die, if need be, to preserve the sanctity of marriage. Never has it been so sorely pressed. Traditional marriage is a public good as I define it.

O Lord Jesus Christ, reward the apostolic zeal of Fray Pedro de Corpa and his four Companion friars, Blas, Miguel, Antonio, and Francisco, who labored for the spiritual well-being of the Natives of Georgia and gave their lives in witness to the Christian faith. Through their merits and intercession graciously grant the favor I humbly ask of You, that our society recognize the importance of marriage and come to protect it fervently, so that, for the glory of Your Name, their heroic sacrifice may be officially recognized by the Church. Amen.

p.s. I found the Servants of God in a comment box over at Ask Sister Mary Martha's Blog, which I intend to peruse fully, including all other comboxes.