Posted on 07/06/2005 10:01:01 PM PDT by annalex
THE NEEDLE, PLEASE
I think I was in college when I first subscribed to "National Review" magazine. I kept renewing faithfully for more than three decades. Some years ago a youngish editor was brought in, and after a while I no longer saw any of the familiar names.
Of course, some long-time writers had moved into a well-deserved retirement, and some had died. It was natural for the roster to change, but other things also changed, including the magazine's intellectual level and commitment to principle.
This year I ignored the pleas to renew and let my subscription lapse. Occasionally I visit the magazine's web site, National Review Online, but the same new writers are there, producing much juvenilia and showing themselves to be more loyal to a political party than to traditional ideas.
Let me give one example. John Derbyshire, a transplanted Englishman, wrote this at the web site:
"At the Atlanta bash last month, an audience member asked the panel whether the [Terri] Schiavo case had caused us to change our minds about the underlying issues. I piped up and said, yes, the case had changed my mind in one respect. It had made me realise--a thing I never realised before--that I do favor euthanasia.
"Ramesh [Ponnuru, another writer for "National Review"] asked me at some point why, if I were willing to see Mrs. Schiavo have her feeding withdrawn so that she dehydrated to death over several days, I wasn't willing to just have her [be] given a lethal injection. I couldn't think of any satisfactory answer to this, and haven't been able to since; so in all honesty, I am bound to say I favor the lethal injection, in at least some cases.
"Since I have never had a strict anti-abortion position, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to find that I don't have a strict anti-euthanasia position, either. I just hadn't thought it through before."
Apparently not.
LITMUS TESTS
Sandra Day O'Connor has tendered her resignation, and President Bush is making preparations to nominate a replacement. We will know soon enough who that will be.
Liberals on the Senate judiciary committee are making the usual demands for a "centrist" nominee, which is to say someone who passes the pro-abortion litmus test. Unlike many others, I have no problems with litmus tests. I think the President should use one in making his choice.
The one he should use was given in our "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics." The nominee should be someone who conforms to Catholic teaching on all five non-negotiables, even if the nominee is not a Catholic. Other considerations should be secondary: male vs. female, this ethnic group or that, long-time confidant of the President or not.
Just as a litmus test should be used in selecting a new member of the Supreme Court, so one should be used in selecting writers for a magazine that claims to articulate the conservative political position. While I hope that the President will have the courage to impose a litmus test (I have my doubts, but we shall see), I have no real hope that "National Review" will undertake an internal reform. I think the magazine is too far gone.
"National Review" has been reliably, if not ideally, pro-life, but why is a man such as John Derbyshire still associated with it?
I had not been aware that he "never had a strict anti-abortion position"--I do not recall his having written about abortion--but now he has admitted it, and he has gone further than most of the people who sided with Terri Schiavo's husband. Derbyshire says it would have been fine if she had been put to death the way inmates on death row are put to death (and the way pets are "put to sleep"), with an injection.
No matter what his skills as a writer--and he has produced nicely crafted columns--Derbyshire has shown himself to be a bad thinker. He may be expert at mathematics (I have enjoyed his frequent mathematical interludes), but he is hopeless at morals. That he remains at the magazine tells us much about its editors and their principles.
There was a time when "National Review" really did "stand athwart History, yelling 'Stop!'" (a line from its first issue). But that was a long time ago. Accommodation with the secular mind-set started several decades back, but with the almost complete changeover in staff the accommodation accelerated, and the result is a party magazine that increasingly follows the "big tent" strategy.
This is not a strategy based on firm principle but on the exigencies of political maneuvering. If today the magazine has no qualms running articles by someone who favors euthanasia, is there any certainty that in a few years it won't favor euthanasia as an editorial policy?
POPE PETER II
Yes, this is a look at another anti-pope. I ask you to read these few paragraphs because there will be a follow-up in next week's E-Letter. The follow-up will not be about the man who styles himself "Pope Peter II" but about a prominent American apologist who, it seems, has a connection with this anti-pope.
For now let me tell you about Maurice Archieri. He says he became the real pope in 1995 through the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Archieri was then 70, so he would be 80 now. Prior to his retirement he worked as an automotive mechanic. I have been unable to find at his site anything to suggest any sort of theological training. What I did find was a touching video. You can find it and his position papers at http://custodi.club.fr/Indexangl.htm
The video shows the 2002 episcopal ordination of Jean-Marie Archieri. The ordinand seems to be nearly as old as "Pope Peter II," so perhaps he is his brother. Be that as it may, the video shows a ceremony that takes place in a tiny chapel, cluttered the way most "independent Traditionalist" chapels are cluttered. The room may have been used previously as a bedroom. It is that small.
The two Archieris are assisted by a much younger man, dressed in a surplice. He looks a bit bored. He frequently turns his head to look around the room, and at one point he rubs his finger in his ear. I wonder what he really thought about these two elderly men playing bishop.
"Pope Peter II" heads a group called Catholici Semper Idem (Catholics Always the Same). Its web site is in French with an execrable translation into English. The translation apparently was generated automatically by a computer program--in this case a program that needs a more skilled programmer.
Despite the mock-English, you can make out well enough the group's arguments, the chief one being that John Paul II was not a real pope. In the mind of "Peter II," the late pontiff actually was a "prophet of the Antichrist" who merely dressed up as pope. This is ironic, coming from a man who dresses up as pope.
There are many anti-popes in today's world, perhaps more than at any time in history. In some cases--and perhaps this is one--it is hard not to feel empathy for the pretender because the man does not realize that he is pretending. For whatever reason, he really thinks that he is the head of the Church.
It is hard to be angry with someone whose actions may be the result of mental imbalance, senility, or grossly misguided idealism. (Some anti-popes are quite clearly con men, but most appear to be convinced of the authenticity of their papal status.)
As I said, these paragraphs about yet another anti-pope have a connection with something that will appear in next week's E-Letter. Stay tuned.
Until next time,
Karl
Perhaps. Yet much has occured in this country without the consent of the governed. Government has become so huge that citizens feel helpless against it. Why shouldn't they in an era of "big government conservatism"?
Yes there is that strange intellectual tic of the neo-conmen, it's as though they believe they can ingratiate themselves with the liberals if they attack someone-anyone- to the right of them, principles be damned!
As for Ponnuru, I believe that NRO showed a skirmish between him and Derbyshire over the Schiavo case.
"Legitimate role of the military is to win defensive wars. In America that translates to no need for draft."
An equally important role is to deter attack by looking as though you can defeat potential attackers.
Si vis pacem, para bellum. It's natural law; make your peace with it.
Further, it it quite legitimate for one country to go to the aid of another, when that country is attacked or imminently threatened.
"Everything else is statist fluff"
Even Hayek concedes that the state has legitimate roles. Denying that moves past libertarianism to anarchism.
"which causes your typing fatigue."
It had a lot more to do with it being almost 3 a.m. in Yokohama.
"This seems somewhat hard to reconcile with the Declaration."
Not in the least. The Declaration is founded on the assumption that rights, and therefore justly wielded powers, are from God.
That's funny. Weren't the British both of those at one time? It's like hating your distant cousins. Weird.
As for Derbyshire; well, he's no Enoch Powell, that's for sure.
"In other words, might makes right."
Oh for corn's sake. We have had the draft during at least two periods of our history without such extreme consequences.
"Many parents are asking that question. Home schooling is growing in leaps and bounds."
Yes, and given the state of American schools, that's a good thing.
My point, however, was that there is no consensus--nor, I think, any compelling argument--that compulsory schooling itself is either unconstitutional or malum in se.
"You seemed to equate the Constitution with Revelation. Perhaps I read your post wrong:"
I think so. There's nothing in that passage that equates the Constitution with Revelation.
LOL!! Very true. The woman they sing their national anthem to has quite a distinguish German lineage!
As for Derbyshire; well, he's no Enoch Powell, that's for sure.
Also very true. Actually, I think he's more of Theodore Dalrymple/Mark Steyn wannabe. But then again -- who wouldn't want to be as great a writer as those guys.
You were not talking about the draft, but about "community service." The draft may be necessary for the common defense, which is a legitimate concern of the federal government; but forcing young people to do "community service" is not a power granted by Constitution to the federal government. Nor does such service comport with the concept of limited government.
Compulsory national service would not produce oppression on the order of slavery or the Holocaust. However, it would turn out to be just another monumental government boondoggle. There is no way that the federal government can employ tens of millions of young people in worthwhile pursuits; instead, their service would be wasted on useless, even counterproductive busywork.
I think you are probably right. If not him then perhaps Bob Sungenis or Chris Ferrara?
I have no doubt that it will be Gerry. Gerry is very much a teacher and not a fighter. He and Gerry also have a history. I believe he goes for Gerry because Gerry doesn't retaliate. Being on the road so much, he simply doesn't have time.
Bob Sungenis obviously is willing to go at it since he went after him for his attacks on Gerry. As an aside, Bob and Gerry will be having a debate in the Autumn over the Novus Ordo, it will be interesting to see where that goes. I was with Gerry a few months ago and he was discussing the debate. He said that he would prefer a discussion format and not a debate between the two of them because they are friends. But he said Bob insisted on the debate format so they could really go at it. Gerry said he was told that Bob enjoys the rough and tumble "bloodsport" of the debate format. My hope is that no matter how the debate goes, that they will remain respectful and show the world that good traditionalists can debate with dignity. If not, I'm sure it will be quite a dust up.
No way would he go for Ferrara. Ferrara is fearless. He would eat him alive.
Neo Catholic apologists don't really want to contest with Traditionalists because they just can't win. They built themselves around defending Catholicism against Protestantism, Orthodoxy, JWs etc. But they can't defend the novelties they accept against Catholicism. That's why there is no discussion about traditionalists on EWTN's television network. It was amazing watching them try to put a cap on Mel Gibson's traditonalism, but he managed to always get a few subtle points across. I'm reminded of what Bishop Williamson of the SSPX said in one interview about the bishops, "They may have the Catholic Faith but they do not have that spirit of combat which is part of the Faith." That also applies to much of the conciliar Church.
Ummm... I don't think so.
Perhaps you are unaware of Karl's January 27, 2004 E-Letter in which he discusses Gerry's Howard Dean-like meltdown.
Read this for details. After reading this, I don't think "teacher and not a fighter" is the best way to describe him.
Yes I am quite aware of it.
I had Patrick Madrid "virtually" screaming at me as I demonstrated that Karl was lying by mentioning FrFeeney.org as the website that Gerry was associated with.
The St. Benedict Center that Gerry is associated with is Catholicism.org
And since Keating this very day just made an utter fool of himself on another forum, I tend to believe that Gerry was not screaming at the top of his lungs but rather speaking loudly because he was speaking to a room full of people as well as the eye-rolling Keating.
Also in the link you posted. Keating basically denies the dogma of the Catholic Church. A real debate between Keating and Gerry on this issue would clear up the whole thing. But you'll never see Gerry's position written by Gerry posted on Catholic Answers. They like to "tell you" what "they said" and they never let you actually know what they said.
Gerry's exposition of EENS is brilliantly clear. I've seen and heard him explain it. He only quotes the Magisterium of the Church and the Doctor's of the Church. If Keating has a problem with Gerry's position. He's got a problem with Catholicism. But hey, what liberal doesn't?
Only if you accept Karl Keating's word, and respect him. Which after seeing his bad behavior on another forum, here I don't.
"but forcing young people to do "community service" is not a power granted by Constitution to the federal government."
If that is the case, and I'm not at all sure that it is, that could be dealt with by constitutional amendment.
"Nor does such service comport with the concept of limited government."
Depending on the extent and conditions of such service, I think it does. "Limited" is not synonymous with "non-existent."
"Compulsory national service would not produce oppression on the order of slavery or the Holocaust."
Congratulations, you're the first of my opponents to admit that.
"However, it would turn out to be just another monumental government boondoggle."
It might, or it might not, depending on how well it were accomplished.
"their service would be wasted on useless, even counterproductive busywork."
As I stated earlier, one good place to put them to work would be in the repair of roads and bridges.
"The Declaration would require that the power be thought to come from God through the consent of the governed, would it not?"
The Declaration presumes that God gives us the right to be free from oppressive tyranny, to be safe in our persons and our property.
It is not the Catholic Church's position that God approves of oppressive tyranny.
It boils down to two different ways of saying pretty much the same thing.
I don't think the US needs to project a stronger image than what it already has. And which is that other nation being invaded?
But the bottom line is, all these exceptions: defensive sabre-rattling and defensive war on behalf of others are still defensive wars. Everyone already admits that when there is a military necessity, draft is permissible.
I was wrong about Ponnuru, -- he is a good one on this.
I think, the temptation to ingratiate oneself with the liberals is particularly string in the New York City and Washington cocktail circuit, where most of the NR staff (and the Supreme Court justices) spend their time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.