Self-Immolation 2017-style

So a recent post here discussed alt-right gay celeb Milo Yiannapoulos and his unhidden Catholicism.  Well, beware the riches of fame--they come with a price.  In a few short days (February 20 & 21), Milo self-imploded.  An old video (the existence of which, apparently, was known) reemerged on YouTube wherein Yiannapoulos 1) bragged about being sexually abused by a Catholic priest sharpened his own skills as a gay lover; and 2) extolled the virtues of intergenerational sex between older men and younger (i.e., early teenage) boys.

source: Giphy

As one might imagine, the reaction was swift and extreme.  Within hours Milo had lost a prominent book deal, a prime-time speaking engagement at CPAC, and eventually his job at tech editor at Breitbart, the well-known right-wing alt-news outlet.  

Then the fun really started.

Basically, the Catholic social media universe went nuts.  Prominent Catholic blogger-writers such as Mark Shea, Simcha Fischer, and Scott Eric Alt denounced Milo's statements and initial coy refusal to retract any of it.  

And then, as if on cue, the Catholic Milo-defenders sprang up.  Yes, Milo said some awful things but, since he's Catholic, we must defend him.  Or, "the Left hates Milo so we must love and protect Milo."

Shea, Alt, and Fisher, of course, were having none of it.

This British writer pulls back the curtain on the entire Milo entourage, a scary world run by straight white males scarcely out of their teens.  And then they meet real, violent resistance...and soil their shorts. It is a wince-inducing read--but a necessary one.

The entire conflagration blew up at the right time: just before Lent.  The Stream asks the perennial question: Had conservatives sought the world's riches, personified by Milo's gay bombast, at the expense of their souls?  And the honest answer is, well, YES.  A free society, the author reminds us, is a good one first.  Author Joshua Charles:

Conservatism that abandons, explicitly or implicitly, the idea that virtue is necessary, not optional, for a free society, is conservatism that has lost its way and ceased to be conservative. Conservatives who maintain that “moral chains” are not all that important so long as they get in the way of temporary “winning” are not conservatives, but anti-conservatives. They know not what they do. They have forgotten that one can gain the whole world, and yet lose one’s soul.

And in blindly accepting Milo, or another other earthly savior, conservatives eschewed the good for the hard-hitting and powerful.  A house built on sand...


To survive the Trump presidency--or any other secular political reign/regime--requires the Gospel and thus the Church. Both St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI described a Roman Catholic "communion ecclesiology" wherein the bonds of community, seen precisely in the Eucharist, provide the sure pathway to and with Christ.  Chasing after the latest dumpster fire--Milo or anybody else--might provide a sugar-rush, but just as surely there will follow a disastrous crash.

No Easy Choices

I have a stellar record at choosing presidential elections. With two exceptions (Clinton in 1992 and 1996), I have voted for the LOSING candidate in every election since 1988.  Prior to that, when my political views closely resembled my parents' (as might be expected), the only bright spot was Carter's election in 1976.  You will note, therefore, that somewhere in the past two decades a political shift occurred on my part.  That's a blog post for another time.

So with that losing streak in mind, here is my endorsement for the 2016 presidency:

at least not Trump

That's about the best I can do.

Given the realities of American politics, not voting for Trump will have the effect--not the only one, but a significant one nonetheless--of supporting Hillary Clinton.  That is an unfortunate, but in this case unavoidable, reality.  Secretary Clinton's record contains several aspects which make it difficult, and in some cases impossible, to recommend supporting her candidacy.  With any other candidate running against her it would be easy to recommend that other candidate.

That is not the election we face. The one we do face offers only poor and poorer choices.

So, cue the humor:

The Sweet Meteor of Death!

Source: Imgur

There's a pretty funny Twitter feed for SMOD2016 here.  

Or...H. P. Lovecraft's Cthulhu!

Source: Cthulhu4America (Twitter)

Or even:


Source:  Imgur

backing off...a cliff

While saying Mass late last month, Father Jacques Hamel was murdered by two jihadists.  And already some of the Catholic world wants to, whoa, pull back the reins because y'know, celebrating "martyrdom" comes too close to the jihadists themselves.


Allen Jacobs:

But worse than the incoherence is this: the question of whether Fr. Hamel isgenuinely a martyr is one that Vallely desperately wishes to avoid. For him, the Church is not to acknowledge its martyrs unless such acknowledgment serves what Vallely believes to be the proper political calculation of the moment. For him this is the key: “we must resist the notion that a fundamental clash of civilizations is the issue.” Nothing can be done that stands a chance of feeding a political narrative which Vallely finds tasteless. Thus: “The real problem is the pathology of a perverse minority of extremists with distorted notions of holy war and martyrdom.” Ah yes, the real problem at last! This is moral equivalence at its most loathsome: those who would seek Fr. Hamel’s canonization are morally indistinguishable from his murderers, because both belong to that “perverse minority of extremists with distorted notions of … martyrdom.”

So let not the Church call its martyrs martyrs, lest by doing so she fall into “extremism.” Let not the ancient commitment to honor the martyrs of Christ get in the way of political convenience. 

Read all of Jacobs' criticism here.

Jacobs is exactly right here and, ya' gotta admit it, part of this reticence he targets comes from the Catholic tradition itself. Or at least an interpretation of the tradition.

It's also, and this is where, if not already, I lose friends on the Left, part of the New York Times worldview:  one where moral individualism reigns supreme and any claim that restricts or denies that is anathema. Furthermore, the NYT appreciates culture and learning, but only insofar as they uphold the a priori moral individualism.  So something as grotesque and bloodily real as "martrydom"--by anybody--must be held at arm's length.  It's easy to do this with ISIS-martyrs, but when Roman Catholic Christianity--that tradition from which the ersatz NYT worldview itself grows (and from which it, the NYT, has long since severed itself)--then distinctions and clarifications must be made.  The last thing the NYT wants is for any of its oh-so-smart readers to be challenged....by something other than itself.  If the NYT itself challenges, well, that's fine.  But gads, not that Catholicism stuff...again.

And throughout that little rant you probably could substitute "liberal middle-to-upper class and their progressive friends." This worldview encompasses most of liberal mainstream Protestantism and not a few swaths of liberal American Catholics.  This group still insists that "embracing the world" requires first bracketing one's own beliefs.  So, if we're confronted with ISIS and we want their religiously-infused violence to stop (a worthy desire!), then, in this worldview, we throttle back first on our own views.  With Father Hamel, that means toning down all this martrydom stuff.

There are many responses ("You're just plain wrong" comes to mind), but Karl Barth has a good one:

THE BEST APOLOGETIC IS A GOOD DOGMATIC.

There, that wasn't so hard, was it?  Instead of backing up, start first with statement of belief, a credo.  Then, as William Placher wrote in 1989, proceed unapologetically. Stop seeking prolegomena;  you'll never find a universal common ground that includes virtually everybody.  Proceed instead with the Church's beliefs and the given issue at the time.  In doing so you won't insult your dialogue partner, either.  Let's be honest, ISIS' notion of "dialogue" is "convert to Islam." That's just as unhelpful as the NYT worldview.  For example, one of best known images of Father Hamel (seen above) came from a Muslim artist in France.  Hey, that's real interreligious dialogue; the recognition and appreciation of the other's views without sacrificing your own.  

Because if you start with an apology as so many of our cultural elites want, we'll end up with no ground on which to stand.  We'll have backed ourselves off a cliff.

Meanwhile, pray for the respose, and intercession, of Father Hamel and all holy martyrs.