Saturday, August 18, 2018

Jane Austen: Facts, Life and Literature

From History Extra:
In letters to her sister, Jane described Pride and Prejudice (1813) as her “darling child” and wrote “I am never too busy to think of S & S (Sense and Sensibility). I can no more forget it than a mother can forget her sucking child”.This is an interesting analogy because, like pregnancy and childbirth, the creation of her novels was a long and laborious process. Pride and Prejudice, for example, was a long time in the making – she started the first draft in October 1796 but the book wasn’t published until January 1813. The (unread) manuscript was rejected by the first publisher to whom it was sent.
In regarding her novels as her children Jane may also have been acknowledging that if she had followed the traditional path of women of her class and become a wife and mother she would probably not have written them. Her letters contain no indication that she regretted not having children but, if she did, at least she had the compensation of her many nephews and nieces, to whom she was a devoted and much-loved aunt. (Read more.)
Share

The Devil in the Details

Michael Knowles is worth listening to anytime but particularly in regard to the horrific crisis in the Catholic Church. I understand that sexual abuse is everywhere. However. the sexual abuse of innocent children and teens by ordained Roman Catholic ministers of God is worse than any other kind of abuse. It is worse because of what we Catholics believe about the sacred ministry of the priesthood. Even if there had only been one case of clerical abuse in the whole history of the Church, it would be matter for intense penance and reparation until the end of time. Share

Goals of the Revolution

From TFP:
Karl Marx saw traditional marriage as a function of the capitalist system, a way in which a man gained legal and complete possession of a woman who became his private property. To end that system, he argued that both women and men should “love” anyone that they pleased—advocating what many modern people call free love.

This is a marvelous example of Prof. Plinio Correa de Olivera’s contention that we are in a single revolution which has moved in several phases through the last five centuries. In the so-called Reformation, the process of separating the Church from marriage began. In fact many Calvinists saw marriage as a civil contract having nothing to do with the Church.

This, then, expanded into the phase of revolution known as the Enlightenment, in which any sense of faithfulness in marriage was dismissed. Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that marital fidelity was simply unnatural—and that it should be abandoned so that man could become the being that nature intended him to be. At this point, however, belief in this theory was limited to the intelligentsia. For the common farmer and shop owner, the benefits of marriage were too obvious to be dismissed so easily.

The third phase of the Revolution—Communism—further expanded this free love idea by seeing marriage was a function of capitalism that would have to be destroyed. To Marx and his legion of followers, free love would lead to the advancement of society. (Read more.)
Share

Friday, August 17, 2018

Ordeals of the Dauphin

From East of the Sun, West of the Moon, via vivelareine: "Louis XVII in the Temple Tower by Charles-Albert Walhain.Late 19th or early 20th century."

My broadcasts from Tea at Trianon Radio: Part I and Part II. Share

Our Right to Listen

I would not mind them banning so-called right-wingers if the same standards were applied to the Left, but they are not. From Townhall:
With the First Amendment we talk about government violating a person’s right to speak or write. But does anyone have a “right” to force a private company to broadcast his or her views? Ironically, liberals once might have argued so. Just a few years ago they demanded that government redress the supposed monopoly power of television and radio stations with the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” which put Washington in the middle of programming decisions. However, that was then. Now the Left doesn’t believe in fairness when it comes to anyone else. (Read more.)
Share

The Crisis of Catholic Catechesis

From TFP:
Catholics have long agonized over the causes of poor catechesis. Anyone reading this lament could list the usual suspects. There are too many homilies that are long on vague assertions that we should love each other, but woefully short on doctrine and warnings against sin. There is the doctrinal confusion that came with “the spirit of Vatican II.” All too many modern catechists are poorly formed in the faith themselves. Daily religion lessons in Catholic schools of the past have been largely replaced by 45-minute weekly sessions for public school children called CCD. And the list goes on. Perhaps another cause might be the pernicious effect of the educational theories of John Dewey. (Read more.)
Share

Thursday, August 16, 2018

Mic'd Up Interview

I had the honor of discussing Marie-Antoinette with Michael Voris on Church Militant TV via Skype. To quote:
The French Revolution: high point of humanism or great step backwards? Michael Voris finds out on this week's edition of Mic'd Up. Guests include Mario Navarro da Costa of Tradition, Family and Property, Film Producer Daniel Rabourdin, and author Elena Maria Vidal.
Share

Anti-Christian Bigotry, Plain And Simple

From The Federalist:
Pence is really no different than your run-of-the-mill evangelical, like millions of Americans. He believes that God governs the affairs of men, that prayer is effectual and worth doing, that marriage and family are best when built upon a married mother and father, that life is sacred and abortion destroys life, and that God appoints our government’s leaders, even those who are hostile to Him. Bruni adds that Pence is a greater threat to the universe than Trump because he holds, “…the conviction that he’s on a mission from God and a determination to mold the entire nation in the shape of his own faith, a regressive, repressive version of Christianity.”

Besides sliming the Blues Brothers, he fails to appreciate that he has done so to millions of simple middle-Americans who believe that seeking to serve God in one’s life and work is a profound virtue and desirable life trait. Bruni continues on this remarkable trail: Trade Trump for Pence “and you go from kleptocracy to theocracy.”

How does one even respond to such meteoric hyperbole masquerading as thoughtfulness? Every person in government who’s possessed any measure of traditional Christian conviction and has the temerity to live by it has been accused of wanting to start a theocracy. The charge has grown quite thin and it has never even come close to happening. Chicken Little again.

Bruni fails to see — as do most of his peers — that it is precisely this kind of elitist bigotry that fueled Trump’s ascendency. But they keep topping off that tank with tanker-truck after tanker-truck of high-test vitriol. Bruni knows Pence is guilty of all of this and it disqualifies him, not only as a leader of our nation, but as a sane person, because there’s a new book coming out that says so. Bruni says the book “presents an entirely damning portrait of Pence,” but rest assured, it does so in a “mostly measured tone.” Yes, he actually modifies the phrase “entirely damning portrait” with the reassuring phrase “measured tone.”

In the book’s 300-plus mostly measured pages, the author cannot come up with one salutary thing to say about our nation’s vice-president? A book that only offers sentence after sentence from first page to last of how bad a person is is called “not worth reading,” because it’s hard to take seriously. However, Bruni and the book’s author believe the book is a must-read and serves an essential national interest because, as the author explains, “People don’t understand what Pence is: a religious zealot.”

A religious zealot, in the parlance of Christian antagonists, is merely a person who strongly believes things of faith that you disagree with. It’s a very subjective word and thus makes it easy to throw around with equal parts casualness and moral superiority. But it is likely true that most people do understand that Pence is a man of serious faith, and they like him for it. (Read more.)
Share