The Body Is Not a Prison: Franciscan Spirituality and Modern Neo-Catharism

 

From Hilary White at The Sacred Images Project:

I was thinking about it all again today while looking at some of the Franciscan artworks from the 13th century. These are in a form that is thought by some art historians to have been popularised by the Church as an answer to the Catharist1 heresy, that was gaining ground in some parts of Italy at the time. Once you learn something about Catharism, you start to see similarities happening all around us, and you start to wonder what part of that Franciscan spirituality might be useful to us now.

It’s a popular pastime of revisionist modern historians to cast the Cathars and other medieval heretical movements as innocent, hobbitish hippies who just wanted to do their thing and be left alone by the wicked patriarchal oppressors in the Catholic Church. It can be eye-opening to learn what they were up to, the extreme consequences of Bad Ideas.

How could a good God have made a world containing suffering, decay and cruelty? The Cathars answered this ancient problem by reviving Dualism, separating God from creation and attributing the material world to an evil power. Some Cathar groups taught there were two eternal principles, two equal and opposed “gods”. Others said the evil creator of material reality was subordinate to the good, spiritual God. Either way, the main point is that material creation, including our bodies, are evil, stopping us having union with God.

This created the idea of a radical separation within man, between the material, bodily self and the spiritual self or soul. The spiritual element in the human person, they said, belonged to the higher, spiritual realm and salvation meant liberation from the captivity of material physicality. All sorts of things follow logically from this starting point. (Read more.)

 

My novel on the Cathars, HERE. How it was stolen and made into a film, HERE.

Share

The Perfect President Who Never Existed

 From Unlicensed Punditry:

President Reagan is considered by many to be the patron saint of modern American conservatism. Reagan believed in limited government, individual liberty, free enterprise, and a strong national defense. He also raised taxes, signed an immigration amnesty (he believed the Democrats were honorable), negotiated compromises on Social Security, presided over substantial increases in the national debt, and accepted government policies that would send some of today’s self-described constitutional conservatives into fits of apoplexy.

By the standards of ideological purity some demand of Trump, Reagan himself might be dismissed as insufficiently conservative. Apparently, the only acceptable conservative president is one who has never occupied the Oval Office.

Reagan also enjoyed a political advantage that no longer exists in any meaningful form. During the 1980s, conservative Democrats, particularly those from the South and rural America, frequently crossed party lines to support his agenda. Reagan never had a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, yet he accomplished much of his legislative program through coalitions with Democrats who shared enough of his principles to recognize common objectives.

Those Reagan era conservative Democrats have largely disappeared from Congress, victims of the ideological sorting that has transformed both parties into increasingly homogeneous political organizations. Reagan governed in a political environment where disagreement did not automatically constitute treason against one’s party.

This brings us to Trump and the curious phenomenon of conservatives who appear to measure him against a president assembled entirely from their own political preferences. This imaginary president never compromises, never makes an unfortunate appointment, never says anything embarrassing, never signs imperfect legislation, and never exercises executive authority in a manner that offends their particular interpretation of constitutional government. He also never has to negotiate with Congress, deal with an entrenched bureaucracy, confront hostile courts, or win an election. Governing is remarkably easy when your presidency exists entirely between your ears.

President Reagan is considered by many to be the patron saint of modern American conservatism. Reagan believed in limited government, individual liberty, free enterprise, and a strong national defense. He also raised taxes, signed an immigration amnesty (he believed the Democrats were honorable), negotiated compromises on Social Security, presided over substantial increases in the national debt, and accepted government policies that would send some of today’s self-described constitutional conservatives into fits of apoplexy.

By the standards of ideological purity some demand of Trump, Reagan himself might be dismissed as insufficiently conservative. Apparently, the only acceptable conservative president is one who has never occupied the Oval Office.

Reagan also enjoyed a political advantage that no longer exists in any meaningful form. During the 1980s, conservative Democrats, particularly those from the South and rural America, frequently crossed party lines to support his agenda. Reagan never had a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, yet he accomplished much of his legislative program through coalitions with Democrats who shared enough of his principles to recognize common objectives.

Those Reagan era conservative Democrats have largely disappeared from Congress, victims of the ideological sorting that has transformed both parties into increasingly homogeneous political organizations. Reagan governed in a political environment where disagreement did not automatically constitute treason against one’s party.

This brings us to Trump and the curious phenomenon of conservatives who appear to measure him against a president assembled entirely from their own political preferences. This imaginary president never compromises, never makes an unfortunate appointment, never says anything embarrassing, never signs imperfect legislation, and never exercises executive authority in a manner that offends their particular interpretation of constitutional government. He also never has to negotiate with Congress, deal with an entrenched bureaucracy, confront hostile courts, or win an election. Governing is remarkably easy when your presidency exists entirely between your ears.

President Reagan is considered by many to be the patron saint of modern American conservatism. Reagan believed in limited government, individual liberty, free enterprise, and a strong national defense. He also raised taxes, signed an immigration amnesty (he believed the Democrats were honorable), negotiated compromises on Social Security, presided over substantial increases in the national debt, and accepted government policies that would send some of today’s self-described constitutional conservatives into fits of apoplexy.

By the standards of ideological purity some demand of Trump, Reagan himself might be dismissed as insufficiently conservative. Apparently, the only acceptable conservative president is one who has never occupied the Oval Office.

Reagan also enjoyed a political advantage that no longer exists in any meaningful form. During the 1980s, conservative Democrats, particularly those from the South and rural America, frequently crossed party lines to support his agenda. Reagan never had a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, yet he accomplished much of his legislative program through coalitions with Democrats who shared enough of his principles to recognize common objectives.

Those Reagan era conservative Democrats have largely disappeared from Congress, victims of the ideological sorting that has transformed both parties into increasingly homogeneous political organizations. Reagan governed in a political environment where disagreement did not automatically constitute treason against one’s party.

This brings us to Trump and the curious phenomenon of conservatives who appear to measure him against a president assembled entirely from their own political preferences. This imaginary president never compromises, never makes an unfortunate appointment, never says anything embarrassing, never signs imperfect legislation, and never exercises executive authority in a manner that offends their particular interpretation of constitutional government. He also never has to negotiate with Congress, deal with an entrenched bureaucracy, confront hostile courts, or win an election. Governing is remarkably easy when your presidency exists entirely between your ears.

President Reagan is considered by many to be the patron saint of modern American conservatism. Reagan believed in limited government, individual liberty, free enterprise, and a strong national defense. He also raised taxes, signed an immigration amnesty (he believed the Democrats were honorable), negotiated compromises on Social Security, presided over substantial increases in the national debt, and accepted government policies that would send some of today’s self-described constitutional conservatives into fits of apoplexy.

By the standards of ideological purity some demand of Trump, Reagan himself might be dismissed as insufficiently conservative. Apparently, the only acceptable conservative president is one who has never occupied the Oval Office.

Reagan also enjoyed a political advantage that no longer exists in any meaningful form. During the 1980s, conservative Democrats, particularly those from the South and rural America, frequently crossed party lines to support his agenda. Reagan never had a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, yet he accomplished much of his legislative program through coalitions with Democrats who shared enough of his principles to recognize common objectives.

Those Reagan era conservative Democrats have largely disappeared from Congress, victims of the ideological sorting that has transformed both parties into increasingly homogeneous political organizations. Reagan governed in a political environment where disagreement did not automatically constitute treason against one’s party.

This brings us to Trump and the curious phenomenon of conservatives who appear to measure him against a president assembled entirely from their own political preferences. This imaginary president never compromises, never makes an unfortunate appointment, never says anything embarrassing, never signs imperfect legislation, and never exercises executive authority in a manner that offends their particular interpretation of constitutional government. He also never has to negotiate with Congress, deal with an entrenched bureaucracy, confront hostile courts, or win an election. Governing is remarkably easy when your presidency exists entirely between your ears. (Read more.)

Share

UK Cathedral Could Be First to Shut in Church of England’s history - Opened in 1108

 From Express:

A UK cathedral dating back to 1108 is at risk of closure due to financial challenges. The cathedral's dean has warned it will run out of money next year and faces becoming the first to shut in the Church of England's 492-year history. He admitted that if "something major doesn't change", it will be forced to close due to a funding deficit required for urgent structural repairs. Southwell Minster, built during the reign of Henry I, serves as the cathedral church for the Anglican Diocese of Southwell and Nottingham. It is known for its Norman and Gothic architecture, as well as its world-renowned Leaves of Southwell, which are detailed 13th-century stone carvings located in its Chapter House. (Read more.)

Share

On Display: Henrietta Maria and the Materials of Magnificence at the Stuart Court

 

 A book review by Tony Riches.

Queen Henrietta Maria is often remembered as the French Catholic queen whose religious beliefs and political influence made her unpopular with many of her English subjects. This book looks beyond the familiar accounts and explores the the objects, clothes and surroundings that shaped her life at court.

Erin Griffey's central argument is that magnificence was about much more than wealth or personal vanity. In the seventeenth century, clothing, jewellery, paintings, furnishings and architecture communicated status and authority. Henrietta Maria understood this instinctively. She brought the traditions and tastes of the French court to England and used her patronage to establish a distinctive identity within the Stuart monarchy.

I particularly like the way Erin Griffey looks beyond familiar portraits by Anthony van Dyck to explore the material world behind them. Household accounts and inventories reveal the richness of the queen's clothing and possessions, offering details paintings cant convey. It is a reminder that royal portraits were carefully constructed representations, not straightforward records of everyday appearance.

The chapters exploring Somerset House were especially interesting. The palace was more than a royal residence; it was a reflection of Henrietta Maria's taste, ambitions and determination to establish a court of her own. Erin Griffey shows how interiors, furnishings and the work of artists and craftsmen contributed to the presentation of royal authority. (Read more.)

Share

20 Million “New Voters” with No Proof of Citizenship

From Tierney's Real News:

If you want to understand what actually happened to our elections, you have to compare 2026 directly against 2024.

When you look at the raw state-by-state data, the true story emerges: roughly 25 million fewer Republicans turned out in 2026 in states where a Senator or Governor was on the line - compared to Trump’s 2024 presidential totals, while the Democrat voter drop-off was only about 14 million.

Republicans collapsed without Trump at the top of the ticket. Democrats did not.

Since publishing those numbers, I’ve been digging deeper into how the Democrats were able to add 11 million more votes in key states and 20 million more votes nationwide in this midtern — and why the establishment GOP seems completely unbothered by it. What I found answers the question of why the turnout numbers looked the way they did, and it points to a massive “manipulation” that was kept hidden in plain sight. (Read more.)

Share

The Masculine Standard

 From Of Home and Womanhood:

Why have we allowed the masculine standard to become the standard for all female accomplishments as well? I am sorry to tell you but women will never be able to work and perform the same as men, we are built differently. We aspire to different jobs, we do things differently and most of all once we have children these differences become even more obvious. You will never be a man, and thank God for that, because you’re not made to be one.

And the funniest bit here is that we all love, appreciate and need intelligent children. We want children who will grow up to make the world a better place, who will advance humanity, who will be kind, hard working, smart people. We understand that children matter in this sense, but despite this, we look down upon their care. And another thing I do not understand is this idea that our own intelligence and capabilities as women, and mothers, must exclusively be used for ourselves, or our careers, but never our own homes and families. It seems to me that the people who of all the rest of the people in the world, should be deserving of our talents, it would be our very own children. But alas, it is not.

Smart women do not raise babies, they do other things, they tell me. But if we are all to be pragmatic here for a moment, and just brutally honest, most of us will never accomplish anything grandiose. Most of us, if not the overwhelming majority of us, will just be terribly ordinary people.

Most of us will have ordinary jobs, and is that worth more than our children? (Read more.)

Share

A Medieval Monk’s Herb Garden

 

From The Conversation:

For whatever the land you possess, whether it be where sand
And gravel lie barren and dead, or where fruits grow heavy
In rich moist ground; whether high on a steep hillside,
Easy ground in the plain or rough among sloping valleys -
Whereever it is, your land cannot fail to produce
Its native plants…

These words come the Hortulus: The Little Garden written by Wahlafrid Strabo (c. 808-849), who was a Benedictine monk from the monastery of Reichnau on an island in Lake Constance.

The 9th-century Hortulus is considered one of the most important European historical documents on gardening and plants, combining practical advice with its poetry. It continues to inspire modern gardeners in planting and design. The writings offer a tour of the monastery garden and the qualities of its plants. Twenty-nine plants are named, from Indian pepper to grapes, nettle, pennyroyal and peach. For the most part these are medicinal, though Wahlafrid includes some culinary observations, and a final detail about the rose as a source of soothing oil and symbol of the Virgin Mary.

The descriptions of the fresh and delightful taste of melon and gourds (bottle gourd or calabash) sit alongside longer discussion of the use and preparation of herbs and vegetables for health.

As a flavour of the way in which these observations were made, take the plant Southernwood (Aretemisia Abrotanum), not commonly known these days but common enough in the medieval period. Strabo notes that: “It has power against fevers, banishes stitch, and if your limbs ache with the elusive and mysterious pain of gout, it will bring relief.” (Read more.)

Share

Moral Inversion and Disengagement

 From Unlicensed Punditry:

I was watching a recent clip of Barack Obama this morning defending Democrats and their agenda and as I began to consider all the things he said and did during his terms and how it seems evident now that he was neck deep in the Russiagate hoax, and continued pulling the strings through a shadow government until it all crashed after President Doughbrains wrapped the entire Democrat clown car around a telephone pole during June of 2024, it reminded me of why I really, really dislike the guy.

Has nothing to do with race, or the fact he is a racialist and a stealth communist, it has to do with the one characteristic that I truly hate in people.

Let me give you an example before I define and describe that characteristic and what backs it up.

I was on the road a fair amount from 2014 to early 2020, so I never had time or the inclination to watch much regular TV but I remember watching a few episodes of a 2018 TV series called “You” on Netflix (I looked, it is still streaming there) when I was working up in Vancouver. “You” was a psychological thriller series based on the books by Caroline Kepnes (I know nothing about her other than this series was based on her books). (Read more.)

Share

The Whoredom Economy

 From Of Home and Womanhood:

If I am allowed to be totally honest and frank, it seems to me that men love whores and women love to be whores, to the point it is costing them their families, their children, jobs, and reputations. Men and women alike are willing to put it all on the line for sex.

All of us have a story we know about. Whether in the news, your favorite podcaster, a political figure, your neighbor next door, or even your friend. We all have heard it. When my husband’s father was caught cheating, his wife did not yell, she did not scream. She told him to sit and wait. In the next room she grabbed something, she set it down next to him, opened on the bed, inside were the hundreds of pictures of their family. Three little children all smiling back. Vacations, trips, and Christmas dinners, an entire story of a family out in the open. She told him — look, this is what you are losing, this is the price you are paying, this is your cost. He did not care. The book was closed, the price was paid, and now many years later the cost has not lifted, it is still being paid.

This is nothing new. People have cheated since the dawn of time. But the sexual marketplace has changed. It is now organized around desire rather than character. The currency used to be virtue; now it’s sexual desirability. The objective was marriage; now it’s pleasure. We have exchanged what we value for the things we desire.

What do I mean by this?

I mean we have separated sex from all the things that gave it greater purpose. Finding someone attractive was not the only thing that mattered. We were looking for someone to marry, someone to have children with, someone to spend the rest of our lives with. The idea of marrying someone nowadays without taking “test-drive” first is seen as the worst possible thing a person can do. In this new economy all the qualities you might have that make you a great spouse do not matter. The real question is— are you sexually desirable? Are you good in bed? You can possess none of the qualities necessary to be a good partner and still have no shortage of options. This is because the goal is no longer to build a life with someone; it is only to satisfy desires.

Men claim they hate whores, and yet they seek them. Women claim they hate to be objectified, and yet they seek it. Men claim to despise sluttiness, and yet they throw their marriages away for the sake of a slut. Women hate that all men think about is sex, and yet they give it. We have done all of it to ourselves. (Read more.)

Share