Characteristics of Baroque Architecture

 From My Modern Met:

It is difficult to separate Baroque architecture from art and sculpture. Since ornamentation was such a critical component to this architectural style, these buildings also introduce us to other mediums that follow the same ideals. Grandeur, or drama, is probably the most obvious characteristic of Baroque architecture. This theme is also the reason for other characteristics like ornamentation or curves. In churches, the grandeur of the architecture was used to inspire awe that made visitors feel connected to God or to feel small in comparison to the size of God—and the church. Grandeur, in this sense, often means size—both in height and in the sheer size of the building—but grandeur can also be applied to the amount of ornamentation and decoration. It makes sense that Baroque architecture would feature unexpected curves and organic shapes considering the term is roughly translated to “irregularly shaped.” These movements regularly occur in grand façades and are often concave entrances or places of statues. However, these organic design moves can be found anywhere in Baroque architecture, especially in the domed roofs of cathedrals or churches. (Read more.)

Share

Trump’s Next Two Years Can Be His Greatest

 From The Enterprise:

Donald Trump should enter January ready to govern with confidence. Last Tuesday the Democrat Party captured both the House and the Senate, then joined its willing accomplices in the drive-by media in spending the week composing his political obituary. They mistake a congressional majority for control of the presidency. Chuck Schumer will run the Senate calendar and Hakeem Jeffries will hold the House gavel. Neither will inherit the executive branch, its lawful authority, or the money already appropriated for Trump’s priorities.

His agenda never depended on a Republican Congress that, for most of two years, acted like an obstacle wearing an ally’s uniform. Chasing 218 House votes and 60 Senate votes for bills that never arrived consumed attention better spent governing. Victor Davis Hanson identified the opportunity within days of the results: a nominal majority of 53 senators can mean 53 private vetoes. Divided government can strip those vetoes of their bargaining value. (Read more.)

Share

The Sun Also Rises Over the Young Adult Group

The cultural and sexual revolutions have destroyed the old boundaries as well as the old codes of chivalry and etiquette, leaving so many young people rudderless. For centuries the parish church was the center of social integration; it is now another place of social isolation for some young believers. From To the Ends of the Earth:

In this way, Catholic social life risks becoming yet another extension of the broader status economy, subtly reinforcing the very hierarchies it claims to transcend. Cliques form. Certain people become the people you need to know. Certain events become the events you need to attend. Certain friend groups somehow begin functioning like a small country club with a rosary attached. Suddenly, a ministry designed to foster unity and belonging begins, paradoxically, to generate its own factions and divisions.

That is where Hemingway becomes useful. The characters in The Sun Also Rises are constantly together, but togetherness does not necessarily mean communion. They eat together, drink together, travel together, gossip about one another, become jealous of one another, sleep with one another, and repeatedly injure one another. Their social life is incredibly busy. Yet for all their activity, their lives remain marked by a profound emptiness.

Brett is perhaps the clearest example: she is beautiful, magnetic, desired by almost every man around her, and almost incapable of remaining still. There is always another romance, another city, another party, another possibility.

Jake loves her, but because of the wound he suffered in the war, their relationship can never become what either of them wants it to be, so their longing remains unresolved.

That ache sits underneath the entire novel. While our circumstances differ dramatically, the ache of unresolved longing is strikingly familiar. Modern Catholic young adults talk constantly about vocation, dating, marriage, community, intentionality, and discernment. Beneath all that language is often an extraordinarily simple desire: I want to be known. I want friends who actually know me; I want someone to love; I want my life to mean something; I want to know that I am not wasting these years.

There is nothing pathetic about these desires; they are, in fact, profoundly human. Yet when we fail to acknowledge these desires honestly, we begin to perform them instead, enacting a script rather than living a reality. (Read more.)

Share

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