My Truth

 

From The Pillar:

“My truth” is an abominable phrase. No other words so perfectly capture the triumph of the personal over the objective which marks much of our current social discourse. It came to many people’s attention this last week during an interview with his Royal Highness Henry (or does he now prefer the more everyman “Hank”?) Windsor and Meghan Markle. 

The erstwhile Duke and Duchess of Sussex took time off from their foundation/Netflix deal/podcast to talk to Oprah Winfrey about, inter alia, their desire for privacy. Oprah, who has probably done more to advance the ideology of moral relativism than any philosopher, asked Ms. Markle about “her truth” of marrying into the British royal family. 

“Her truth” was that the monarchy is a cold and stifling institution, riddled with prejudice. As it happens, it seems that several members of staff who worked for the duchess in London found her to be an entitled, narcissistic, and abusive bully. But that may just be “their truth.”

It is easy for me to tease Ms. Markle, I watched an episode of Suits once, you see. But like all TV actors, she was just delivering the line about her truths, she didn’t write it. The “my truth” phenomenon is deeply entrenched in our public life, and aims to carve itself deeper into our laws, too.

The “my truth” paradigm has now begun to influence science and public policy as much as it does personal experience.

The Equality Act, which the Biden administration has committed itself to passing, would place the individual “truths” of transgender people in conflict with religious freedom and freedom of conscience, rather than work to find public accommodations that prevent unjust discrimination and protect the conscience rights of all.

The bill may or may not actually make it into law, but there are plenty of levers which could bring some of its provisions into effect without legislation. 

Already, young women across the country have had to sue for the right not to have to compete in school sports leagues against young men who identify themselves as young women, losing out on prospects and scholarships in the process.

This week, Amazon clarified that it has stopped selling When Harry Became Sally, Ryan Anderson’s eminently readable book on the transgender trend, because the retailer says it will no longer carry any book which frames gender dysphoria as a mental illness.

The American Psychological Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorders (available on Amazon) includes gender dysphoria, for what it’s worth. And Anderson notes his book actually doesn’t use the language of “mental illness,” as Amazon suggests it does. 

But, with the basic facts of our humanity, the concept of nature, and the meaning of the created order up for grabs in a debate of competing “my truths,” the Church can, should, and must find its voice to announce the truth.

As it happens, the USCCB intended to issue a statement on these issues. It has been held up in the bureaucracy. (Read more.)

 

From The Jerusalem Post:

A crown is merely a hat that lets the rain in, said Frederick the Great, voicing the same disillusionment with which millions watched this week’s Harry and Meghan Royal Striptease Show. The couple’s interview with Oprah Winfrey scandalized hypocrites, entertained cynics and stunned the gullible. The rest of us should ignore them and realize that Britain is history’s most achieved polity, and its embattled royal house, warts and all, is part of that success. The gullible were shocked that a nice boy like Harry, from a good family like Queen Elizabeth’s, would openly rebuke members of the clan. Wow, look around you, everyone, and count the people you know who spoke to you against their parents, siblings, cousins or kids. It’s not nice, but it’s natural.

The hypocrites were aghast that a member of the royal family would express curiosity about the embryonic Prince Archie’s expected skin color. Is such an idiotic question, if even uttered under a palatial chandelier, exceptional among white Brits? This is beside the fact that the said royal was not named, and that his or her question has been paraphrased rather than quoted verbatim, which leaves one wondering what exactly was said, by whom, in what context, and when and where, if at all. The cynics are having a great time ridiculing the entire royal idea, as if the palace’s inhabitants must tiptoe in its corridors like Henry VIII’s wives.

 

Yes, royalty can be hazardous to royalty’s health, as diagnosed already by the Bible when it portrayed the House of David as plagued by intrigue, fratricide and self-destruction, and even earlier, when ancient Israel conceived the anti-royal idea.

 

AS MENTIONED here once in a different context (“The king of Israel has no clothes,” May 30, 2019), Moses limited the prospective king’s women, money and military, a revolutionary concept that also left it up to the people to decide whether to crown a king at all. It was, no doubt, visionary, having foreseen the oppressiveness that royalty might foment and the vanity to which it might stoop. Samuel then picked up from where Moses left off by trying to prevent a king’s appointment, and while at it, portraying royalty as inherently corrupt, greedy, warmongering and oppressive.

[...]

PEOPLE ridiculing the royal family overlook Britain’s historic achievements, and the monarchy’s place within them. The British created history’s broadest empire, the industrial revolution, modern academia’s constitutional bastions and humanity’s most shared language since the flight from the Tower of Babel. This is besides spearheading fascism’s defeat; fathering modern theater, science and pop; and mothering the United States. This partial list of achievements is so remarkable that one must wonder whether any future civilization will ever leave on mankind an imprint nearly as deep. (Read more.)

Share