In the Beginning was the Word . . . and the Word was made flesh

Chesterton "The Thing"

If you want to understand Chesterton and his spiritual and philosophical thought, start with his book "Heretics" (1905), follow up with "Orthodoxy" (1908), go through many other works, and finish up with "The Well and the Shallows" (1935) and this book (1935 or 1936).

In "Heretics," Chesterton discussed and criticized the distortions of traditional Christianity, and in "Orthodoxy," he explained (very clearly and wittily) how and why he found himself on the side of traditional 2000-year-old Christianity.
In "The Well and the Shallows" Chesterton - by then having "crossed the Tiber" to Rome, defended the position that Roman Catholicism was the source of all that was admirable in the civilization of the Middle Ages (a position held also by historians such as Christopher Dawson, R. W. Southern, and Régine Pernoud).

In "The Thing" Chesterton describes how and why he himself became a Catholic, even though it cost him; he argues that one cannot argue against Truth when one finds it.
*
Here are a few snippets defending the traditional family:

"Among the traditions that are being thus attacked, not intelligently but most unintelligently, is the fundamental human creation called the Household or the Home. That is a typical thing which men attack, not because they can see through it, but because they cannot see it at all. They beat at it blindly, in a fashion entirely haphazard and opportunist; and many of them would pull it down without ever pausing to ask why it was put up."

"Some social reformers try to evade this difficulty by some vague notions about the State or an abstraction called Education eliminating the parental function. But like many notions of solid scientific persons, it is a wild illusion of the nature of mere moonshine."

"The existing and general system of society, subject in our own age and industrial culture to very gross abuses and painful problems, is nevertheless a normal one. It is the idea that the commonwealth is made up of a number of small kingdoms, of which a man and a woman become the king and queen and in which they exercise a reasonable authority, subject to the common sense of the commonwealth, until those under their care grow up to found similar kingdoms and exercise similar authority. This is the social structure of mankind, far older than all its records and more universal than any of its religions; and any attempts to alter it are mere talk and tomfoolery."

Going to Hell in a Handcart

The Christian tree has its roots in Jewish ground (think Jerusalem, Athens, Rome).


Christianity built European civilization, especially that of Western Europe, from which American civilization and culture derive.

There are superb and distinguished historians who have demonstrated this; I mention especially Christopher Dawson, Thomas E. Woods, R. W. Southern, Hilaire Belloc, and Régine Pernoud.

This culture began to fragment about 1500; see Jacques Barzun's "From Dawn to Decadence"; and the fragments have largely dissolved.

There came to be a spiritual and moral vacuum in western Europe, which was filled by the gruesome and bloody regimes of National Socialism, Fascism, and Communism. Those were defeated but the moral vacuum remained.

This -- in my mind -- is the main reason Islam has gained such a foothold in Europe, a foothold that may well be impossible to stop or reverse.

In short, insofar as Christianity goes away, secularism, totalitarianism, and Islam will take its place.

And don't think it can't happen here.

Thursday April 25 -- I had to eat out anyway --

So I got a nice sticker.

But I changed it a bit, just for fun.I like obscure jokes.

The Supreme Court and Marriage

"The Law is an Ass." When there are nine lawyers, they make an Asinine.

FB comments:

"You can have your Christ and trees. You just have to realize that your religion is yours not to be forced down the throat of everyone else."

"I could care less your faith. You just can't legislate with it."

Nobody is trying to legislate one particular faith, or force it down anyone else's craw.

What almost all people in almost all times and places throughout recorded history have called "marriage," is the union of a man and a woman.

The "union" is the recognition by their society that they have societal rights and obligations toward each other, their kin, and their children if there be any.

My first anthropology prof mentioned that even in primitive societies, marriage exists to give societal status to the children as the offspring of both parents. Lineage can be of great importance to social status.

You can go back in ancient history as far back as there are written records, and farther: "These reconstructions push the origin of monogamous marriage into prehistory, well beyond the earliest instances documented in the historical record...." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21453006)

The point I wish to make is that marriage is primordial and seems to be "built into" human nature. The modern civilized nation-state did not invent marriage and in my opinion does not have the authority to define or redefine it; certainly not at the federal level.

In fact, Justices Kagan, Kennedy, and Sotomayor indicated as much, and Sotomayor said (quoted in Chicago Tribune): "What gives the federal government the right to be concerned at all about what the definition of marriage is?"

Precisely, Justices.

Viva il Papa!

Some thoughts:

I'm rather surprised at my own reaction to the election of Jorge Cardinal Bergoglio.  It's part "Hooray!" and part "Ho, hum."  Of course I'm pleased that we have a new pope, and very pleased that he appears to be a simple and holy man.  On the other hand, when I was a kid, Pius XII was pope and had "always" been pope (just like Eisenhower had "always" been president), so Francis is the seventh pope of my lifetime.

I wonder if anyone is alive who remembers Pope Pius XI.

I'm having trouble keeping his surname in my head (but of course I don't have to anymore).  I keep wanting to say "Cardinal Bongiorno."  Maybe there's something mystical in that.

I see on another blog that VP Joe Biden is going to go to Rome for the installation Mass.  Now it would surprise me very much if Pope Francis doesn't know that Biden is about as pro-abort as they come.  I wonder if Biden will present himself for Communion or have the good sense not to.  I can just see the mainstream media exploding in anger if Biden tried to receive and is refused.

Reality and Fakery

A week or so ago, I saw a movie on the TV of my favorite eat joint.  It was full of computer-generated images (which I found out just now are called CGI) that made the impossible look real, and added quite a lot of pizazz and "can't not look" to the movie.  I had to search to find the title: "Live Free or Die Hard."

One of the first things I noticed was a long drawn-out fistfight between two men (I think one was the Bruce Willis character) that involved more violence than I think any human being could handle.  Part of the fight took place in an elevator shaft, with both actors doing what I think were impossible acrobatics.  I believe one of the guys was hanging on one of the elevator cables at one point, which didn't seem possible to me.  During or after the firstfight, Willis was all bloody; but I noticed that as the story went on, the blood didn't change color as it dried (someone slip up in makeup?)  Then there was the scene with the semi and the jet plane that appeared to be hovering while it shot at the semi, which Willis was driving underneath collapsing freeway ramps - which of course missed him.  (I worked in public works engineering for 27 years, and though I'm not a concrete expert, I will bet that freeway ramps just don't collapse like that! -- they're full of re-bars.)

Another movie I saw just a few days ago, same eat joint, was "Starship Troopers."  That one was full of computer images (good monsters, though)!  Again, it had this "can't not look" quality.

I'm thinking that if you make a movie interesting to look at, you can make it as implausible as you like, but you've got the audience eating out of the palm of your hand, and their cash is in your bank.

Fake is more interesting than real.  That may be why porn is more popular than marriage.
(I don't know that it is, but I'd bet my shirt on it.)
Or recreational drug use almost an epidemic.

When I was taking Physics 1 at the university in 1962, we learned about falling-body problems and acceleration due to gravity All the problems said "neglect air resistance." I asked the prof when we could figure that in; he said, "Come back when you've had five quarters of calculus."


Reality is messy and difficult to deal with.  It takes learning, dedication, growing skill, and good judgment.  Makes no difference whether you're trying to establish a solid relationship with a new spouse, take care of a colicky teething kid still in diapers, raise a kitchen garden, rehab an old double-hung sash window, or do practically anything for real.

Anyway, I'm suspicious of the popularity of these high-grade fantasy movies, video games, and all that.  I get a sneaking suspicion in my nasty suspicious mind that an awful lot of people prefer fantasy to reality.  I think it's one of the things that's ruining our country.  And worse yet, it gets in the way of salvation: there's no resurrection without death first.