“Our Myth, Their Lie” at Commonweal

Commonweal has published my article on the clerical sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. You can read the whole thing there, and really you should—publishing a mag like Commonweal is not cheap, and your clicks help them—but here’s sort of the thesis of the article:

Ten years ago, I believed a myth. In the beginning, there was Vatican II. It was good but messy, and the Bad Catholics hijacked it to undermine doctrine. They took over seminaries and turned them into cesspools where heresy was mandatory and depravity rampant. Then Pope John Paul II came along. He drove out the Bad Catholics and cleaned up the seminaries. Too late! The Bad Catholics had already committed terrible crimes, which were covered up without the pope’s awareness. In 2002, their abuses exploded into public view, and the JPII Catholics got blamed for crimes committed by a dying generation of clerics. The JPII bishops took it on the chin, but they fixed the problem with the Dallas Charter. Then Benedict XVI, the great theologian, appointed orthodox bishops who would carry forward the renewal. The horrors of the Scandal were behind us. The two primordial forces of the postconciliar church, orthodoxy and heresy, had fought a great battle, and orthodoxy had been vindicated.

[…]

Twin Cities Catholics like me came face-to-face with an unpleasant fact: the orthodox Good Clerics hadn’t taken over from the Bad “Spirit of Vatican II” Clerics and cleaned house. The Good Clerics were buddies with the Bad Clerics. They did everything in their power to protect the Bad Clerics—even violating moral, civil, and canon law on their behalf. We’d believed there were two sides in the Church: orthodoxy and heresy. We often cheered for the clerics on our “team” and booed the other guys. But we were wrong. Everyone in the chancery was working together…against us.

My thanks to Commonweal for running what I think is an important piece.

Posted in Faith & Morals | Tagged , , | Comments Off on “Our Myth, Their Lie” at Commonweal

Vote Pam Myhra for Minnesota State Auditor

If you have this sign in your yard, you are a boring person. CORRECT, yes... but boring.
If you have this sign in your yard, you are a boring person. CORRECT, yes… but boring.

State Auditor is the single statewide office left where I’m willing to vote for candidates from either party—and, in my two auditor elections so far, I’ve done just that. I’ve voted for our current auditor of 11 years’ standing, Rebecca Otto, a Democrat. I’ve also voted, in a different election, for one of her Republican challengers.

After all, it’s not really a partisan job. The auditor’s duty is oversight, investigation, and reporting. She doesn’t set the agenda or the rules; she makes sure the letter and spirit of the law are being followed and that the taxpayer’s dollar actually goes where the taxpayers’ representatives send it.

So, when I’m looking at an Auditor candidate, I don’t ask, “So, what’s your stance on illegal immigration, gun control, and the plowing in Saint Paul?” That’s not the auditor’s job. I first ask about her qualifications. I then ask whether she’s going to run the auditor’s office fairly and impartially. (With the way the offices of Attorney General and Secretary of State have been politicized in this and other states over the years, it’s clear even the non-partisan offices are at risk and must be vigilantly protected.)

In 2018, we’re faced with an easy choice for auditor. The Republicans have nominated Pam Myhra, who is a Certified Public Accountant. The Democrats have nominated Julie Blaha, who is a math teacher.

Continue reading

Posted in Declarations, Politics | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Vote Pam Myhra for Minnesota State Auditor

A Kavanaugh Compromise

Photo: Jim Bourg, Reuters
Photo: Jim Bourg, Reuters

This post has been updated. See the bottom of the post for details.

Senate Republicans should offer Senate Democrats a deal:

(1) Kavanaugh is rejected.
(2) Feinstein resigns or is expelled.
(3) Expedited hearing schedule for Kavanaugh’s replacement… or no hearings for a nominee who has been through Senate hearings during this Congress.

Continue reading

Posted in Law, Politics | Tagged , , , , | 9 Comments

My Chat with Judge Hardiman (Or: Harriet Miers and the Hasty Tweet)

Last night, about an hour before Judge Thomas Hardiman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit phoned me, I jumped into a Twitter thread:

Untitled

Not all of my readers were tuned into judicial politics back in the days of Miguel Estrada and the Gang of 14, so let me explain that tweet a bit before I get to the exciting stuff.

Harriet Miers was George W. Bush’s original nominee to fill the seat of retiring Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Miers was the White House counsel and a close adviser to the President… a President who had recently won an election thanks to Catholic and evangelical “values voters.” Calling her “a pit bull in size 6 shoes,” President Bush vouched for her integrity, her legal chops, and her work ethic.

The problem was, Miers had a very thin record. She’d worked as a commercial litigator before becoming the personal lawyer of then-Governor Bush. She was an able lawyer for her clients, but there was no public record showing what she herself thought about the Constitution, the judicial branch, or the pressing issues of the day. President Bush believed that his personal assurances would suffice.

They did not. Republicans had been burned several times before. Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter had all been nominated by Republican presidents who gave assurances that the nominees would turn out to be excellent, judicially conservative judges.* Once on the Supreme Court, all three showed their true colors… and those colors did not have much to do with the Constitution.

All three supported (and, in fact, crafted) the plurality in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which Michael Stokes Paulsen rightly called “the worst constitutional decision of all time.” Kennedy is famous for declaring same-sex marriage a constitutional right in Obergefell, a decision which, even if you agree with its conclusion, is totally incoherent both internally and in light of Kennedy’s own precedents (especially Casey!). O’Connor struck down a modest law against partial-birth abortion in 2000’s Stenberg v. Carhart and personally saved affirmative action from history’s dustbin in the bizarre Bollinger decision. And Souter simply joined the Court’s left wing outright, voting reliably with Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Stephens for most of his tenure.

So President Bush’s personal assurances did not reassure the thrice-burned right wing, especially the pro-lifers, however well-liked he was. Activists had trusted the words of Edwin Meese, John Sununu, and George H.W. Bush decades earlier, let nominees slip by with little paper trail, and so lost their chance at the Court for a generation. There was simply nothing out there to demonstrate Harriet Miers’ bona fides as a textualist who followed the Constitution. There was no way of knowing whether she would be another Scalia… or another Souter.

Conservative martyr Robert Bork called Miers’ nomination a “slap in the face” to the conservative legal movement. Unable to sell the nomination to the very demographic who had just re-elected him, Bush was forced to “allow” Miers to withdraw a few weeks after nominating her. The seat went to Samuel Alito instead.

Which brings us to Thomas Hardiman. Judge Hardiman sits today on the Third Circuit. He has shown up on President Trump’s Supreme Court shortlist twice in a row, losing out to Judge Gorsuch in 2017 and Judge Kavanaugh in 2018. He has faced some important issues in his time in the judiciary, and he has often acquitted himself as a textualist. His work on the Second Amendment is particularly well-regarded among conservatives. It is believed that he appeals to President Trump in part because of his phenomenal biography: Hardiman is one of too few federal judges who come from outside the Ivy League, with an undergraduate degree from Notre Dame and a J.D. from Georgetown, which he paid for by working nights as a taxi driver.

However, I have concerns about Judge Hardiman, as do some others. As with Ms. Miers, though I bear Judge Hardiman no ill will, I am not confident that Justice Hardiman would adhere to the Constitution on the issues that matter most. (P.S. As with everything in our utterly dishonest judicial politics, that’s code for “Roe v. Wade.”)

And, as you can see, I said as much on Twitter! So far, so regular Thursday. But my night was about to take a surprising turn.

A few minutes after my tweet, I got an email with no body but a heck of a FROM line:

Untitled

(I’ve obscured the full email address because, while I’m sure it isn’t a state secret, Judge Hardiman’s professional email address is also not, as far as I know, public knowledge.)

I wrote back with my phone number, and, 90 seconds later, I got a call from the 412 area code. The man on the other end introduced himself as Thomas Hardiman, and said he wanted to touch base with me.

Continue reading

Posted in Law | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Vigano Clearinghouse Thread [Finished]

Whiteboard with timeline of issues related to the McCarrick-Frances-Vigano scandal.
The whiteboard right now at a house of a friend of mine. Look for a digital conversion of this as soon as I get the time!

I’ve spent the weekend absorbing the explosive testimony of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, who claims that many people in the Vatican, including Pope Francis, ignored the homosexual harassment and abuse of adult seminarians by Theodore Cardinal McCarrick.

Viganò makes a lot of factual claims in his statement, and Catholic media is struggling to confirm or disprove as many of them as possible. (The mainstream media is transparently not bothering; they are instead investigating Viganò personally.) I am having trouble keeping track of all of it, and I’ll bet you are, too.

This thread is simply an attempt to gather all the relevant documents into one place where I can keep them all straight.

I am no longer actively updating this listing, as I feel we have covered the main questions of the original Vigano testimony pretty well, and the core questions of fact are settled. Have I missed anything? Let me know in the comments!

Continue reading

Posted in Analysis | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Vigano Clearinghouse Thread [Finished]

Trump Is No Longer Historically Unpopular

Everybody knows that President Trump started out with historically awful approval ratings. New presidents typically get a “honeymoon” period where the American people give them a chance to succeed. This approval bump may be diminished by circumstances. President Dubya came in after the traumatic election of 2000 with an approval rating that looked a lot like Trump’s, and his honeymoon period saw it climb to just shy of 60%.

Bird's-eye view of relatively small crowd at President Trump's inauguration.
This argument was (CHOOSE ONE: only/already) 578 days ago.

Trump’s “honeymoon” didn’t even get him to majority support, not that it mattered anyway, because his “honeymoon” lasted about ten days before the controversy over the crowd size at his inauguration, the original travel ban order and its disastrously incompetent rollout, and the other daily controversies to which we have become inured chewed up all the good will the opposition was willing to give him.

This left Trump in an approval-ratings hole that was unprecedented for a president so early in his term, and, for a while, it seemed like it would just keep on going down, down, down until nobody could defend him and impeachment became a practical possibility.

This is no longer the case. Trump remains unpopular, but he is now pretty much within historical norms for unpopular first-term presidents.

Today is the 578th day of the Trump presidency. Here are the averaged approval ratings of all past presidents with data, as of Day 578 of their terms, sorted by highest to lowest approval.

Continue reading

Posted in Mere Opinion | Comments Off on Trump Is No Longer Historically Unpopular

The Death of Alfie Evans: Winners and Losers

Alfie Evans (AP)
“He says he’s not dead!”
“Yes, he is.”
“He isn’t!”
“Well, he will be soon, he’s very ill.”
“I’M GETTING BETTER!”
“No you’re not, you’ll be stone dead in a moment.”
“Oh, I can’t take him like that. It’s against regulations!”
“I DON’T WANT TO GO IN THE CART!”
“Oh, don’t be such a baby. Can you hang around a couple of minutes? He won’t be long.”
“Nah, I got to go to the Robinsons. They’ve lost nine today.”
“Well, when’s your next round?”
“Thursday.”
“I THINK I’LL GO FOR A WALK.”
“You’re not fooling anyone, y’know. Look… isn’t there something you can do?” (AP)

You’re following the Alfie Evans case, right?

They’re killing that boy. Don’t try to Philippa Foot me about the difference between “killing” and “letting die.” The U.K. didn’t let Alfie die. They usurped the right of medical decisionmaking from Alfie’s parents, in violation of their fundamental human rights. They decided, based on their bloodless utilitarian ethics (so much for the neutrality of the secular state in questions of conscience!), that it would be best for Alfie to die, and then  they deployed armed officials of the State to prevent anyone from trying to save him — especially the boy’s own parents. They aren’t innocent bystanders simply watching Alfie, helpless to save him without extraordinary aid; they are active participants in a flagrant attack on the fundamental human rights of Alfie’s parents. They have made every effort to prevent Alfie from receiving extraordinary aid offered (at no cost to them) by, variously, Alfie’s parents, the Catholic Church, and the government of Italy. I am by no means convinced that Alfie’s parents’ proposed course of treatment is, objectively, the right call, but, in the absence of neglect or abuse (as traditionally understood), his parents are the only ones with the right to make that call. The British state’s interposition — not to save Alfie’s life but to ensure that it ends — is unconscionable.

Between this and Charlie Gard, the United States should impose sanctions on the barbaric United Kingdom. Even if it means I don’t get to watch Broadchurch anymore.

Let’s get to it, then.

Loser: The British monarchy. What the devil is the point of having a Queen if she doesn’t intervene to protect one of her subjects in a case decided in her own name? In this populist era, I’ve been sympathetic to the idea of a head-of-state who isn’t democratically elected or appointed. But if that just means having a national figurehead who smiles at state dinners and does nothing to embody or uphold the basic principles of the nation… well, forget it. If this is what Blackstone’s “rights of Englishmen” have come to, I’ll stick with my messy Republic. Unlike most of the Commonwealth states, we still have freedom of speech in America, too, and I suspect that, too, is related to our fanatical constitutionalism. Speaking of which…

Continue reading

Posted in Mere Opinion | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Stop Being An Idiot: You Can (and Should) Survive a Nuclear Attack

Forget seven decades of satire about civil defense drills drilling: in an actual nuclear attack, these kids probably won't die. Will yours? Unironically, now: DUCK AND COVER.
Forget seven decades of satire about civil defense drills drilling: in an actual nuclear attack, these kids probably won’t die. Will yours? Unironically, now: DUCK AND COVER!

“When a man is convinced he’s going to die tomorrow, he’ll probably find a way to make it happen.” –Guinan

In 2018, we once again live under a daily, credible threat of nuclear war. The threat has been growing for a long time now, and it shows every sign of accelerating. Fifteen years ago, a man my age could imagine that we’d solved the nuclear problem, that we’d only ever see mushroom clouds in science class and Fallout games. Today, imagining the next fifteen years in geopolitics without a nuclear bomb going off at some point is becoming something of an exercise in creative writing.

This is unfortunate. Any successful nuclear attack on any plausible target in the world would make 9/11 look like a garden party. Tens to hundreds of thousands of people would die.

But it would not be the end of the world. Even in the city targeted by the attack, the vast majority of people would survive. “But, James, after the bombs fall, the survivors will envy the dead! I’ve seen Deliverance!” Nonsense. In all likelihood, the vast majority of the survivors would go on to live out normal, rich, fulfilling lives and die in old age.

That is, if they don’t get themselves killed by negligence, ignorance, and despair during the attack and its immediate aftermath.

This blog post is brought to you by this pretty good article by GQ Magazine about the recent nuclear false alarm in Hawaii. Specifically, this post is brought to you by the irrational fatalism of the Hawaiians in the article, and by the insanely dangerous things they did because they thought they were going to die and there was nothing they could do:

Becca went to the bathroom, came back. She did not think to retrieve the survival kit, which consists primarily of a transistor radio with possibly dead batteries in a Tupperware tub in the hall closet. She did not consider where best to shelter. She’s a psychologist and reflexively thought in psychological terms: If this is real, she and her family were not going to survive it, and it could be real because Donald Trump is impulsive enough to spook North Korea into lobbing a missile at Hawaii. And if they were all going to die, she’d rather her children didn’t do so screaming. She called them into the bedroom, piled them on the bed, and played, tickling and laughing and not saying anything about a missile.

***

Continue reading

Posted in Mere Opinion | Tagged , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

GUEST POST: A Last Jedi Fan Strikes Back

This guest post comes from local Star Wars fanatic Luke LoPresto, who has written for De Civ before. It never would have occurred to me to review The Last Jedi in this way–my strategy has been to ignore all the political arguments around it–but, having read Luke’s take on it, I approve of his approach. (Now if someone could just convince me that the Casino Planet wasn’t a waste of Poe and Rose’s talents.) Now, over to Luke:

by Luke LoPresto

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, a film series went completely insane–or so you’d think from the Internet, where, to some, Star Wars: The Last Jedi is a daring sequel in an overcautious era, taking a blockbuster series into uncharted territory. To others, it’s a disorganized mess that betrays the childhoods of everyone involved. In an era where, as Chesterton warned, campaigns to abolish right and wrong have nearly abolished right and left, politics have come to dominate the debate over The Last Jedi. (Because we all know how much people loved the politics in the prequel trilogy.)

After two viewings, I want to explain why I love this movie and why you shouldn’t be put off by the ideologically “progressive” interpretations of The Last Jedi emanating from Hollywood and Manhattan.

Attack of the Thinkpieces

I’d be lying if I said I didn’t have some trepidation walking into the movie theater, worried that the movie from left-leaning Hollywood would consist of Disney spitting on my values as a cradle Catholic and a conservative. It was small reassurance to know that Disney loves money far too much to risk no longer getting it from white men like me.

So I was pleasantly surprised to see the movie was not a heavy-handed left-wing propaganda piece. General Hux never says “Make the Galaxy Great Again” or anything like that. But this didn’t stop all the usual suspects from posting commentaries on how the film was a condemnation of the usual feminist buzzwords like “toxic masculinity” and the most “feminist” and “diverseStar Wars movie ever made (which is at least plausible; logic dictates one of them must be). Predictably, right-wingers have risen to the bait and condemned the movie for selling out to SJWs, unintentionally validating the thinkpiece-writers’ projections and letting them win the argument.

That’s not the narrative I read into the movie at all. I instead saw a broader parallel to the friction between the Millenial generation and Boomers or Gen X, represented by the younger and older contingents of the film’s cast, respectively.

A New Take

Poe, in particular, is so focused on destroying a First Order dreadnaught in the opening battle that he gets an entire Resistance bomber squadron killed, for which Leia demotes him. Then Leia is incapacitated and Laura Dern’s vice admiral Holdo takes over. Despite the Resistance fleet being tracked through hyperspace – bringing up the very real possibility of a mole in the heroes’ midst – by the First Order, who is now slowly picking off the fleeing heroes, Holdo refuses to explain her apparent non-plan to the recently demoted Poe, who apparently has never heard of operational security or “need-to-know,” except he uses the latter term later, so I guess he’s just an idiot.

Now the “I don’t like just sitting here doing nothing” trope is nothing new, but consider how the word “resistance” has gained whole new connotations in the two years between the releases of The Force Awakens and this film. The pyrrhic victory against the dreadnought, and later the disastrous consequences of Poe’s unsanctioned mission for Finn and Rose (specifically, the fleeing Resistance lifeboats being exposed and shot at, necessitating Holdo’s epic sacrifice), almost seem like an admonition of the modern “bash the fash” mentality. Rose’s lines about “saving what we love” instead of just “destroying what we hate” may sound uncomfortably close to the “Love Trumps Hate” slogan, but it’s not a bad lesson, not by any means. We should fight to defend the things worth fighting for, not just to crush our so-called enemies.

Meanwhile, on Luke Skywalker’s island, Rey begs the original trilogy’s hero to return to action, beat up the bad guys, and save the day. Luke, however, tempered by thirty years of experience and wisdom, is reluctant to act, knowing how the wrong move can have disastrous consequences. He’s not entirely right, but he’s not entirely wrong, either.

Rey, much like the audience, is convinced things will play out much like they did thirty years before, with herself in Luke’s role of young hero and Kylo Ren in Vader’s role of conflicted villain poised to return to the light. In the end she is…less right than she thinks. After Rey, so-called Mary Sue, gets Force-ragdolled around the room by Snoke, Kylo betrays his master, but it’s not out of the goodness of his heart; he’s just sick of taking orders. So all Rey has accomplished is replaced one dictator with a slightly less stable dictator. Whether this is good or bad for the galaxy at large remains to be seen.

Rey drawing hasty comparisons between the myths she grew up with and her current situation reminded me of those who compare “Trump’s America” to Nazi Germany. In both cases, we see people jumping to conclusions and reacting accordingly, with less-than-ideal consequences. Luke, having experienced a lot more of history himself, doesn’t fall for this trap (RIP Admiral Ackbar) and warns: “This is NOT going to go the way you think!”

The Phantom Controversy

I could go on. Kylo Ren’s declaration that he and Rey should “let the past die” and “kill it if you have to” echos the progressive sentiment of sweeping away any references to less politically-correct, less “enlightened” eras of history, the sort of mentality that leads to the removal of statues of anybody who ever said anything racist. And near the film’s conclusion, just when you think the last traces of the old Jedi have been burned to ashes, it turns out Rey salvaged the ancient Jedi sacred books. “Page-turners they were not,” but that doesn’t mean she can’t learn from them.

Did I also mention Poe’s rather hasty jump to the conclusion that Vice Admiral Holdo is a full-on traitor just because he can’t personally figure out her plan and/or doesn’t agree with it? Trump-Russia collusion scandals, anybody? Not only is Poe wrong, his subsequent mutiny is cut short so quickly it’s downright embarrassing. I’m sure people who break the chain of command usually think they’re doing the right thing, but the chain is there for a reason, guys, and breaking it can cost lives.

All of that sounds very different from the thinkpieces you’ll see elsewhere, right? Almost like I watched an entirely different movie. Did I discover the film’s creators’ true intentions? Well I can’t prove that I’m right…but you can’t exactly prove that I’m wrong, either.

Why did I come to such different conclusions? Probably because I love Star Wars enough to give it the benefit of the doubt, or because I want to hold out hope that not everybody in Hollywood is a full-blown social justice warrior.

Or – and hear me out on this one – maybe it’s because I focused on “who” the protagonists are: an isolated young adult desperately seeking her purpose in life, a recent defector of conscience who is still too scared for his own life to commit fully to the cause, a dedicated soldier who isn’t ready to watch his comrades die seemingly for nothing, a naive orphan grieving her sister’s death, a subordinate leader thrust to the top of the chain of command and now responsible for the lives of hundreds, an aging veteran at the end of his life who believes that his life’s work and purpose have all come to naught.

Those clickbait websites, on the other hand, are too focused on “what” the protagonists are: a white woman, a black man, a Hispanic man, an Asian woman, an older white woman with pink hair for some reason, an older white man.

The proper reaction to the ethnicity of the cast is “meh.” Far too many commentators, on both sides, have rejected color-blindness… which has helped make them blind to everything else going on in The Last Jedi.

The Franchise Awakens

A lot of people have rejected The Last Jedi because they don’t like the direction it takes the series, or because they think it betrays the earlier films, or because its subplots are subpar. I recognize there are plenty of valid criticisms for this movie, but I don’t think it is bad. I think it is challenging. It challenges the viewer’s preconceived notions about the Force, about Luke Skywalker, and about the very nature of storytelling itself. When was the last time a franchise blockbuster movie did that? In the age of comparatively interchangeable and disposable superhero films with minimal consequences, characters who are cornerstones of modern culture are being evolved in The Last Jedi, and our assumptions are being shattered, our preconceived notions disabused.

I know not everyone is as passionate about Star Wars as I, so I won’t begrudge anybody the right to hate this movie. But I will step in and argue with anybody who claims this movie is bad. As far as I can tell, nothing in this movie is indefensible. It’s well-executed, thought-provoking, and highly entertaining. You can dislike something and still acknowledge that it is good. I don’t particularly enjoy reading Shakespeare but I won’t claim it’s garbage.

But… if you were disappointed in the film, if you wanted to love it and found it wanting, I hope I’ve helped you find something to love about it. Find something you like about it and try to keep it in your mind. Find something you hate about it and try to explain it away in your mind. This isn’t real-world politics. It’s a movie. It’s a galaxy far, far away. A little bit of positive bias won’t hurt. Or at the very least, learn to respect it for what it is and for what it’s trying to do. It’s good practice for all of us in dealing with our fellow man. And when it comes to art and its influence on our thinking, inspiring us to engage with new and challenging points of view, whether we decide to agree with them or not, is definitely a goal worthy of a Jedi Master.

Posted in Cinema | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments