It took four books, but Voldemort, the most powerful of the dark wizards, is back. And his minions, the Death Eaters, couldn't be happier. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire tells the tale of how it happened--in about 750 pages. As with the previous novels in the series, the prose is generally crisp, the dialog is occasionally goofy, and the characters are wonderfully well drawn. Though quite a long book, the plot is tight, amusing and keeps you guessing. My only major criticism of the book as literary work regards the ending. As heroes go, Harry's main virtue in these final confrontations always seems to be dumb luck. Voldemort is a bit of a bungling super-villain for whom there's always an element of, "Oops, forgot about that." And not once but twice there were "Tuco" moments where the villain insists on lecturing the hero before doing away with him. "When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk." While I suppose these types of scenes aren't quite as trite for young readers who haven't seen them done over and over in dozens of books, TV shows, and movies, for me they were something of a let-down.
On the plus side, this was the first book in the series so far that made me laugh out loud a few times. Something about Hermione's idealistic but naive obsession with her Society for the Promotion of Elvish Welfare struck me as highly amusing. I suppose it was Ron's insistence on calling the organization "spew" that did it.
This was also the darkest book in the series so far. In it we are finally given a more concrete idea of what constitutes "dark" magic. Dark wizards apparently use the three "unforgivable curses"--the imperius curse, which causes the victim to do the spell-caster's bidding, the cruciatus curse which causes the victim horrible pain, and Avada Kedavra, the killing curse. Now this last one looked so much like the "abracadabra", the all purpose Vaudeville magician word, that I went out and looked it up. It seems that J. K. Rowling herself said that it is an Aramaic spell meaning "let the thing be destroyed." Now why she chose to use Aramaic--the language of our Lord--for this worst of all spells, and not Latin like she did for all the rest is beyond me.
Of course, it should be mentioned that Rowling's distinction between good magic and "dark magic" has never been accepted by the Catholic Church as Fr. Amorth, the famous exorcist, has repeatedly pointed out. That said, to this point in the series, all of the "good magic" has been of the comic-book variety--turning people into ferrets or making someone's nose grow tentacles. The "dark magic" is used exclusively by characters who are unmistakably evil.
One interesting little tid-bit in Goblet of Fire that may be thrown into the Christian-vs.-occult-influence debate happens at the Yule Ball. Up to this point, Christmas and Easter at Hogwarts have been mentioned at least in passing in every book. However, while the British are ever so much less stupid about actually calling the holidays by their proper names (unlike some in the U.S. who insist on calling them "Winter/Spring Break" or attempt to replace them with made-up PC holidays from the 1960s), Christmas and Easter have nonetheless lost almost all religious meaning to most Britons. And thus it has been at Hogwarts--Christmas in the first three books has been all about feasting, decorating, and getting presents. But for a split second in Goblet of Fire, Rowling has suits of armor singing, "O Come All Ye Faithful" (page 395). Given all the secular "holiday" tunes she could have inserted there, that she chose an unmistakably Christian one could be telling. Admittedly, it could also be complete coincidence.
Finally, the aspect of Goblet of Fire that I most appreciated was the introduction of the slimy, ethics-free journalist, Rita Skeeter. This character was such an on-target parody of a gossip reporter that you just know that J. K. Rowling was taking some shots at the media. That Ms. Skeeter worked hand-in-glove with the "Ministry of Magic"--a government agency populated with petty bureaucrats and place-seeking brown-noses--made the parody that much more on-the-nose.
Over all, as a work of fantasy fiction that has been marketed with young readers in mind, I found Goblet of Fire to be quite a foreboding read. The scene at the end where Wormtail mixes a potion in a graveyard for which the vital ingredients are a bone from Voldemort's father, some of Harry's blood, and Wormtail's own hand--which he, himself, promptly slices off--was border-line demonic. And for a book with so much discussion of death, I found it more than a little disconcerting that it lacked any notion of Judeo-Christian eschatology. So again, I will refrain from endorsing this book or the series as a whole as in any way suitable for younger Catholic readers until I see where all this is going.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Friday, August 24, 2007
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - Sirius Improvement
After another miserable summer fraught with muggle-trouble, Harry heads back to Hogwarts for his third year. As usual, things start to go wrong even before he gets there. A cold-blooded murderer named Sirius Black has escaped from Azkaban, the prison for wayward wizards, and he's out to get Harry. Worse, the enforcers charged with recapturing Black--the joy-draining dementors--are almost more malevolent than he is. But Harry's got an ally in Professor Lupin, the chronically disheveled Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher, and with the help of his friends Ron and Hermione, a special mischief-maker's map, and a hippogriff named Buckbeak, Harry delves deeper into the mystery of his past and finds an unexpected new protector.
If Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets was formulaic and a rehash of Sorcerer's Stone with a few different critters and magical doo-hickeys, The Prisoner of Azkaban is, by contrast, a refreshing change of pace. The overall writing is better, the dialog is more believable and the characters less cardboard. The twisting plot also keeps you guessing which makes for an enjoyable read throughout. And it's a good thing, too. At over 430 pages and a solid two pounds in hardcover, Prisoner of Azkaban is quite the tome.
Rowling introduces the fascinating character of Sirius Black in Prisoner of Azkaban and he is the boogey-man throughout 90% of the book. The best friend of Harry's parents, Black was accused of betraying them to the wicked Voldemort. He was thrown into Azkaban for murdering 13 people, one of whom was Peter Pettigrew, a bungling wizard who chased Black down to avenge his betrayal of the Potters. That, at least, was the official story. The truth, of course, is considerably more complicated.
From my perspective, what is most intriguing about Black is that he is identified as Harry Potter's godfather. Now, some have used this to demonstrate that the Harry Potter books are indeed steeped in a Christian worldview. Why else would Harry have a godfather if he hadn't been baptized? Unfortunately, one doesn't have to do very much web searching to turn up evidence that wiccans do actually have godparents as part of their rituals. Here's an excerpt from a book that I found that clearly indicates the presence of godparents in wicca ritual. There is also the traditional linkage between witchcraft and the notion of the fairy godmother, though I haven't explored that relationship in any great detail. Given this, the argument that Harry is Christian because he has a godfather seems less credible. At the same time, it doesn't positively confirm any linkage between the books and wicca. The use of the term is simply ambiguous.
The major themes in this book are in general agreement with Christian ethic, even if it is not explicitly stated. Good and evil are clearly defined, though it's not always clear who is on which side. The Weasleys, with their large, rambunctious family, are given a central place and are presented very sympathetically. The notions of courage and self-sacrifice are explored in detail, particularly with regard to the love of a mother and father for their child. Harry also shows compassion and mercy, in very much the Christian sense. In one scene, he forbids the killing of Voldemort's creature when he is about to be done in by Harry's protectors.
There are also some hints in the book about an afterlife, though in a form more closely resembling the Star Wars universe than anything Christian. Toward the end of the book, Dumbledore says, "You think the dead we loved ever truly leave us? You think that we don't recall them more clearly than ever in times of great trouble? Your father is alive in you, Harry, and shows himself most plainly when you have need of him" (page 427-8). Kind of like Harry's own Obi-Wan Kenobi. But again, I hesitate to make a call on semi-new-agey stuff like this until I've got a better idea of where it's all going.
Over all, though I enjoyed the writing and the story in Prisoner of Azkaban, I remain conflicted about the series in general, and its suitability for young Catholic readers in particular. I reckon my opinion is going to come down to the wire at the end of Book VII. But I've got to get there first and these books don't seem to get any slimmer as the series progresses. On to Book IV!
If Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets was formulaic and a rehash of Sorcerer's Stone with a few different critters and magical doo-hickeys, The Prisoner of Azkaban is, by contrast, a refreshing change of pace. The overall writing is better, the dialog is more believable and the characters less cardboard. The twisting plot also keeps you guessing which makes for an enjoyable read throughout. And it's a good thing, too. At over 430 pages and a solid two pounds in hardcover, Prisoner of Azkaban is quite the tome.
Rowling introduces the fascinating character of Sirius Black in Prisoner of Azkaban and he is the boogey-man throughout 90% of the book. The best friend of Harry's parents, Black was accused of betraying them to the wicked Voldemort. He was thrown into Azkaban for murdering 13 people, one of whom was Peter Pettigrew, a bungling wizard who chased Black down to avenge his betrayal of the Potters. That, at least, was the official story. The truth, of course, is considerably more complicated.
From my perspective, what is most intriguing about Black is that he is identified as Harry Potter's godfather. Now, some have used this to demonstrate that the Harry Potter books are indeed steeped in a Christian worldview. Why else would Harry have a godfather if he hadn't been baptized? Unfortunately, one doesn't have to do very much web searching to turn up evidence that wiccans do actually have godparents as part of their rituals. Here's an excerpt from a book that I found that clearly indicates the presence of godparents in wicca ritual. There is also the traditional linkage between witchcraft and the notion of the fairy godmother, though I haven't explored that relationship in any great detail. Given this, the argument that Harry is Christian because he has a godfather seems less credible. At the same time, it doesn't positively confirm any linkage between the books and wicca. The use of the term is simply ambiguous.
The major themes in this book are in general agreement with Christian ethic, even if it is not explicitly stated. Good and evil are clearly defined, though it's not always clear who is on which side. The Weasleys, with their large, rambunctious family, are given a central place and are presented very sympathetically. The notions of courage and self-sacrifice are explored in detail, particularly with regard to the love of a mother and father for their child. Harry also shows compassion and mercy, in very much the Christian sense. In one scene, he forbids the killing of Voldemort's creature when he is about to be done in by Harry's protectors.
There are also some hints in the book about an afterlife, though in a form more closely resembling the Star Wars universe than anything Christian. Toward the end of the book, Dumbledore says, "You think the dead we loved ever truly leave us? You think that we don't recall them more clearly than ever in times of great trouble? Your father is alive in you, Harry, and shows himself most plainly when you have need of him" (page 427-8). Kind of like Harry's own Obi-Wan Kenobi. But again, I hesitate to make a call on semi-new-agey stuff like this until I've got a better idea of where it's all going.
Over all, though I enjoyed the writing and the story in Prisoner of Azkaban, I remain conflicted about the series in general, and its suitability for young Catholic readers in particular. I reckon my opinion is going to come down to the wire at the end of Book VII. But I've got to get there first and these books don't seem to get any slimmer as the series progresses. On to Book IV!
Sunday, August 19, 2007
The Red Falcons of Tremoine -- An excellent story for younger readers
Poor Leo lived as an orphan in the care of St. Michael's Abbey. As far as he knew, he had no relations in this world and no family name. He was mocked by the other boys at St. Michael's for his apparently low birth, and his rebellious nature attracted the frequent reproofs of the his guardians, the monks. But the abbot held a secret that no one else knew--that 15-year-old Leo is the legitimate offspring of an ill-fated couple who married in secret because their families were feuding. As such, Leo is the heir of two baronies--Wardlock and Tremoine--both of which remain locked in a bitter grudge.The Red Falcons of Tremoine is the story of how young Leo becomes aware of his parentage and his subsequent struggle as a bone of contention between his father's family at Wardlock and his mother's family at Tremoine. His humble and elderly grandfather, Maurice of Wardlock, embraces Leo and takes him in as his heir. But the scheming and violent Rolf of Tremoine wants his nephew for his own heir is is willing to go to any length to achieve that end.
The Red Falcons of Tremoine starts out slow, but the persevering reader is well rewarded. The characters are very well drawn, and the action is brisk and in no way predictible--until near the end. I particularly enjoyed the complex character of Rainald, the cold but loyal squire of Baron Rolf. Leo is also an excellent character--good hearted, spirited, and honest, but by no means perfect. Baron Rolf is an exceptional villain whose motivations and internal anguish are made clear. While he is somewhat sympathetic in his complexity, the author by no means excuses the wicked things he does and he comes off as more of a tragic figure, rather than truly evil.
I would heartily recommend this book to older kids above the age of 11 or so. Parents will likely enjoy reading along themselves. The author's historical knowledge is good and one really gets a feel for the life and times of 12th century England. If this kind of excellent historical fiction appeals to you, I would recommend Belisarius: The First Shall Be Last and Big John's Secret (Living History Library) as well.
Posting more reviews...
As long as I'm posting my Harry Potter reviews here, I figured I'd post my reviews of other young-adult fiction as well. Unless otherwise noted, none of these books pose any potential danger to the Catholic formation of young readers. Indeed, most of them are as educational as they are fun to read.
Enjoy!
Enjoy!
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets – More of the same
Having read Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, I dove into Book 2, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets anxious to see where J. K. Rowling was going to take the story. I also wanted to see if my criticisms of the first book would stand up or get flattened as the story progressed.
Well, as for the story line, it really wasn’t a whole lot different from the first book. A mystery is introduced: the Chamber of Secrets has been opened by the mysterious Heir of Slytherin and whatever was locked in the Chamber has been attacking, but not killing, certain students who are not of pure magical blood. Harry and his friends sleuth around to figure out the mystery, breaking a myriad of school rules in the process and nearly (of course) getting expelled. When Hermione is attacked, Hogwarts is on the point of shutting down for good. It’s up to Harry, Ron, and the famous but useless Professor Gilderoy Lockhart to discover where the Chamber of Secrets is located and defeat the evil that lurks within.
I have to say I enjoyed reading this installment in the series quite a bit less than the previous book. The character of the self-promoting Gilderoy Lockhart, while resonating with the publisher in me, was too overdone to be funny--like a Monty Python skit that is shown over and over again until all the humor is thoroughly beaten out of it. Also in this category was the scene with Ron vomiting up slugs. Several pages of such imagery is more than enough for even the most scatologically-inclined juvenile reader.
On the other hand, I did like the character of Ginny Weasley, Ron's younger sister. In fact, I think that a lot of homeschool families would find the Weasleys very sympathetic. They've got seven kids--six boys and a girl. They're poor, so they're forced to make due with hand-me-down robes and second-hand wands. And they're ridiculed by their social "betters" for their financial straits. That Ron and his brothers are quick to resort to fisticuffs rather than hear their family demeaned may also resonate with some.
One thing that particularly irritated me about The Chamber of Secrets was the introduction of some alternate history taken directly from wicca 101. "Hogwarts was founded over a thousand years ago by the four greatest witches and wizards of the time," the ghost of Professor Binns lectures. "They built this castle together, far from prying Muggle eyes, for it was an age when magic was feared by common people, and witches and wizards suffered much persecution" (pg. 150). I've heard similar nonsense bandied about by real, modern, historically-challenged wiccans, so when I saw this, I just shook my head. Not good. To my eye, this looked like a seed planted by Rowling and it seemed to substantiate Amy Welborn's observation:
The Chamber of Secrets also elaborates upon the differences between the magically inclined and those poor benighted creatures known as Muggles--that is, anyone who is "normal" and non-magical. In Rowling's world, there are those among the magical who despise the "Mudbloods"--anyone who is magical but from a Muggle family--and those good magic-users who are tolerant of Muggles, no matter how awful and nasty they may be. There seems to be an obvious intent on Rowling's part to make this a lesson in tolerance somehow, but it seems peculiarly elitist to me. Even the magical beings who tolerate the Muggles still, for them most part, look down on them as curious and generally pathetic creatures in need of study. One could easily imagine a book of poetry in the Hogwart's library containing "The Magical Man's Burden." I'm curious to see where this tangent ends up in the future books.
The climax of the book was also subpar. The horrible creature in the Chamber of Secrets is fairly inept. It kills no one (and the reasons given for this are ludicrous) and is eventually destroyed almost by accident. Though Harry is the hero, he seems to survive his deadly encounters almost completely by luck and the intervention of an "eye-in-the-sky"--all of which makes you wonder why the "eye-in-the-sky" didn't just deal with the problem in the first place.
I've heard it said that Chamber of Secrets is the weakest of the Potter books. Having read only the previous one, I can't comment on that, yet. However, it was certainly weaker than Sorcerer's Stone. The book also did little to quell my criticisms of the original book. Indeed, it enhanced them and added a few new ones. We'll see where all this leads in book three.
Well, as for the story line, it really wasn’t a whole lot different from the first book. A mystery is introduced: the Chamber of Secrets has been opened by the mysterious Heir of Slytherin and whatever was locked in the Chamber has been attacking, but not killing, certain students who are not of pure magical blood. Harry and his friends sleuth around to figure out the mystery, breaking a myriad of school rules in the process and nearly (of course) getting expelled. When Hermione is attacked, Hogwarts is on the point of shutting down for good. It’s up to Harry, Ron, and the famous but useless Professor Gilderoy Lockhart to discover where the Chamber of Secrets is located and defeat the evil that lurks within.
I have to say I enjoyed reading this installment in the series quite a bit less than the previous book. The character of the self-promoting Gilderoy Lockhart, while resonating with the publisher in me, was too overdone to be funny--like a Monty Python skit that is shown over and over again until all the humor is thoroughly beaten out of it. Also in this category was the scene with Ron vomiting up slugs. Several pages of such imagery is more than enough for even the most scatologically-inclined juvenile reader.
On the other hand, I did like the character of Ginny Weasley, Ron's younger sister. In fact, I think that a lot of homeschool families would find the Weasleys very sympathetic. They've got seven kids--six boys and a girl. They're poor, so they're forced to make due with hand-me-down robes and second-hand wands. And they're ridiculed by their social "betters" for their financial straits. That Ron and his brothers are quick to resort to fisticuffs rather than hear their family demeaned may also resonate with some.
One thing that particularly irritated me about The Chamber of Secrets was the introduction of some alternate history taken directly from wicca 101. "Hogwarts was founded over a thousand years ago by the four greatest witches and wizards of the time," the ghost of Professor Binns lectures. "They built this castle together, far from prying Muggle eyes, for it was an age when magic was feared by common people, and witches and wizards suffered much persecution" (pg. 150). I've heard similar nonsense bandied about by real, modern, historically-challenged wiccans, so when I saw this, I just shook my head. Not good. To my eye, this looked like a seed planted by Rowling and it seemed to substantiate Amy Welborn's observation:
"There's only one reason the Harry Potter books are in the least bit controversial. Just one. Wicca. That's it. If we didn't have this ridiculous little "religion" bustling around, forming "covens" in dorm rooms and getting army chaplains, I doubt one parent in a million would even think to waste even a minute being concerned about these books."But it is a concern. For the record, there is an excellent article in the Catholic Encyclopedia that gives a capsule scholarly history of witchcraft from the Catholic perspective and it is very effective in debunking wicca and its ridiculous alternate history. I hope that the future books in the series do not contain other such seeds--I'll certainly be looking for them.
The Chamber of Secrets also elaborates upon the differences between the magically inclined and those poor benighted creatures known as Muggles--that is, anyone who is "normal" and non-magical. In Rowling's world, there are those among the magical who despise the "Mudbloods"--anyone who is magical but from a Muggle family--and those good magic-users who are tolerant of Muggles, no matter how awful and nasty they may be. There seems to be an obvious intent on Rowling's part to make this a lesson in tolerance somehow, but it seems peculiarly elitist to me. Even the magical beings who tolerate the Muggles still, for them most part, look down on them as curious and generally pathetic creatures in need of study. One could easily imagine a book of poetry in the Hogwart's library containing "The Magical Man's Burden." I'm curious to see where this tangent ends up in the future books.
The climax of the book was also subpar. The horrible creature in the Chamber of Secrets is fairly inept. It kills no one (and the reasons given for this are ludicrous) and is eventually destroyed almost by accident. Though Harry is the hero, he seems to survive his deadly encounters almost completely by luck and the intervention of an "eye-in-the-sky"--all of which makes you wonder why the "eye-in-the-sky" didn't just deal with the problem in the first place.
I've heard it said that Chamber of Secrets is the weakest of the Potter books. Having read only the previous one, I can't comment on that, yet. However, it was certainly weaker than Sorcerer's Stone. The book also did little to quell my criticisms of the original book. Indeed, it enhanced them and added a few new ones. We'll see where all this leads in book three.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone - Escapism and a bit more
As a youth, fantasy lit was for me a way of making a seemingly mundane life more interesting. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is the kind of book that would have intrigued me at age 12 or there abouts--a young boy who's something of a misfit in his everyday life, suddenly discovers that he's actually much more. There's something secret, special, and interesting about him that nobody dared guess.
As far as this theme goes, the book is one of many, nothing special. Heck, for a while, almost every Disney movie carried exactly this trope. What makes Harry Potter stand out is the creativity of J. K. Rowling. Is she a prose-master? Not exactly. But as fantasy lit for kids goes, the writing is intelligent, yet fast-paced and readable. The characters, both major and minor, are vivid, sympathetic, and brilliantly developed. Rowling's world-building skills are also incredibly good. The profusion of funny incidental items she introduces into the story, from the Nimbus 2000 flying broom to Bertie Bott's Every Flavor Beans help add a certain quirkiness that is undeniably charming.
However, my opinion of the value of mainly escapist fantasy literature has changed substantially in the 25-odd years since I was 12. In the interim, I have realized that life itself is interesting enough and that if you're easily bored with it, it's most likely because you're a boring person. Therefore, for a book of this sort to have some real value--especially for younger readers--it needs to teach them something good and noble about real life outside of Hogwarts Academy. It is on this point that Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone stumbles. My main criticism of the book can be summed up in one sentence:
This annoying element is mostly balanced out, however, by the overriding sense of good and evil that is present throughout the book. "There is no good and evil," says the slavish and simpering Professor Quirrell, servant of the evil Voldemort, "only power and those too weak to seek it" (pg. 291). To its credit, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is not a relativistic book. Evil is well defined. Good is also presented, though perhaps a bit more vaguely and occasionally with a Machievellian undercurrent--in the fight against evil, the rules are not all that important. Love, particularly familial and self-sacrificial love, is also extolled.
Having only read the first book in the series, I'll give Rowling the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the rule-breaking stuff. Perhaps she's got a reasonable explanation for it in the future volumes. I'll be looking for it as I read volumes 2 through 7. I must say, though, that there are plenty of fantasy lit books for young people out there that do a much better job of tackling the subject of good and evil than this one, among them Niamh and the Hermit and Dream of Fire.
As for the common criticism that the Harry Potter series is a gateway to the occult, for a well-catechized young person over the age of 13 or 14, this book should cause no problem in that regard. If the reader is an impressionable child of 8 or 9 who is not well-catechized, I would be a lot more cautious. If they must read it, I would strongly encourage a parent to read along with them.
As far as this theme goes, the book is one of many, nothing special. Heck, for a while, almost every Disney movie carried exactly this trope. What makes Harry Potter stand out is the creativity of J. K. Rowling. Is she a prose-master? Not exactly. But as fantasy lit for kids goes, the writing is intelligent, yet fast-paced and readable. The characters, both major and minor, are vivid, sympathetic, and brilliantly developed. Rowling's world-building skills are also incredibly good. The profusion of funny incidental items she introduces into the story, from the Nimbus 2000 flying broom to Bertie Bott's Every Flavor Beans help add a certain quirkiness that is undeniably charming.
However, my opinion of the value of mainly escapist fantasy literature has changed substantially in the 25-odd years since I was 12. In the interim, I have realized that life itself is interesting enough and that if you're easily bored with it, it's most likely because you're a boring person. Therefore, for a book of this sort to have some real value--especially for younger readers--it needs to teach them something good and noble about real life outside of Hogwarts Academy. It is on this point that Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone stumbles. My main criticism of the book can be summed up in one sentence:
"Hermione had become a bit more relaxed about breaking the rules since Harry and Ron had saved her from the mountain troll, and she was much nicer for it." (pg. 181)Upon finishing the book, it was that sentence that stuck with me. To paraphrase the apparent message: rules are for stuck-up prigs, and if you want to get anywhere and have people like you, you need to break 'em with abandon, even if you lack the experience necessary to fathom why the rules are there in the first place. Again, this is a standard Disney-style trope that I have always hated. And to make matters worse, Harry and his friends are rewarded repeatedly in the aftermath of their rule-breaking. It was a disappointment to me (and a literary mistake, if I may be so bold) at the end that Harry and Gryffindor were awarded enough points at the last possible second to give them the House Cup. It actually made me feel bad for Slytherin--as a Philadelphia sports fan, I know that feeling of being ripped off by the officials all too well.
This annoying element is mostly balanced out, however, by the overriding sense of good and evil that is present throughout the book. "There is no good and evil," says the slavish and simpering Professor Quirrell, servant of the evil Voldemort, "only power and those too weak to seek it" (pg. 291). To its credit, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is not a relativistic book. Evil is well defined. Good is also presented, though perhaps a bit more vaguely and occasionally with a Machievellian undercurrent--in the fight against evil, the rules are not all that important. Love, particularly familial and self-sacrificial love, is also extolled.
Having only read the first book in the series, I'll give Rowling the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the rule-breaking stuff. Perhaps she's got a reasonable explanation for it in the future volumes. I'll be looking for it as I read volumes 2 through 7. I must say, though, that there are plenty of fantasy lit books for young people out there that do a much better job of tackling the subject of good and evil than this one, among them Niamh and the Hermit and Dream of Fire.
As for the common criticism that the Harry Potter series is a gateway to the occult, for a well-catechized young person over the age of 13 or 14, this book should cause no problem in that regard. If the reader is an impressionable child of 8 or 9 who is not well-catechized, I would be a lot more cautious. If they must read it, I would strongly encourage a parent to read along with them.
Buried in Potter's Field? A Catholic Homeschooling Father Reads the Harry Potter Series
With the release of the final book in the Harry Potter series, I have finally decided that it's time to break down and read it all start to finish. Why would I do such a thing, you might well ask, when the Pope has warned the faithful about the series, along with Fr. Amorth, the well-known exorcist? The answer is for the same reason I read the noxious and comically ill-written Da Vinci Code. The series has become a cultural phenomenon and I've been asked repeatedly for my opinion of it. Well, if I'm going to comment on it, I should at least have the common courtesy to read it first.
Plus, it has come to my attention that a number of family members and friends, all sterling Catholics, are fans of the series and several well-known Catholic lights have come out in defense of the Potter books (eg. Amy Wellborn and Cardinal Pell of Sydney). Then, there's the recent creation of the "Papists for Potter" Yahoo Group. But the thing that sealed it for me was the rumor that the final volume in the series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, contained a lot of Christian symbolism and futhermore, that J.K. Rowling is, or at least was, a member of the Chesterton Society.
So I have decided to read and review all of the Potter books from the perspective of a Catholic homeschooling father of five. For the record, none of mine are old enough to read Harry Potter yet--the oldest is five and still working on his phonics. But they're going to grow up in a world where Harry Potter is a cultural phenomenon and the series will, no doubt, eventually become an issue in our house. One way or another, I want to be prepared for it.
I'm also coming from the view-point of a someone who grew up in the 1980s having spent hours-upon-hours playing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons and a variety of sword-and-sorcery type computer games, such as Gauntlet and Bard's Tale. I was also a heavy consumer of such wholesome musical acts as Guns 'n' Roses and Iron Maiden. In the interest of full-disclosure, I did fall away from the Church for a few years in my late-teens. But this had less to do with metal music and video games than exceedingly poor catechesis in high school, simple adolescent sloth, and the generally hedonistic atmosphere at the formerly Catholic university I attended. I never took D&D, video games, or metal very seriously. However, I did know people who took such things very seriously and this attitude certainly had detrimental effects on their development as mature adult Christians.
That said, I embark on reading and reviewing the Harry Potter series with some trepidation. A wise man does not take lightly warnings from both a famous exorcist and Benedict XVI (admittedly, while he was still "merely" Cardinal Ratzinger). Therefore I begin this series of reviews the same way I begin when sitting down to read the books. With a prayer to St. Michael—just in case:
Plus, it has come to my attention that a number of family members and friends, all sterling Catholics, are fans of the series and several well-known Catholic lights have come out in defense of the Potter books (eg. Amy Wellborn and Cardinal Pell of Sydney). Then, there's the recent creation of the "Papists for Potter" Yahoo Group. But the thing that sealed it for me was the rumor that the final volume in the series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, contained a lot of Christian symbolism and futhermore, that J.K. Rowling is, or at least was, a member of the Chesterton Society.
So I have decided to read and review all of the Potter books from the perspective of a Catholic homeschooling father of five. For the record, none of mine are old enough to read Harry Potter yet--the oldest is five and still working on his phonics. But they're going to grow up in a world where Harry Potter is a cultural phenomenon and the series will, no doubt, eventually become an issue in our house. One way or another, I want to be prepared for it.
I'm also coming from the view-point of a someone who grew up in the 1980s having spent hours-upon-hours playing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons and a variety of sword-and-sorcery type computer games, such as Gauntlet and Bard's Tale. I was also a heavy consumer of such wholesome musical acts as Guns 'n' Roses and Iron Maiden. In the interest of full-disclosure, I did fall away from the Church for a few years in my late-teens. But this had less to do with metal music and video games than exceedingly poor catechesis in high school, simple adolescent sloth, and the generally hedonistic atmosphere at the formerly Catholic university I attended. I never took D&D, video games, or metal very seriously. However, I did know people who took such things very seriously and this attitude certainly had detrimental effects on their development as mature adult Christians.
That said, I embark on reading and reviewing the Harry Potter series with some trepidation. A wise man does not take lightly warnings from both a famous exorcist and Benedict XVI (admittedly, while he was still "merely" Cardinal Ratzinger). Therefore I begin this series of reviews the same way I begin when sitting down to read the books. With a prayer to St. Michael—just in case:
Sancte Michael Archangel, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium. Imperet illi Deus, supplices deprecamur tuque, Princeps militiae coelestis, Satanam aliosoque malignos, qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in mundo, divina virtute, in infernum detrude. Amen.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
A "conservative rallying cry" with "Dune-like plots-within-plots"?
Thanks to John Desjarlais for the thorough review of my book on CatholicFiction.net. The complete text of the review may be found here:
http://www.catholicfiction.net/2007/06/05/belisarius-by-paulo-belzoni/
Mr. Desjarlais is to be congratulated for coming as close as anyone has yet to picking up all the major themes and sub-themes running throughout the book, along with most of the foreshadowing elements.
http://www.catholicfiction.net/2007/06/05/belisarius-by-paulo-belzoni/
Mr. Desjarlais is to be congratulated for coming as close as anyone has yet to picking up all the major themes and sub-themes running throughout the book, along with most of the foreshadowing elements.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
The Battle of Daras--The First Victory of the Last Great Roman General
“It is possible to govern based on an approach that is distinctly different from one of coercion, force and injustice,” wrote Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently in an open letter he thoughtfully scribed for the benefit of the American people. “It is possible to sincerely serve and promote common human values, and honesty and compassion. It is possible to provide welfare and prosperity without tension, threats, imposition or war.”
These statements sound almost reasonable until it is remembered that they came from the pen of an individual whose repressive regime funds proxy paramilitary forces and outright terrorist groups in Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza, recently sponsored an international conference of Holocaust deniers, regularly calls for the destruction of the state of Israel, and punishes the “crime” of conversion from Islam to Christianity with torture and death. Perhaps Mr. Ahmadinejad is so detached from reality that he doesn’t realize the rank hypocrisy of his words. More likely, as the letter was meant for the American public, its purpose was purely propagandistic—any passing resemblance to the truth contained therein being merely coincidental.
Mr. Ahmadinejad’s “honesty and compassion” letter is merely the latest thrust in the propaganda battle between Iran and the United States—a war of words that the U.S., in fact, seems to be losing pretty badly. To a student of history, it is perhaps not surprising that the Iranian regime has shown itself so adept at waging a propaganda war—of providing sincere and reasonable sounding pretexts for their subsequent insincere and unreasonable actions.
Iran has a long history of facing off against the West. In the days of King Xerxes—when Iran was known as Persia—their mighty armies nearly destroyed the nascent civilization of ancient Greece. A century and a half later, the West got its revenge when Alexander the Great crossed into Asia and conquered the vast Persian dominions. By the time of Christ, Persia was ruled by the Parthians, a nomadic people whose expert use of cavalry tactics proved a match even for the vaunted Roman legions of Marcus Crassus. While the Parthians were an occasional annoyance to the Romans—the superpower of the first two centuries of the Christian era—they quickly wilted when the full power of Rome was brought to bear against them. In AD 116, the Emperor Trajan conquered the region and made it a province of the Empire for a short time.
But Rome was an empire in decline by the early 3rd century AD and Persia, by contrast, was just beginning to reconstitute itself as a great power. By the time Constantine the Great became sole ruler of the Roman world in the early 4th century AD, a sophisticated Persian kingdom had re-emerged. Ruled by a dynasty known as the Sassanids, this powerful state would prove a deadly enemy to Roman emperors—quite literally in the case of Valerian who was captured on the battlefield and later executed by the Persian king Sapor I.
As the Roman Empire became more exclusively Christian in the 4th and 5th centuries, wars of conquest suddenly seemed unthinkable—and less possible given dire manpower shortages and the rising threat of the Germanic peoples in the West. Thus, for the next century and a half, a general peace reigned on the eastern frontier, broken sporadically by sudden Persian or Arab raids on the frontier towns. The Roman response to these occasional outbreaks of violence was weak and pathologically inept, and Eastern Roman Emperors proved willing to pay tribute to the Persians in exchange for peace—a notion that would have been anathema to their more military-minded predecessors.
This situation came to a head at the beginning of the 6th century when the Eastern Roman Emperor Anastasius refused to pay the annual tribute and the energetic Persian King Cabades I launched an invasion of Roman Mesopotamia in response. This war lasted four years and though it resulted in a stalemate, Roman arms did not distinguish themselves, fighting more often than not from behind strong walls. An uneasy truce kept the peace for 20 years as Cabades dealt with other threats to his kingdom, but by AD 525, he was again ready to tangle with the Romans.
When war broke out, the Roman frontier defenses were unprepared. Cabades first set his Lakhmid Arab allies upon the Roman towns of the East. Under the command of their kinglet, Al-Mundhir, the bloodthirsty Lakhmids devastated all in their path. At the Roman town of Emessa alone, Al-Mundhir sacrificed 400 nuns to the Arab goddess al-Uzza. He defeated the poorly led Roman armies sent out to thwart his incursion and returned home in triumph with two Roman generals among his long train of captives.
But the old soldier, Justin, who had been crowned Roman Emperor unexpectedly in AD 518, was not about to allow such outrage to go unanswered. Of common birth and already an old man when elevated to the throne, Justin and his brilliant nephew and successor Justinian steadily built up the frontier defenses, refortifying a the city of Daras which stood less than a day’s ride from the Persian border.
King Cabades immediately recognized the threat this fortress posed and in AD 530 mustered an army some 40,000 strong to destroy it. Entrusting the command to Perozes, a Persian nobleman, Cabades had every expectation of easy success. After all, Persian armies had a history of getting the better of their Roman counterparts that extended back nearly 200 years.
Against such a foe, the dashing young Roman general Belisarius was dispatched to defend the city. Having attained the exalted rank of Master of Soldiers of the East at the age of 25, Belisarius was born in Thrace—modern day Bulgaria—and had risen meteorically through the ranks. With an army of 25,000, the largest the Romans had been able to muster on the eastern frontier for nearly 150 years, Belisarius made ready to defend Daras against the expected Persian attack.
Not without cause, the Romans had come to respect and fear Persian military might. In his tactical manual, The Strategicon, the late 6th century Roman Emperor Maurice lauded the Persians as “steadfast in enduring hard work and warfare on behalf of their fatherland. They prefer to achieve their results by planning and generalship and stress an orderly approach….They are formidable when laying siege, but even more formidable when besieged.”
By contrast, the Persians treated Roman arms with contempt. When speaking to his army, Perozes derided the Romans, saying: “I would not have you think that the Romans have suddenly become better warriors….If the fighting comes to close quarters, fear will seize them, and this, together with their inexperience, will throw them into their customary disorder.” Furthermore, as he approached the city of Daras to begin the siege, Perozes sent a haughty letter to Belisarius calling upon the young general to make ready a bath—Perozes intended to bathe within the city on the following day.
The Persians were, perhaps, not expecting the sight that greeted them before the gates of Daras. Far from seeking safety behind the walls of the city, Belisarius assembled his entire army in well-ordered ranks, ready for battle. Their appearance must have rattled Perozes who hesitated to order a general assault. Instead, in a manner reminiscent of the Illiad or 1 Kings, he sent forth two champions to challenge the Romans to single combat. Both were defeated in turn by the same man, a Roman wrestler named Andreas. These unexpected failures must have further shaken Perozes, because he immediately withdrew to his camp, hoping for better luck the next day.
During the evening, the opposing generals exchanged letters. Belisarius initiated the negotiations, writing: “The first blessing is peace…..The best general, therefore, is one who is able to bring about peace from war. But you, when affairs were well settled between the Romans and Persians, have seen fit to bring upon us a war without cause….Do not stand in the way of the greatest blessings, lest at some time you be held responsible for the disasters which will no doubt come to pass.”
In reply, Perozes wrote: “I should have been persuaded by what you write were the letter not from Romans for whom the making of promises is easy, but the fulfillment of them is a deed beyond hope. Despairing in view of your deception, we are compelled to come before you in arms. As for you, Romans, from now on you will be obliged to engage us in war until you accord us justice.”
The arrival of an additional 10,000 men bolstered Perozes’s confidence, and he lined up for battle the next day with a full two-to-one advantage over the Romans. The battle began just after noon with an exchange of archery. Though the Romans seemed to be getting the worst of it at first, a stiff wind began to blow at their backs which gave added impetus to their missiles, while retarding those of the Persians.
When the armies came to close-quarters, the hand-to-hand fighting became intense and the Roman left wing began to fall back under a furious attack. The situation was saved by a sudden assault on the Persian flank by a contingent of Huns who were fighting as allies alongside the Romans. Another unit of Herulian allies ambushed the Persian rear at almost the same moment, creating chaos and causing the entire Persian right wing to dissolve into a rout.
Though defeated on one wing, Perozes had yet to commit his best troops, the vaunted Persian Immortals. These heavy cavalry units were the elite of the Persian army and Perozes must have had every confidence that they would easily smash through the Roman right wing. And indeed, their initial onset drove back the Romans and set them running. But Belisarius was ready and launched a heavy flank attack—again, spearheaded by his Hunnic allies—which cut the Immortal wedge in half. Thousands of the Persian elites were enveloped by the Romans and destroyed while the rest beat a hasty retreat after their commander was thrown from his horse and slain.
When the dust cleared, the Persian army was in full flight and there must have been great rejoicing among the Roman soldiers and the people of the city of Daras. “For on that day the Persians had been defeated in battle by the Romans,” wrote an eye-witness—the historian Procopius of Caesarea, “a thing which had not happened for a long time.”
Sadly, this was not to be the end of the fighting. Though an “Eternal Peace” was concluded between the two realms after the Battle of Daras, eternity proved to be less than ten years as the Persians launched a surprise invasion in AD 540 and sacked the magnificent city of Antioch. Only the first recorded emergence of the Black Plague prevented the Persians from conquering the entire Roman east at this time.
The Romans and Persians continued this death struggle for another century, while a third force stood waiting in the wings, slowly gathering its strength. Once the two great powers had bled themselves white, this newcomer burst suddenly onto the scene and took full advantage of their weakness. The whole of Persia was conquered within a few decades and the Christian Roman provinces of Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and North Africa fell in quick succession to this force—the Islamic Jihad.
When one recalls the still unrepented tactics which Islam used to conquer and rule these lands, the words of Mr. Ahmadinejad quoted at the beginning of this article become even more hollow. In response to his insincere letter, I quote the words of Belisarius at Daras: The first blessing is peace. Do not stand in the way of the greatest blessings, lest at some time you be held responsible by God for the disasters which will no doubt come to pass.
These statements sound almost reasonable until it is remembered that they came from the pen of an individual whose repressive regime funds proxy paramilitary forces and outright terrorist groups in Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza, recently sponsored an international conference of Holocaust deniers, regularly calls for the destruction of the state of Israel, and punishes the “crime” of conversion from Islam to Christianity with torture and death. Perhaps Mr. Ahmadinejad is so detached from reality that he doesn’t realize the rank hypocrisy of his words. More likely, as the letter was meant for the American public, its purpose was purely propagandistic—any passing resemblance to the truth contained therein being merely coincidental.
Mr. Ahmadinejad’s “honesty and compassion” letter is merely the latest thrust in the propaganda battle between Iran and the United States—a war of words that the U.S., in fact, seems to be losing pretty badly. To a student of history, it is perhaps not surprising that the Iranian regime has shown itself so adept at waging a propaganda war—of providing sincere and reasonable sounding pretexts for their subsequent insincere and unreasonable actions.
Iran has a long history of facing off against the West. In the days of King Xerxes—when Iran was known as Persia—their mighty armies nearly destroyed the nascent civilization of ancient Greece. A century and a half later, the West got its revenge when Alexander the Great crossed into Asia and conquered the vast Persian dominions. By the time of Christ, Persia was ruled by the Parthians, a nomadic people whose expert use of cavalry tactics proved a match even for the vaunted Roman legions of Marcus Crassus. While the Parthians were an occasional annoyance to the Romans—the superpower of the first two centuries of the Christian era—they quickly wilted when the full power of Rome was brought to bear against them. In AD 116, the Emperor Trajan conquered the region and made it a province of the Empire for a short time.
But Rome was an empire in decline by the early 3rd century AD and Persia, by contrast, was just beginning to reconstitute itself as a great power. By the time Constantine the Great became sole ruler of the Roman world in the early 4th century AD, a sophisticated Persian kingdom had re-emerged. Ruled by a dynasty known as the Sassanids, this powerful state would prove a deadly enemy to Roman emperors—quite literally in the case of Valerian who was captured on the battlefield and later executed by the Persian king Sapor I.
As the Roman Empire became more exclusively Christian in the 4th and 5th centuries, wars of conquest suddenly seemed unthinkable—and less possible given dire manpower shortages and the rising threat of the Germanic peoples in the West. Thus, for the next century and a half, a general peace reigned on the eastern frontier, broken sporadically by sudden Persian or Arab raids on the frontier towns. The Roman response to these occasional outbreaks of violence was weak and pathologically inept, and Eastern Roman Emperors proved willing to pay tribute to the Persians in exchange for peace—a notion that would have been anathema to their more military-minded predecessors.
This situation came to a head at the beginning of the 6th century when the Eastern Roman Emperor Anastasius refused to pay the annual tribute and the energetic Persian King Cabades I launched an invasion of Roman Mesopotamia in response. This war lasted four years and though it resulted in a stalemate, Roman arms did not distinguish themselves, fighting more often than not from behind strong walls. An uneasy truce kept the peace for 20 years as Cabades dealt with other threats to his kingdom, but by AD 525, he was again ready to tangle with the Romans.
When war broke out, the Roman frontier defenses were unprepared. Cabades first set his Lakhmid Arab allies upon the Roman towns of the East. Under the command of their kinglet, Al-Mundhir, the bloodthirsty Lakhmids devastated all in their path. At the Roman town of Emessa alone, Al-Mundhir sacrificed 400 nuns to the Arab goddess al-Uzza. He defeated the poorly led Roman armies sent out to thwart his incursion and returned home in triumph with two Roman generals among his long train of captives.
But the old soldier, Justin, who had been crowned Roman Emperor unexpectedly in AD 518, was not about to allow such outrage to go unanswered. Of common birth and already an old man when elevated to the throne, Justin and his brilliant nephew and successor Justinian steadily built up the frontier defenses, refortifying a the city of Daras which stood less than a day’s ride from the Persian border.
King Cabades immediately recognized the threat this fortress posed and in AD 530 mustered an army some 40,000 strong to destroy it. Entrusting the command to Perozes, a Persian nobleman, Cabades had every expectation of easy success. After all, Persian armies had a history of getting the better of their Roman counterparts that extended back nearly 200 years.
Against such a foe, the dashing young Roman general Belisarius was dispatched to defend the city. Having attained the exalted rank of Master of Soldiers of the East at the age of 25, Belisarius was born in Thrace—modern day Bulgaria—and had risen meteorically through the ranks. With an army of 25,000, the largest the Romans had been able to muster on the eastern frontier for nearly 150 years, Belisarius made ready to defend Daras against the expected Persian attack.
Not without cause, the Romans had come to respect and fear Persian military might. In his tactical manual, The Strategicon, the late 6th century Roman Emperor Maurice lauded the Persians as “steadfast in enduring hard work and warfare on behalf of their fatherland. They prefer to achieve their results by planning and generalship and stress an orderly approach….They are formidable when laying siege, but even more formidable when besieged.”
By contrast, the Persians treated Roman arms with contempt. When speaking to his army, Perozes derided the Romans, saying: “I would not have you think that the Romans have suddenly become better warriors….If the fighting comes to close quarters, fear will seize them, and this, together with their inexperience, will throw them into their customary disorder.” Furthermore, as he approached the city of Daras to begin the siege, Perozes sent a haughty letter to Belisarius calling upon the young general to make ready a bath—Perozes intended to bathe within the city on the following day.
The Persians were, perhaps, not expecting the sight that greeted them before the gates of Daras. Far from seeking safety behind the walls of the city, Belisarius assembled his entire army in well-ordered ranks, ready for battle. Their appearance must have rattled Perozes who hesitated to order a general assault. Instead, in a manner reminiscent of the Illiad or 1 Kings, he sent forth two champions to challenge the Romans to single combat. Both were defeated in turn by the same man, a Roman wrestler named Andreas. These unexpected failures must have further shaken Perozes, because he immediately withdrew to his camp, hoping for better luck the next day.
During the evening, the opposing generals exchanged letters. Belisarius initiated the negotiations, writing: “The first blessing is peace…..The best general, therefore, is one who is able to bring about peace from war. But you, when affairs were well settled between the Romans and Persians, have seen fit to bring upon us a war without cause….Do not stand in the way of the greatest blessings, lest at some time you be held responsible for the disasters which will no doubt come to pass.”
In reply, Perozes wrote: “I should have been persuaded by what you write were the letter not from Romans for whom the making of promises is easy, but the fulfillment of them is a deed beyond hope. Despairing in view of your deception, we are compelled to come before you in arms. As for you, Romans, from now on you will be obliged to engage us in war until you accord us justice.”
The arrival of an additional 10,000 men bolstered Perozes’s confidence, and he lined up for battle the next day with a full two-to-one advantage over the Romans. The battle began just after noon with an exchange of archery. Though the Romans seemed to be getting the worst of it at first, a stiff wind began to blow at their backs which gave added impetus to their missiles, while retarding those of the Persians.
When the armies came to close-quarters, the hand-to-hand fighting became intense and the Roman left wing began to fall back under a furious attack. The situation was saved by a sudden assault on the Persian flank by a contingent of Huns who were fighting as allies alongside the Romans. Another unit of Herulian allies ambushed the Persian rear at almost the same moment, creating chaos and causing the entire Persian right wing to dissolve into a rout.
Though defeated on one wing, Perozes had yet to commit his best troops, the vaunted Persian Immortals. These heavy cavalry units were the elite of the Persian army and Perozes must have had every confidence that they would easily smash through the Roman right wing. And indeed, their initial onset drove back the Romans and set them running. But Belisarius was ready and launched a heavy flank attack—again, spearheaded by his Hunnic allies—which cut the Immortal wedge in half. Thousands of the Persian elites were enveloped by the Romans and destroyed while the rest beat a hasty retreat after their commander was thrown from his horse and slain.
When the dust cleared, the Persian army was in full flight and there must have been great rejoicing among the Roman soldiers and the people of the city of Daras. “For on that day the Persians had been defeated in battle by the Romans,” wrote an eye-witness—the historian Procopius of Caesarea, “a thing which had not happened for a long time.”
Sadly, this was not to be the end of the fighting. Though an “Eternal Peace” was concluded between the two realms after the Battle of Daras, eternity proved to be less than ten years as the Persians launched a surprise invasion in AD 540 and sacked the magnificent city of Antioch. Only the first recorded emergence of the Black Plague prevented the Persians from conquering the entire Roman east at this time.
The Romans and Persians continued this death struggle for another century, while a third force stood waiting in the wings, slowly gathering its strength. Once the two great powers had bled themselves white, this newcomer burst suddenly onto the scene and took full advantage of their weakness. The whole of Persia was conquered within a few decades and the Christian Roman provinces of Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and North Africa fell in quick succession to this force—the Islamic Jihad.
When one recalls the still unrepented tactics which Islam used to conquer and rule these lands, the words of Mr. Ahmadinejad quoted at the beginning of this article become even more hollow. In response to his insincere letter, I quote the words of Belisarius at Daras: The first blessing is peace. Do not stand in the way of the greatest blessings, lest at some time you be held responsible by God for the disasters which will no doubt come to pass.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Vanity Radio -- Rebuttal to Michael Medved's RINO love letter
Michael Medved is one of the most astute and persuasive hosts on conservative talk radio. Occasionally, individuals call into his show to champion hopeless third party candidacies—usually on “disagreement day”. These conversations are always good for a chuckle as Michael lays into the callers and disparages them as members of the “Losertarian” or “Constipation” parties. As Michael rightly points out, these parties are generally populated by cranks, weirdos, and guys who like to pretend to be part of the process by doing the political equivalent of “playing house.”
As a result, votes cast for third party candidates are wasted, Medved opines. If one has a problem with the candidates fielded by the major parties in a general election, the proper time to dispose of them is in the primaries.
Surprisingly, we now find out that Mr. Medved isn’t even all that big a fan of the primary process.
In his latest article, posted here on Townhall.com, Medved argues that Republicans always nominate their frontrunners. Well, always, at least, since 1960. And only if you assume that Dole was actually still the frontrunner after early loses in New Hampshire, Alaska, and Louisiana to Pat Buchanan in 1996. As a result, it is necessary—so the argument goes—that conservatives become slaves to history and rally around our so-called frontrunners right now, a full year before the first primaries.
Of course, Mr. Medved is selective in his use of history. When was the last time an out-and-proud pro-abortion extremist got the Republican nod for the presidency and won? When was the last time a bona-fide gun control advocate won the Republican nomination? When was the last time the GOP standard bearer was a fellow whose last elective office was mayor? I suspect that Mr. Medved will cavalierly lay aside those bits of history when considering the candidates, however.
It happens that our so-called frontrunners at this point are three fellows whose names usually evoke revulsion among the conservative activists who know them best. And what made these three the front-runners over a year from the first primary? Name recognition (much of it negative) and their connection to big money interests. The fact that all three of these guys hold, held, or are in the process of changing positions on key issues that will make them about as popular as the Hanta virus with the Republican base apparently has no bearing on the equation. To summarize:
Simply put, Mr. Giuliani is unelectable as a Republican. Perhaps that’s why his campaign at first didn’t bother to check off the “Republican” box on the official paperwork. To those of us here in the Northeast who remember his tenure as mayor of New York City, we know precisely what kind of creature Mr. Giuliani is—a hard-core liberal. He enacted some of the most stringent anti-2nd Amendment laws in the country as mayor of New York and helped kick off the spate of lawsuits against gun manufacturers. He is arguably more pro-gay-agenda than Hillary Clinton herself. Some advocates like to tout his record of tax-cutting in New York, but it’s a no-brainer to cut taxes when they’re already well passed the peak of the Laffer Curve. If being a tax cutter were the only criteria for getting the Republican nomination, we could simply hand Ed Rendell the job as he did much the same thing in Philadelphia. Giuliani has gladly accepted campaign contributions from the National Abortion Rights Action League, opposed banning partial-birth abortion, and advocated taxpayer funding for abortion. The Pro-Life Federation of Michigan has already given Giuliani an “F” on the issue and more will no doubt follow.
John McCain’s got a different set of problems. While his organization may be good, and his record is rather more conservative than Mr. Giuliani’s, Mr. McCain was the leader of the infamous Gang of 14 that hampered Republican efforts in the Senate and made the party leadership look weak and pathetic. As a result, his antics must bear partial responsibility for the subsequent loss of the Senate, which to many Americans appeared to be a feckless do-nothing body while in the hands of the Republicans. McCain also has his name on one of the most nefarious pieces of legislation ever to escape the Congress, get signed by the president, and not get knocked down by the Supreme Court: McCain/Feingold. That he’s the darling of the mainstream media and one of the first people Tim Russert runs to when he needs a Republican to bash his own party doesn’t endear him to the Republican grassroots either.
As for Mitt Romney, he may well turn out to be the Republican version of John Kerry—a Massachusetts pol with nice hair who will say anything, take any position, or repudiate any past position to get elected. And it might be enough to get him the Republican nomination. But we should all cringe when that thought crosses our minds. Democrats were phenomenally effective in the 2006 election cycle running issue ads against good Republicans attacking them from the right. We saw that locally in Pennsylvania with Rick Santorum who was attacked relentlessly and disingenuously for being soft on illegal immigration based on some legislation he had supported earlier in his Senate career. Mind you, these ads didn’t claim that his opponent would be any better—but they were horribly effective at making conservatives think that Santorum had “sold out.” A guy like Mitt Romney has a lot more liberal baggage than Rick Santorum ever did, having tried to out-liberal Ted Kennedy when he ran against him in 1994. Should he win the nomination, the media attack machine will have plenty of ammo to make him completely toxic to the Republican base starting the day after the convention.
Our three anointed “frontrunners” all have feet, legs, and torsos of clay. Despite this, Mr. Medved believes that we have no choice but to remain slaves to his version of history and line-up behind one of them. Of course, our opponents in the Democrat party are under no such obligation. When has a former First Lady been nominated for president? What about a one-term Black Senator?
I say hogwash. This is a strange election cycle. There is no Republican heir-apparent and the so-called front-runners are all out of phase with the base of the party. That there are three of them means that they will split the moderate vote and those fear-motivated conservatives who can be stampeded into their camps. A dark-horse candidate with authentic conservative credentials could easily emerge and win this race.
My choice for dark horse at this point is Duncan Hunter. A solid conservative and decorated Vietnam Veteran, Hunter could not be written off as a chicken hawk on the War on Terror—his son served two tours in Iraq. He’s been strong on abortion issues and would rally the pro-life segment of the base. He has received a solid 100 rating from Concerned Women for America since 2003. He’s got an “A” rating from the NRA. He’s a “fair trader” in the style of Ronald Reagan which means he’s got a shot at blue-collar Democrat and Independent voters, and has been a powerful advocate for a strong military since he was first elected in 1980.
The fact that hosts like Mr. Medved have already written off such a seemingly strong candidate is alarming. I noticed in the list of “minor” candidates Medved has invited to appear on the show, Mr. Hunter’s name wasn’t on there. I’m guessing this was an oversight on his part. (Surely, Mr. Hunter has been invited, right Michael?) Hosts like Medved, Hannity, and of course, the big kahuna of them all, Rush Limbaugh, could put a second tier candidate with a strong conservative resume and low name-recognition on the map in a fortnight simply by treating them the same way that they treat the so-called “front-runners” and not writing them off as “vanity candidates.”
Based on his last two columns, it seems fairly clear to me that Michael Medved is about to go into the tank for political snake-oil salesman Rudy Giuliani and that’s a shame. If he does so, he should be careful considering where his bread is buttered. The audience for his show could very well dwindle to the point where it becomes “vanity radio.”Tuesday, December 06, 2005
The true Jesuit ideals
Regarding the recent decision of the Boston College administration to cancel a homosexual dance on campus, it's fairly clear that this is not an indication of any rediscovered love or respect of authentic Catholic teaching at that benighted "Catholic" university. Rather, it is more likely an attempt at putting on a good face at a time when the Vatican-sponsored apostolic visitation of American seminaries is underway. The BC administration is no doubt afraid of drawing any undue attention to itself during this time when the Vatican is attempting to rip out the homosexual influence from Catholic institutions root and branch. Where love and respect are lacking, fear is an acceptable substitute.
But back to the subject at hand, the above-linked editorial from the BC campus newspaper deserves a heavy dose of refutation. They wrote:
"The question at this point is whether BC is willing to sacrifice its Jesuit ideals of compassion and understanding in order to stay in the good graces of the Vatican."
From this statement, it is clear to me that no one is bothering to teach the Catechism of the Catholic Church at BC these days. Nor, obviously, is anyone teaching the life of St. Ignatius or a history of the Jesuit order in general.
If the editors had taken any of these courses, they would know that there are supposed to be no points of contradiction between the teachings of the Catholic Church and the "ideals" of the Jesuit order. Where such points of conflict exist, the latter is supposed to give way to the former, as lies give way to Truth. If certain Jesuits insist on holding fast to "ideals" which contradict those teachings of the Church deemed to be infallible, then those individuals have separated themselves from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
And where, exactly, do the editors get their definition of the "ideals" of the Jesuits? Here's a quote from the original Jesuit, St. Ignatius Loyola. I would encourage BC students to read it and then tell me where, exactly, Ignatius is making "compassion and understanding" of heresy an "ideal" of the Jesuits:
"The heretics have made their false theology popular and presented it in a way that is within the capacity of the common people. They preach it to the people and teach it in the schools, and scatter pamphlets that can be bought and understood by many; they influence people by their writings when they cannot reach them by preaching. Their success is largely due to the negligence of those who should have shown some interest, and the bad example and the ignorance of Catholics, especially the clergy, have made such ravages in the vineyard of the Lord. Hence it would seem that our Society should use the following means to end and cure the evils which the Church has suffered through these heretics."
Ignatius then gives suggestions for his Jesuits to fight the heresies then raging in 16th century Spain. Students at BC might be surprised (given the dreadful amount of anti-Catholic propaganda that masquerades as history filtering into classrooms at ostensibly Catholic universities) that Ignatius didn't suggest violence, censorship, or any form of legal coersion. Instead, Ignatius argued that heresy was best fought by learned men and clergy teaching solid catechesis in universities which were unwaveringly loyal to Catholic doctrine.
The letter, in its entirety, may be read here:
http://www.library.georgetown.edu/woodstock/ignatius-letters/letter34
That is the TRUE Jesuit ideal from the primary Jesuit. "Compassion and understanding" are to be used to help the erring heretic see the light of Truth, not to confirm him in his error or enable her to imagine herself as righteous in the eyes of Almighty God while continuing to wallow in grotesquely sinful behavior. There is absolutely no compassion in enabling sin, nor is there understanding in condoning the propagation of vile behaviors.
Therefore, I applaud the BC administration for their cancellation of this supremely unCatholic event. I pray that the administration will continue to be similarly courageous in the future, and I ask St. Isaac Jogues to pray for them as they attempt to withstand the furious outcry which will no doubt be soon forthcoming from the usual suspects.
But back to the subject at hand, the above-linked editorial from the BC campus newspaper deserves a heavy dose of refutation. They wrote:
"The question at this point is whether BC is willing to sacrifice its Jesuit ideals of compassion and understanding in order to stay in the good graces of the Vatican."
From this statement, it is clear to me that no one is bothering to teach the Catechism of the Catholic Church at BC these days. Nor, obviously, is anyone teaching the life of St. Ignatius or a history of the Jesuit order in general.
If the editors had taken any of these courses, they would know that there are supposed to be no points of contradiction between the teachings of the Catholic Church and the "ideals" of the Jesuit order. Where such points of conflict exist, the latter is supposed to give way to the former, as lies give way to Truth. If certain Jesuits insist on holding fast to "ideals" which contradict those teachings of the Church deemed to be infallible, then those individuals have separated themselves from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
And where, exactly, do the editors get their definition of the "ideals" of the Jesuits? Here's a quote from the original Jesuit, St. Ignatius Loyola. I would encourage BC students to read it and then tell me where, exactly, Ignatius is making "compassion and understanding" of heresy an "ideal" of the Jesuits:
"The heretics have made their false theology popular and presented it in a way that is within the capacity of the common people. They preach it to the people and teach it in the schools, and scatter pamphlets that can be bought and understood by many; they influence people by their writings when they cannot reach them by preaching. Their success is largely due to the negligence of those who should have shown some interest, and the bad example and the ignorance of Catholics, especially the clergy, have made such ravages in the vineyard of the Lord. Hence it would seem that our Society should use the following means to end and cure the evils which the Church has suffered through these heretics."
Ignatius then gives suggestions for his Jesuits to fight the heresies then raging in 16th century Spain. Students at BC might be surprised (given the dreadful amount of anti-Catholic propaganda that masquerades as history filtering into classrooms at ostensibly Catholic universities) that Ignatius didn't suggest violence, censorship, or any form of legal coersion. Instead, Ignatius argued that heresy was best fought by learned men and clergy teaching solid catechesis in universities which were unwaveringly loyal to Catholic doctrine.
The letter, in its entirety, may be read here:
http://www.library.georgetown.edu/woodstock/ignatius-letters/letter34
That is the TRUE Jesuit ideal from the primary Jesuit. "Compassion and understanding" are to be used to help the erring heretic see the light of Truth, not to confirm him in his error or enable her to imagine herself as righteous in the eyes of Almighty God while continuing to wallow in grotesquely sinful behavior. There is absolutely no compassion in enabling sin, nor is there understanding in condoning the propagation of vile behaviors.
Therefore, I applaud the BC administration for their cancellation of this supremely unCatholic event. I pray that the administration will continue to be similarly courageous in the future, and I ask St. Isaac Jogues to pray for them as they attempt to withstand the furious outcry which will no doubt be soon forthcoming from the usual suspects.
Sunday, December 04, 2005
"Sometimes we must do the ridiculous so that God can do the miraculous."
Anyone who still believes that the Catholic Church holds women down and doesn't allow them to reach their full potential needs to read this book.
Most Catholics have at least heard of Mother Angelica, the feisty cloistered nun who founded EWTN, the global Catholic television network. What most people don't know is the incredible litany of trials, difficulties, near financial ruin, and near-death experiences she overcame, through the grace of God, in order to do what most considered impossible. In her own words, "Sometimes we must do the ridiculous so that God can do the miraculous."
And indeed, what Mother has accomplished in her lifetime would be, according to convention wisdom, ridiculous. The child of a broken home, who grew up on the wrong side of the tracks in Canton, OH, Mother Angelica heard the call of Almighty God after receiving a miraculous cure of a chronic stomach ailment through the prayers of a mystic named Rhoda Wise. From such humble beginnings, Mother joined the Poor Clares of the Blessed Sacrament, a contemplative order, and by a combination of inspiration, pluck, and tenacity, became the foundress of a new monastery in Birmingham, AL. While building her monastery, Mother became aware of the awesome power of television to bring the word of Christ to large numbers of people. When shown a television studio in Chicago in the late 1970s, Mother reportedly said, "I've got to have one of these." Twenty years later, she was running a Catholic cable network that reached millions upon millions of households across the globe-as well as a short-wave radio network. At the same time, Mother was also the hostess of one of the most popular programs on her TV network.
Though she started out as a thoroughly "progressive" nun, fully engaged in the deep changes brought about by Vatican II, Mother soon became disillusioned with the "Spirit of Vatican II" which went far beyond the original intent of the Council. What seemed to finally drive her over the edge was the faddish mania for "gender inclusive" translation in prayers, liturgy, and even sacred scripture. When, as part of the Pope's visit to Denver for World Youth Day in 1993, EWTN was duped into airing a Way of the Cross procession-done in mime with a woman playing the part of Jesus-Mother had finally had enough. On her live program the next night, she issued a passionate denunciation of the event, saying, "I'm so tired of you, liberal church in America....You don't have vocations and you don't even care-your whole purpose is to destroy."
This event was not Mother Angelica's first tussle with Catholic hierarchy in America, but it made her a marked woman. From that point on, Mother was in the sights of certain American bishops who were keen to either drive her off the air, or take over the network she had built outright. However, she had powerful allies on her side, both in Rome, and in America. Her salvoes against the liberal dominated National Council of Catholic Bishops made her an instant heroine to the most devout Catholic laity. Meanwhile, she received encouragement from none other than Pope John Paul II himself.
The truth of the matter, as is plain to see, is that EWTN has survived and thrived despite the actions of some of the most liberal American bishops. Roger Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles comes out looking particularly petty and vindictive in this book during his incessant attempts to extract an on-air apology from Mother for basically calling one of his teaching documents heretical and encouraging her viewers not to listen to him. While Mother's offense may have stepped over the line in terms of the obedience Catholics owe to their bishops, many felt that her criticism was valid and a long-time coming.
Written by Raymond Arroyo, host of EWTN's news magazine program, The World Over, Live, "Mother Angelica" pulls few punches and is an inspiring and loving examination of the life, warts and all, of one of the truly great women in Catholic history. It is highly recommended to anyone who truly believes that through faith in God, men and women can move mountains.
Most Catholics have at least heard of Mother Angelica, the feisty cloistered nun who founded EWTN, the global Catholic television network. What most people don't know is the incredible litany of trials, difficulties, near financial ruin, and near-death experiences she overcame, through the grace of God, in order to do what most considered impossible. In her own words, "Sometimes we must do the ridiculous so that God can do the miraculous."
And indeed, what Mother has accomplished in her lifetime would be, according to convention wisdom, ridiculous. The child of a broken home, who grew up on the wrong side of the tracks in Canton, OH, Mother Angelica heard the call of Almighty God after receiving a miraculous cure of a chronic stomach ailment through the prayers of a mystic named Rhoda Wise. From such humble beginnings, Mother joined the Poor Clares of the Blessed Sacrament, a contemplative order, and by a combination of inspiration, pluck, and tenacity, became the foundress of a new monastery in Birmingham, AL. While building her monastery, Mother became aware of the awesome power of television to bring the word of Christ to large numbers of people. When shown a television studio in Chicago in the late 1970s, Mother reportedly said, "I've got to have one of these." Twenty years later, she was running a Catholic cable network that reached millions upon millions of households across the globe-as well as a short-wave radio network. At the same time, Mother was also the hostess of one of the most popular programs on her TV network.
Though she started out as a thoroughly "progressive" nun, fully engaged in the deep changes brought about by Vatican II, Mother soon became disillusioned with the "Spirit of Vatican II" which went far beyond the original intent of the Council. What seemed to finally drive her over the edge was the faddish mania for "gender inclusive" translation in prayers, liturgy, and even sacred scripture. When, as part of the Pope's visit to Denver for World Youth Day in 1993, EWTN was duped into airing a Way of the Cross procession-done in mime with a woman playing the part of Jesus-Mother had finally had enough. On her live program the next night, she issued a passionate denunciation of the event, saying, "I'm so tired of you, liberal church in America....You don't have vocations and you don't even care-your whole purpose is to destroy."
This event was not Mother Angelica's first tussle with Catholic hierarchy in America, but it made her a marked woman. From that point on, Mother was in the sights of certain American bishops who were keen to either drive her off the air, or take over the network she had built outright. However, she had powerful allies on her side, both in Rome, and in America. Her salvoes against the liberal dominated National Council of Catholic Bishops made her an instant heroine to the most devout Catholic laity. Meanwhile, she received encouragement from none other than Pope John Paul II himself.
The truth of the matter, as is plain to see, is that EWTN has survived and thrived despite the actions of some of the most liberal American bishops. Roger Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles comes out looking particularly petty and vindictive in this book during his incessant attempts to extract an on-air apology from Mother for basically calling one of his teaching documents heretical and encouraging her viewers not to listen to him. While Mother's offense may have stepped over the line in terms of the obedience Catholics owe to their bishops, many felt that her criticism was valid and a long-time coming.
Written by Raymond Arroyo, host of EWTN's news magazine program, The World Over, Live, "Mother Angelica" pulls few punches and is an inspiring and loving examination of the life, warts and all, of one of the truly great women in Catholic history. It is highly recommended to anyone who truly believes that through faith in God, men and women can move mountains.
Friday, November 25, 2005
Give the gift of Santorum this Christmas
A review I posted on Free Republic:
As is well-known to anyone who peruses Free Republic with any regularity, Senator Rick Santorum is headed for the political fight of his life in 2006. The lame-stream media has giddily reported polls showing him down 15-25% to challenger Bob Casey, Jr. and the homosexual lobby is already dancing on Senator Santorum's political grave--almost literally--a full year out from the election.
Sadly, even some here on FR have risen to the media bait, calling him a RINO who needs to be "taught a lesson" because he backed Arlen Specter in 2004 over primary challenger Pat Toomey. I personally think Rick was wrong to do this as well--I would have preferred that he at least remain neutral.
But it's pure idiocy for a conservative to stop supporting Senator Santorum for one questionable political decision. This is a man with an 87 lifetime rating from the ACU and one of the most outspoken and articulate members of Congress on the issues of Life and traditional marriage. Compared to the waffling losers who make up the majority of the Republican delegation in the U.S. Senate, Santorum is a font of creative ideas, fresh thinking, and clarity.
To get a better idea of the man and his positions, I encourage all Freepers to read Santorum's book, It Takes a Family.
A century ago, Theodore Roosevelt said, “It is in the life of the family, upon which in the last analysis the whole welfare of the nation rests....The nation is nothing but the aggregate of the families within its borders.” Santorum, has expanded upon TR’s sage wisdom in his book, It Takes a Family. Obviously, the title of this book has positioned it as a direct response to It Takes a Village the Big Government playbook by Senator Hillary Clinton.
It Takes a Family is a wide-ranging, thoughtful examination of the American social, moral, and intellectual landscape. Santorum’s basic thesis is that the liberal/libertarian vision for America of “No-Fault freedom” is resulting in the squandering of our heritage of social, moral, cultural, and intellectual capital. Yet, Santorum’s book is not simply a laundry list of liberal ideological and policy failures. Indeed, in an effort to be fair-minded, Santorum goes out of his way to call out some of the more liberal members of the Senate who have helped craft truly effective legislation. The book is one of those rare works that goes beyond naked partisan criticism to propose constructive and creative solutions to present and looming dilemmas.
Santorum’s work also serves as an effective apologia for the cultural conservative political agenda. Too often, Republicans are seen as little more than “cheap Democrats.” No one can accuse Senator Santorum of being part of that caucus. While he very clearly does not believe in Big Government as the solution to every problem, he recognizes that the federal and state governments can help by encouraging objectively good behavior and citizenship and discouraging destructive behavior. He is a firm proponent of the Catholic principle of subsidiarity—the philosophy of social policy that says that the fulfillment of human needs should be accomplished at the lowest possible level, and that state and federal level should assume such responsibility only as a last resort. This completely turns on its head the neo-Marxist philosophy of Big Government as the solution to every problem, no matter how small, and yet is not the anarcho-libertarian ideal of the best government is no government at all. Thus, Santorum believes that the majority of social issues plaguing the United States begin and may be solved at the most basic community level: the family.
As expected, the most effective section of Santorum’s book is that which deals with the grave moral evil of abortion. Santorum’s passion and unambiguous pro-life position comes through in his compelling description of his role as floor leader during the partial-birth abortion debates in the US Senate over the past 10 years. His recounting of his wife’s own miscarriage and the effect the debates had on one young couple in particular—who decided not to abort their baby after watching on C-SPAN—were enough to bring tears to the eyes.
I found the chapter entitled the Rule of Judges to be similarly effective, providing a concise history of how federal and state judges have gradually usurped the role of the elected legislative branches to eliminate laws that have been in place for hundreds of years and create and impose new “rights” out of thin air. This chapter should be required reading for every American who is concerned about the extra-constitutional role the federal courts have assumed over the past 40 years which have allowed pornography, abortion, and sodomy to become civil rights while all but banishing God from the public square—all without a single vote on these issues ever being cast by the people or their elected representatives.
Rick Santorum is perhaps unique among the Senate for his passion, creativity, and devotion to the traditional ideals which have helped Western civilization, and America in particular, develop and flourish. Few of the bloviators and self-important gas bags currently inhabiting that august body could have produced a book of this depth and clarity. That said, it is his very passion, clarity of vision, and his interest in lifting up traditional Democratic constituencies (union workers, underserved minority groups, low income families, African-Americans, etc.) that have made Santorum Public Enemy #1 to the hard left. Both Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer have been made to look foolish and extremist in debates against Santorum on the floor of the Senate and national left-wing groups will be pouring unprecedented amounts of money into the 2006 campaign to defeat him.
It would truly be a shame if the people of Pennsylvania allowed themselves to be swayed by this influx of partisan capital and a liberal media that is bound and determined to see Senator Santorum out of a job come 2006. Having read It Takes a Family, I firmly believe that if every family in Pennsylvania read this book, Santorum would be re-elected in a land-slide.
As is well-known to anyone who peruses Free Republic with any regularity, Senator Rick Santorum is headed for the political fight of his life in 2006. The lame-stream media has giddily reported polls showing him down 15-25% to challenger Bob Casey, Jr. and the homosexual lobby is already dancing on Senator Santorum's political grave--almost literally--a full year out from the election.
Sadly, even some here on FR have risen to the media bait, calling him a RINO who needs to be "taught a lesson" because he backed Arlen Specter in 2004 over primary challenger Pat Toomey. I personally think Rick was wrong to do this as well--I would have preferred that he at least remain neutral.
But it's pure idiocy for a conservative to stop supporting Senator Santorum for one questionable political decision. This is a man with an 87 lifetime rating from the ACU and one of the most outspoken and articulate members of Congress on the issues of Life and traditional marriage. Compared to the waffling losers who make up the majority of the Republican delegation in the U.S. Senate, Santorum is a font of creative ideas, fresh thinking, and clarity.
To get a better idea of the man and his positions, I encourage all Freepers to read Santorum's book, It Takes a Family.
A century ago, Theodore Roosevelt said, “It is in the life of the family, upon which in the last analysis the whole welfare of the nation rests....The nation is nothing but the aggregate of the families within its borders.” Santorum, has expanded upon TR’s sage wisdom in his book, It Takes a Family. Obviously, the title of this book has positioned it as a direct response to It Takes a Village the Big Government playbook by Senator Hillary Clinton.
It Takes a Family is a wide-ranging, thoughtful examination of the American social, moral, and intellectual landscape. Santorum’s basic thesis is that the liberal/libertarian vision for America of “No-Fault freedom” is resulting in the squandering of our heritage of social, moral, cultural, and intellectual capital. Yet, Santorum’s book is not simply a laundry list of liberal ideological and policy failures. Indeed, in an effort to be fair-minded, Santorum goes out of his way to call out some of the more liberal members of the Senate who have helped craft truly effective legislation. The book is one of those rare works that goes beyond naked partisan criticism to propose constructive and creative solutions to present and looming dilemmas.
Santorum’s work also serves as an effective apologia for the cultural conservative political agenda. Too often, Republicans are seen as little more than “cheap Democrats.” No one can accuse Senator Santorum of being part of that caucus. While he very clearly does not believe in Big Government as the solution to every problem, he recognizes that the federal and state governments can help by encouraging objectively good behavior and citizenship and discouraging destructive behavior. He is a firm proponent of the Catholic principle of subsidiarity—the philosophy of social policy that says that the fulfillment of human needs should be accomplished at the lowest possible level, and that state and federal level should assume such responsibility only as a last resort. This completely turns on its head the neo-Marxist philosophy of Big Government as the solution to every problem, no matter how small, and yet is not the anarcho-libertarian ideal of the best government is no government at all. Thus, Santorum believes that the majority of social issues plaguing the United States begin and may be solved at the most basic community level: the family.
As expected, the most effective section of Santorum’s book is that which deals with the grave moral evil of abortion. Santorum’s passion and unambiguous pro-life position comes through in his compelling description of his role as floor leader during the partial-birth abortion debates in the US Senate over the past 10 years. His recounting of his wife’s own miscarriage and the effect the debates had on one young couple in particular—who decided not to abort their baby after watching on C-SPAN—were enough to bring tears to the eyes.
I found the chapter entitled the Rule of Judges to be similarly effective, providing a concise history of how federal and state judges have gradually usurped the role of the elected legislative branches to eliminate laws that have been in place for hundreds of years and create and impose new “rights” out of thin air. This chapter should be required reading for every American who is concerned about the extra-constitutional role the federal courts have assumed over the past 40 years which have allowed pornography, abortion, and sodomy to become civil rights while all but banishing God from the public square—all without a single vote on these issues ever being cast by the people or their elected representatives.
Rick Santorum is perhaps unique among the Senate for his passion, creativity, and devotion to the traditional ideals which have helped Western civilization, and America in particular, develop and flourish. Few of the bloviators and self-important gas bags currently inhabiting that august body could have produced a book of this depth and clarity. That said, it is his very passion, clarity of vision, and his interest in lifting up traditional Democratic constituencies (union workers, underserved minority groups, low income families, African-Americans, etc.) that have made Santorum Public Enemy #1 to the hard left. Both Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer have been made to look foolish and extremist in debates against Santorum on the floor of the Senate and national left-wing groups will be pouring unprecedented amounts of money into the 2006 campaign to defeat him.
It would truly be a shame if the people of Pennsylvania allowed themselves to be swayed by this influx of partisan capital and a liberal media that is bound and determined to see Senator Santorum out of a job come 2006. Having read It Takes a Family, I firmly believe that if every family in Pennsylvania read this book, Santorum would be re-elected in a land-slide.
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)