Posted on 07/06/2005 10:01:01 PM PDT by annalex
THE NEEDLE, PLEASE
I think I was in college when I first subscribed to "National Review" magazine. I kept renewing faithfully for more than three decades. Some years ago a youngish editor was brought in, and after a while I no longer saw any of the familiar names.
Of course, some long-time writers had moved into a well-deserved retirement, and some had died. It was natural for the roster to change, but other things also changed, including the magazine's intellectual level and commitment to principle.
This year I ignored the pleas to renew and let my subscription lapse. Occasionally I visit the magazine's web site, National Review Online, but the same new writers are there, producing much juvenilia and showing themselves to be more loyal to a political party than to traditional ideas.
Let me give one example. John Derbyshire, a transplanted Englishman, wrote this at the web site:
"At the Atlanta bash last month, an audience member asked the panel whether the [Terri] Schiavo case had caused us to change our minds about the underlying issues. I piped up and said, yes, the case had changed my mind in one respect. It had made me realise--a thing I never realised before--that I do favor euthanasia.
"Ramesh [Ponnuru, another writer for "National Review"] asked me at some point why, if I were willing to see Mrs. Schiavo have her feeding withdrawn so that she dehydrated to death over several days, I wasn't willing to just have her [be] given a lethal injection. I couldn't think of any satisfactory answer to this, and haven't been able to since; so in all honesty, I am bound to say I favor the lethal injection, in at least some cases.
"Since I have never had a strict anti-abortion position, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to find that I don't have a strict anti-euthanasia position, either. I just hadn't thought it through before."
Apparently not.
LITMUS TESTS
Sandra Day O'Connor has tendered her resignation, and President Bush is making preparations to nominate a replacement. We will know soon enough who that will be.
Liberals on the Senate judiciary committee are making the usual demands for a "centrist" nominee, which is to say someone who passes the pro-abortion litmus test. Unlike many others, I have no problems with litmus tests. I think the President should use one in making his choice.
The one he should use was given in our "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics." The nominee should be someone who conforms to Catholic teaching on all five non-negotiables, even if the nominee is not a Catholic. Other considerations should be secondary: male vs. female, this ethnic group or that, long-time confidant of the President or not.
Just as a litmus test should be used in selecting a new member of the Supreme Court, so one should be used in selecting writers for a magazine that claims to articulate the conservative political position. While I hope that the President will have the courage to impose a litmus test (I have my doubts, but we shall see), I have no real hope that "National Review" will undertake an internal reform. I think the magazine is too far gone.
"National Review" has been reliably, if not ideally, pro-life, but why is a man such as John Derbyshire still associated with it?
I had not been aware that he "never had a strict anti-abortion position"--I do not recall his having written about abortion--but now he has admitted it, and he has gone further than most of the people who sided with Terri Schiavo's husband. Derbyshire says it would have been fine if she had been put to death the way inmates on death row are put to death (and the way pets are "put to sleep"), with an injection.
No matter what his skills as a writer--and he has produced nicely crafted columns--Derbyshire has shown himself to be a bad thinker. He may be expert at mathematics (I have enjoyed his frequent mathematical interludes), but he is hopeless at morals. That he remains at the magazine tells us much about its editors and their principles.
There was a time when "National Review" really did "stand athwart History, yelling 'Stop!'" (a line from its first issue). But that was a long time ago. Accommodation with the secular mind-set started several decades back, but with the almost complete changeover in staff the accommodation accelerated, and the result is a party magazine that increasingly follows the "big tent" strategy.
This is not a strategy based on firm principle but on the exigencies of political maneuvering. If today the magazine has no qualms running articles by someone who favors euthanasia, is there any certainty that in a few years it won't favor euthanasia as an editorial policy?
POPE PETER II
Yes, this is a look at another anti-pope. I ask you to read these few paragraphs because there will be a follow-up in next week's E-Letter. The follow-up will not be about the man who styles himself "Pope Peter II" but about a prominent American apologist who, it seems, has a connection with this anti-pope.
For now let me tell you about Maurice Archieri. He says he became the real pope in 1995 through the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Archieri was then 70, so he would be 80 now. Prior to his retirement he worked as an automotive mechanic. I have been unable to find at his site anything to suggest any sort of theological training. What I did find was a touching video. You can find it and his position papers at http://custodi.club.fr/Indexangl.htm
The video shows the 2002 episcopal ordination of Jean-Marie Archieri. The ordinand seems to be nearly as old as "Pope Peter II," so perhaps he is his brother. Be that as it may, the video shows a ceremony that takes place in a tiny chapel, cluttered the way most "independent Traditionalist" chapels are cluttered. The room may have been used previously as a bedroom. It is that small.
The two Archieris are assisted by a much younger man, dressed in a surplice. He looks a bit bored. He frequently turns his head to look around the room, and at one point he rubs his finger in his ear. I wonder what he really thought about these two elderly men playing bishop.
"Pope Peter II" heads a group called Catholici Semper Idem (Catholics Always the Same). Its web site is in French with an execrable translation into English. The translation apparently was generated automatically by a computer program--in this case a program that needs a more skilled programmer.
Despite the mock-English, you can make out well enough the group's arguments, the chief one being that John Paul II was not a real pope. In the mind of "Peter II," the late pontiff actually was a "prophet of the Antichrist" who merely dressed up as pope. This is ironic, coming from a man who dresses up as pope.
There are many anti-popes in today's world, perhaps more than at any time in history. In some cases--and perhaps this is one--it is hard not to feel empathy for the pretender because the man does not realize that he is pretending. For whatever reason, he really thinks that he is the head of the Church.
It is hard to be angry with someone whose actions may be the result of mental imbalance, senility, or grossly misguided idealism. (Some anti-popes are quite clearly con men, but most appear to be convinced of the authenticity of their papal status.)
As I said, these paragraphs about yet another anti-pope have a connection with something that will appear in next week's E-Letter. Stay tuned.
Until next time,
Karl
You missed its best.
If the standard of comparison is with complete garbage, like Time or Newsweek, then I suppose NR is worth something. However, there are excellent suggestions for reading material on this thread, -- give them a chance, will you?
Dear dsc,
"Is it impossible that conservatives will ever be in charge of anything?"
There are some things of which conservatives are usually unlikely to be in charge. I think "community service" programs are one of them.
sitetest
"unlikely to be in charge. I think "community service" programs are one of them."
Maybe they oughtta be.
I think, communitarianism, of which Dsc's suggestion is a specimen, might belong to the conservative movement in principle. I think, the call for a draft is completely misplaced in today's only-superpower America. but there are several topics on which a conservative will agree:
- Rights are complemented by duties;
- Civic virtues are to be taught;
- Wars are normal part of human existence;
- Men owe allegiance to the homeland
- ...(?)
It is indicative of the state of confusion the modern conservatism finds itself in America, that a rational discussion on these topics is nearly impossible.
I do not think that the National Review's position on the draft is a disqualifying factor for conservatism, while I think that any shade or hue of deathism is disqualifying.
Like Keating says, there are things that are not negotiable. Euthanasia is a non-negotiable. Draft is something that makes most conservatives queasy, but theoretical circumstances exist when it is a salutary thing. We can argue whether or not these circumstances are in evidence today, here. I think, not. But the reason to drop the NR is not Buckley's position on the community service but his, and his hires' tepidity toward life.
That was generally very reasonable.
I object only to the term "communitarianism" as a label for what is effectively a draft that, IMO, should complement national defense.
"He's probably going to go after Gerry Matatics. He's been hounding the man trying to destroy him after Gerry stopped working for him years ago. They had a disagreement over finances. (basically one didn't want to pay the other what he'd agreed to)"
Since you were not present, let me explain what actually happened. Gerry and Catholic Answers agreed on a salary, and that amount was paid when due throughout the seven months that Gerry worked with Catholic Answers.
On the side Gerry had an agreement with San Diego businessman Scott Butler, who later was the co-author of the book "Jesus, Peter, and the Keys." Scott agreed to subsidize Gerry at $300 per month, to help underwrite Gerry's housing expenses.
This was generous on Scott's part, but he and Gerry had a falling out, and Scott decided not to provide the subsidy any longer. Gerry's employment with Catholic Answers was not conditioned on the Scott-Gerry agreement. Gerry had agreed to the salary we offered before arriving in San Diego and meeting Scott.
Gerry's departure from Catholic Answers had nothing to do with finances, though he later spun the story that way.
Side note:
Part way through his time with Catholic Answers, Gerry came to me and said that he was finding it difficult to work on his Ph.D. dissertation in the evenings. He said he would be more valuable to Catholic Answers if he got his Ph.D. and said he wanted to stay home one day a week to work on it, while drawing a salary predicated on working five days a week, not four.
I interpreted him to mean that he would leave Catholic Answers if I did not agree to this arrangement. Not wanting him to leave, I reluctantly agreed. He worked four days a week for us, and was paid for five, until he left the company.
Later I learned that Gerry had not been working on his dissertation. A Ph.D. student does not work on his dissertation until his advisor and committee have signed off on the topic. According to Scott Hahn, Gerry never even had an advisor or a committee, so he could not have had an approved dissertation topic to work on.
Since Gerry finalged a way to get paid for five days' work while working only four days, he was making good money and had no cause for complaint.
Did you or did you not tell Gerry that you owned him 24/7 in regards to Apologetics work?
"Did you or did you not tell Gerry that you owned him 24/7 in regards to Apologetics work?"
Of course not, nor has that ever been said to any of the other apologists who work or worked at Catholic Answers.
Has anything like that been ever said by you to Gerry Matatics? 24/7 or 7/24 or any similar phrase about someone taking on Apologetics work on their own outside of the framework of Catholic Answers or any other organization you have influence in?
"Has anything like that been ever said by you to Gerry Matatics? 24/7 or 7/24 or any similar phrase about someone taking on Apologetics work on their own outside of the framework of Catholic Answers or any other organization you have influence in?"
Catholic Answers' apologists are encouraged to enhance their reputations by doing outside things, if they are so inclined, such as writing books and appearing on radio and television programs. This helps them (maybe even financially) and indirectly helps the apostolate.
Of course, we expect that staff members will show loyalty to Catholic Answers and will not engage in outside activities that would constitute direct competition. In this we have a policy that is like that of most companies.
Fair enough. I'll take what you stated and bring it up with Gerry on the next occasion that I talk to him.
Feel free to speak directly with our staff apologists, if you wish. Their names can be found at catholic.com. They will confirm that we do not put unreasonable restrictions on our employees. That would be a shortsighted business practice. We have skilled staff members and want to keep them.
(I would note that while we allow outside activity, we do not push it. Our apologists give 40 hours a week at the office, and they need time off for themselves and their families. We do not want them to become workaholics or to suffer burnout.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.