Christus Natus Est

Born that man no more may die

Wishing everyone a most merry and blessed Christmas. May the peace and joy of Christ be with all of you.

MWK

Shoes and the "Enlightenment"

In November of this year, a video from al Qaeda surfaced, with a message directed at the president-elect of the United States. Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leader of the terrorist outfit, delivered a speech in which he denigrated Mr. Obama, using terms that must be considered even by the basest as ignominious and disgraceful. Al-Zawahiri, who called the president-elect a “house slave,” also threatened him and the country he is about to lead with a message designed to provoke fear and violence.

About a month later, the current president, George W. Bush, while visiting Iraq for the final time as the commander-in-chief of the US, stood by as a vociferous journalist assaulted the American head of state with his shoes. The significance, which may easily be lost on a westerner, is quite severe, as hitting someone with a shoe is counted among the highest of insults.

These two incidents share in common a very dire philosophical under-pinning, that is, the egregious and patent disrespect for authority that permeates the post-modern world. The source is, of course, the so-called “Enlightenment,” and the attitude of anti-clericalism that was so inherent in it. This idea further developed in the minds of people like Locke and Hobbes, who put authority at the whims of the mob rather than in the minds of the just. This of course led to such disasters as the massacres of the French Revolution and the depositions of monarchy across Europe.

It seems that (especially in America) modernity has been founded upon the questioning of authority to such a degree that disrespect for proper authority is not only allowed but even encouraged. It is a worrisome and discomfiting trend to see authority increasingly mocked, derided, and even attacked in the name of progress and freedom. This is not to say that authorities are necessarily inviolable or infallible, but that the seat which each respectively occupies ought to be given due respect absolutely. It is frightening to countenance a world without authority, and it looks like such a world is not far off.

Non, Possumus: A Hope for Change?

As I was preparing to leave for a vigorous workout on an early summer morn last year, I recall watching one of the most absurd news stories unfold. Listening to the incoherent news reports, I learned that the impetuous Paris Hilton had neglected to appear for a scheduled court date, drawing the ire of a California judge. The police had been sent to bring the young lady to court, inciting a prodigious dispatch of reporters, fans, critics, paparazzi, and dog-lovers to the palatial Hilton residence. I gave it a passing chuckle and went about my day.

When I returned about two hours later, to my surprise the same stations were still covering the same story. And it didn’t stop there; all of the major news networks carried this story for what seemed like endless hours. I was quite surprised that anyone had the time (much less the desire) to watch something so insipid unfold. I suppose I wrote it off at the time to media sensationalism or American consumerism, without realising the implications thereof. Two years later, however, this seemingly random event is still relevant. The people who laughed, cried, cheered, yelled, and gossiped for weeks about Paris Hilton are the same people who will elect the next president of the United States.

Given this, it’s not surprising that we have someone like Barack Obama has so firmly grasped the American psyche. A person as smart as Mr. Obama surely knows the way to the hearts of Americans – sensationalism, or as our Roman forebears may have said, pan et circenses. He stirs people’s souls with speeches about hope, and promises them copious amounts of change, because God knows the Republicans stand for misery and ignorant obduracy.

With a few empty platitudes, well-formed slogans, and gaudy speeches, Barack Obama managed to capture (or hypnotise) the mob. From an outsider’s perspective, it’s almost hysterical, if not for the fact that the stakes are so high, and this candidate loves his country about as much as John Walker Lindh. We may not even know who this person is (see the controversy about his birth certificate). Take meetings with domestic terrorists in the 1970s, throw in some of Rev. Wright's racism, hatred, and militant anti-Americanism, plus links to Kenyan terrorists. Do I need to draw you a picture?

Besides being a closet socialist (look at his economic policies), he refused to extend protection to infants born after failed abortions (read up on the Born Alive Act), and the scary thing is that no one is talking about it. He also seems to like poking fun at sacrosanct American institutions, the presidency no exception (like when he altered the presidential seal to use for his campaign). Obama relies on the slogan, “Yes, we can,” or “Possumus.” But I say, “Non, Possumus.” Some of us can see through the platitudes and the lies and the sophistry, and no, we can realise when the presidency is about to fall into such conniving hands.

Not only has Mr. Obama mesmerised Americans with his casuistries, but he has had the gall to thumb his nose at them too, because he knows as well as I that they will not pick up on it. But who can blame him, it is not difficult for a smart person like Mr. Obama to figure out how to sway the masses when the masses are more interested in the next celebrity adoption rather than an economic crisis or the right to life. Who can blame Mr. Obama if he tricks his way into the presidency – the American people let him.

A Long-Belated Introduction

A few weeks ago I walked into Our Saviour Church on 38th and Park, which is quite frankly the most beautiful church I know. Whilst I prayed I (conspicuously) took a gaping stare at the faithful around me, hoping for some implicit cues. Perhaps the most important thing I noticed was their devout silence, which is surprisingly quite lacking in Catholic churches nowadays. Now as a lifelong practicing Catholic, I had never had this particular experience of unexpectedness prior to a Mass; I both dreaded the beginning and longed for it. Better to get going with it, enough waiting.

This Mass was unlike any other I had previously experienced; it was the Tridentine Mass, the Usus Antiquior, the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. And this was the first time I had actually attended it. Friends of mine had raved about it, recommended it to me, and extolled everything about this older usage. And though I took a liking to it as well as other traditional elements of the Faith, I had never had the gumption or the courage to plunge in and start attending the Tridentine Mass. When I learned that Fr. Rutler would be celebrating a Tridentine Mass, I saw the Hand of Providence directing me to go.

I followed. And thank goodness. As an habitue of Renaissance polyphony, I could not have picked a better mass to attend, as the music selected was Palestrina's Missa O Rex Gloriae, sung by the Schola Cantorum of St. Mary Church in Norwalk, CT, and the Sleepy Hollow Schola Canorum from Sleepy Hollow, NY. I remember wiping my eyes during the Kyrie, and as the sublime libations poured down on me, the splash sent my soul soaring up to the heavens, a truly inimitable experience of transcendence.

What regal splendour, what music and circumstance and dignity befitting a king, and not just any king, but the King of Heaven and Earth Himself. It was this prayer that had been the inspiration for centuries of art and architecture, music and poetry, literature and cathedrals, the prayer for which faithful and Catholics and atheists alike fought side-by-side to save in the aftermath of Vatican II. No one truly understands the usus antiquior, but even a taste is a good start. I have tasted it and have begun to imbibe its sweet savour, now as a server at St. Agnes at 43rd Street. And not a moment too soon; it's always nice to have a clearer glimpse of Heaven.

Different Languages at the Harvard Club

On 17 September the acclaimed Catholic author Michael Novak joined Heather MacDonald and about 100 others at the Harvard Club to discuss his new book entitled No One Sees God. The two participated in a dialogue for about 30 minutes, which was then opened to the audience for questioning. The audience consisted of students and professors, as well as some writers, religious, and others. While theists held the majority, a fair amount of atheists attended, an aspect which in my mind strongly influenced the dynamic of the conversation.

Dr. Novak pointed out the two main themes of his new work, one each for believers and non-believers. He said that for the those who believe in God, doubt is a normal part of the religious growth. As for atheists, he exhorted them to "get past the bigotry of the Enlightenment." He describes God as a "loving friend," who cares for us on our life journey. An interesting implication of this idea, which Dr. MacDonald pointed out, is that friendship assumes reciprocity. God condescends to do His work through imperfect human agents. So while man leans on God, so God leans on man as well.

The debate between believers and the so-called "new atheists" has, according to Dr. Novak, been quite virulent, but he differentiated between those atheists who ingenuously seek the truth, while others excoriate anything seen as vaguely religious. Indeed, there can be no conversation, when the dialogue starts out along the lines of "religion is evil."

The conversation as a whole was quite insightful and stimulating, with few departures into trite arguments from the problem of evil on the one hand or design on the other. However, as the time went on, it became increasingly apparent that these two brilliant individuals were really not having a conversation at all, because one cannot have a conversation when each speaks a different language.

Dr. MacDonald seems to expect God to be empirically verifiable, while Dr. Novak has his sights set on a transcendent God. Furthermore, the two disagreed on the notion of absurdity, as well as the philosophical implications thereof. For Dr. MacDonald, an absurd universe is one with God, who also turns a blind eye to the good that religion is done, only focusing on the evils of the past and how to her religion is the cause of all human ills. The standard she uses to determine right and wrong is still a mystery to me.

Dr. Alice Ramos, a professor at St. John's University and a fellow audience member, agreed. She said that it seemed more like they were talking at each other. Some others I spoke with seemed to think likewise; while both speakers brought up interesting points, neither seemed to want to give the other credit. This incipient debate between theists and the new atheists will only become more combative as long as both sides fail to speak the same language.

Welcome to The King's Good Servant

Welcome to the incipient "The King's Good Servant," a blog dedicated to aesthetes, anglophiles, and Catholic intellectuals, and an oasis for fellow conservatives living in a postmodern world. TKGS is dedicated to championing the cause of Orthodoxy, advancing the renascent usus antiquior, providing a noble defence of monarchy, and sundry gentlemanly avocations, including promoting sartorial excellence, so that all of us may be, as St. Thomas More was, Christ the King's good servant.