Earthly Purposes
The New York Times’ obituary for Michael Foot, who led the Labour Party in the general election that brought Margaret Thatcher to power in 1983 and who died in March at the age of 96, quotes the following passage from a campaign speech Mr. Foot delivered that year:
We are not here in this world to find elegant solutions, pregnant with initiative, or to serve the ways and modes of profitable progress. No, we are here to provide for all those who are weaker and hungrier, more battered and crippled than ourselves. That is our only certain good and great purpose on earth . . .
It is not clear, absent the lack of immediate context, whether by “we” the socialist politician meant humanity born onto this earth or, more exclusively, his saintly comrades in Labour. Since his exhortation was part of a political stump speech, the presumption is in favor of the latter, and yet it is more than possible that the speaker really had in mind the former. Certainly, in an age in which politics has become religion, and religion, to a substantial degree, politics, the second understanding would not have struck Foot’s audience as being in any way exceptional, or exceptionable.
Aristotle observed that, although all men claim the status of Man, only the man who devotes himself to the pursuit of knowledge actually deserves it. Under the Christian dispensation, one might rather argue that the man who is most fully Man is he who loves most fully, and dedicates his life to acting upon that love. I was moved to consider this possibility after the earthquakes in Haiti last winter, when it seemed almost that the world had ceased for a time to turn; that the human race had foresworn the pursuit of mammon, the lust for power, and the quest for knowledge in order to devote itself to the relief of the pathetic, poverty-stricken victims of brute nature. Of course the world had not stopped, and the illusion that it had was the result of just another experiment in virtual reality, a creation of the mass media. But should it have stopped? For a Christian especially, the question is not so ridiculous, so absurdly sentimental and impractical, as it might at first appear to be.
Political liberalism arrived at a theoretical affirmation of the proposition long ago. Christian theology, far more alarmingly, is halfway there, at least. And it is easy to see why. Jesus Christ, True Man and True God, and His disciples devoted their earthly lives to charity, and so did the saints who followed them. A religion that professes an ideal of co-suffering might quite logically affirm that no one is morally justified in enjoying the goods of this earth so long as anyone lacks them, and that material enjoyment is licit only as the earned reward for the eradication of poverty and misery from the face of the earth. Socialism, which Claude Polin argues is the expression of a distinctly Western impulse produced in minds prepared by Christianity to receive it, certainly affirms it, and so does liberalism, which is only socialism-and-soda in a Waterford glass. James Burnham said that liberals, including liberal groups, nations, and civilizations, are “morally disarmed before those whom the liberal regards as less well off than himself.” But there is obviously, as Burnham pointed out, a paradox here, since to feel morally disarmed is to feel guilty, and liberals do not believe—at least they didn’t, before liberalism was superseded by advanced liberalism and multiculturalism—in collective or inherited guilt, just as they deny the fact of inherited intelligence or cultural superiority. But Christians, brought up on stories pertaining to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Babylonian captivity, and the Lord’s teaching that the sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the sons, are believers in the guilt of groups. Belief makes them susceptible to liberal assumptions of collective guilt, and to the conviction regarding a collective responsibility for the world that liberals teach. Unlike liberals, however, Christians tend toward a literal, rather than a theoretical (I mean smug and self-congratulatory), view of that responsibility.
For the past year I have subscribed to L’Osservatore Romano, the official newspaper of Vatican City, in its weekly edition. There is much that is good in the paper, and a regular reading of it has certainly improved my Italian. Yet Pope Benedict’s insistence on looking above the billion-odd heads of the faithful to address the wider world for whose welfare he has been given no direct responsibility, and his constant calls for lo sviluppo umano integrale (the whole development of man), are irritating, tiresome, and, so far as I can tell, without grounding in scripture. They may, however, find basis and justification in the most recent Catechism of the Catholic Church, prepared during the papacy of Pope John Paul II. The section entitled “The Social Doctrine of the Church” contains a paragraph explaining that these teachings developed in the 19th century as a result of the Gospel’s encounter with the new industrial society that revolutionized relations between man and man, man and the state, and man and nature. The section “Justice and Solidarity Among Nations” might similarly have explained that the Church’s teachings on international relations developed as a result of the Gospel’s encounter with the institutions and mechanisms of liberal internationalism, which they accept and appear to take for granted. Thus, Paragraph 2439 states that “Rich nations have a grave moral responsibility toward those which are unable to ensure the means of their development by themselves or have been prevented from doing so by tragic historical events.” According to Paragraph 2440, “It is also necessary to reform international economic and financial institutions so that they will better promote equitable relationships with less advanced countries” (italics in the original). The Catechism does not acknowledge the enormous obstacles inherent in reconstructing Third World societies, including the recurrence of “tragic historical events” endemic to the history of those countries, nor does it suggest the grounds on which its faith in the economic and financial institutions of global liberalism rests.
The liberal conscience is tormented, the liberal mind undone, by two stark realities. The first is that the global village is really a vast global slum; the second is that the modern communications system that created the “village” informs us on a 24-hour basis of unpleasant situations and conditions in remote places that we are incapable of changing, and that we should be better off never having heard about in the first place. (Knowledge is not always power.) The difficult—helping Haiti out in an emergency—is hard enough. Indeed, it is harder than the impossible—eradicating world misery—which is the task to which socialism, liberalism, and modern Christianity are calling us. (“Where there is no solution,” Burnham said, “there is no problem.”) Christ’s poor were the widows, the orphans, the lame, the blind in a tiny occupied country in the Middle East, barely more than a collection of villages. They were what we might call the personal poor, a different case entirely from the vast, unknown, almost abstracted masses of the world poor, toward whom charity is a bureaucratic response rather than a biblical action, like giving alms.
But all of this is almost incidental to my broader point.
Michael Foot asserted in his speech that providing for the weak, the hungry, the battered, and the crippled is “our only certain good and great purpose on earth.” One can—almost—hear the voice of Christ speaking those words, but He did not speak them, and they are not true, either in the political or in the theological context. Instead they express an extremely narrow view of politics—an apolitical view, in fact—and an equally narrow understanding of Christian theology, or any other theology I know of.
The world does not, it could not, it must not revolve around the claims, or even the needs, of the poor and the oppressed of the earth. Charity, even bureaucratic charity, is both a human obligation and a divine injunction, but man has many other things to be about in his Father’s house, some of them having value and validity equal to those on the agenda of the British Labour Party. It is important for intelligent people, those in positions of power especially, to understand this, if only for the reason that the better part of the world is coming more and more to resemble Haiti, which it will very likely approximate in the future. If the civilized world should ever become convinced that its moral duty lies in deliberately merging itself with either the barbaric Third World or the semidepraved world of the lower classes of the West, that would be the end of civilization, and civilization is a moral duty of mankind, as the ancients understood. Aristotle said that the aim, business, and justification of government is the attainment of human excellence, and he was right, as always. Civilization, said Evelyn Waugh, “has no force of its own beyond what it is given from within. It is under constant assault and it takes most of the energies of civilized man to keep going at all.”
The world is really doing quite enough for Haiti, Somalia, Kenya, Afghanistan, and other similarly benighted places. As for the British Labour Party, it has already done a great deal too much for the British poor, today among the most drunken and loutish in Western Europe, the youthful poor especially. “Michael Foot was a genuine British radical,” Prime Minister Gordon Brown said in tribute to the deceased. “He possessed a powerful sense of community, a pride in our progressive past and faith in our country’s potential for a radical future.” Now that really gives Britons something to look forward to.
I myself am most impressed that Michael Foot should have written a number of books, among them The Politics of Paradise: A Vindication of Byron. I am not a great admirer of Byron or his poetry, and I have never read Foot’s study of him. But I admire the author for so much as wishing to create so elegant, impractical, and decadent a thing as a book the British working man will never read.
This article first appeared in the May 2010 issue of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.
Entries(RSS)
"They were what we might call the personal poor, a different case entirely from the vast, unknown, almost abstracted masses of the world poor, toward whom charity is a bureaucratic response rather than a biblical action, like giving alms."
Yes, but Mr. Williamson (along with most contemporary Christians) always seems to ignore the deplorable plight of the rich in our Christian Tradition. The need to pray for the rich is as much a traditional Christian duty as our duties to the local poor. There are such few Christians with any insight into the predicament of the wealthy man with saddened and divided heart, that the rich only rarely perform their authentic social function for our culture. The ugliness of the current decline is not due to the poor which we shall always have with us, but the tragedy of the rich who no longer understand their duties to the very culture they feed from like bottom feeders in any large lake. The loss of our music, poetry, classical understanding, literary traditions, and decency is not the fault of the poor, it is the loss of virtuous conduct from the wealthy that has been replaced with a showy, dowty type of pretention coupled with a profound ignorance of the burdens of wealth. It is not that our wealthy class is no longer available for service, but rather it has a obtained to a totally misguided theology of where that service should be directed. It is not that they lack good will, it is the fact their imagination has been poisoned to where that will should be directed.
There is only one thing for any thinking, feeling man to do in this world if he wishes to be fully human: Matthew Arnold told of it in Dover Beach--- 'Ah, love, let us be true to another, for the world, which seems to lie before us like a land of dreams, so various, so beautiful, so new, hath really neither joy nor love nor light nor certitude nor peace nor help for pain...' To hell with loving humanity, or mankind, or the poor, or the helpless, bah! But to love a woman, fully and completely while you live, from her hair to her toes, inside and out, is what we should do. Compared to that, what is anything else worth?
"The ugliness of the current decline is not due to the poor which we shall always have with us, but the tragedy of the rich who no longer understand their duties to the very culture they feed from like bottom feeders in any large lake. The loss of our music, poetry, classical understanding, literary traditions, and decency is not the fault of the poor, it is the loss of virtuous conduct from the wealthy that has been replaced with a showy, dowty type of pretention coupled with a profound ignorance of the burdens of wealth."
Well said, Robert. There seems to me to be an altogether unholy alliance, culturally speaking, between the McMansion and the slums. Luxury cars were once hawked to the strains of classical music (even Webern once in a Lexus or Infiniti ad of the 90s). Then it was jazz, then Led Zeppelin was the means by which the aspiring plutocrat could "break through." The rich folk I know, family and friends, are as unlettered and uncultured as any of those derided by Mr. Williamson. I hasten to add that the paragraph about liberalism that appears on the website's front page couldn't be more true.
Mr. Kenny,
"his constant calls for lo sviluppo umano integrale (the whole development of man), are irritating, tiresome, and, so far as I can tell, without grounding in scripture."
I think you are a tad hard on Mr. Williamson. These types of criticisms are rather trendy today and remind one(almost verbatim) of what the left is always saying about Christian Marriage. Integralism is the political version of what remains of the Traditional understanding of man as a dependent creature instead of a biological accident. The Pope is requesting the baptized to regain their integrity by cultivating the natural virtues in light of the theological gifts of Faith, Hope and Charity. Nothing new here, except his hope is sometimes expressed collectively to all men, instead of to the many who are actually listening.
Mr. Bass,
Chronicles is an exception in my opinion as they do attempt to cultivate the intelligence and inspire the human will. But let's take the recent Supreme Court nominee, she is representative of our culture's "best" institutions in many ways, whether we have the honesty to admit it or not. Steve Forbes would be another example and the Bush family still another. Yet, the truth of the matter is that they remain rather pathetic creatures to behold, let alone follow, because they remain so poor in the essential fruits of the cultivated human being including poise, bearing, deportment, gravitas and so many other qualities that cannot be hidden or faked.
Well, well, Mr. Williamson, as I was reading your post I found myself nodding in agreement; a big subject the poor, especially since, willy-nilly, anyone might suddenly always find himself numbered among those falling below a certain line but not far enough below to be counted poor. Stressed out, perhaps, like one of Waugh’s civilized men. In any case, the subject of Christian responsibility toward the poor is not only big, but intellectual; I thought Mr. Williamson managed the generalizations necessary for such a large topic within the limited space quite well. Maybe that is because I agree with him. As a Catholic intellectual in the Chronicles vein, his remarks on the subject, especially regarding current Catholic teaching, had an intrinsic interest to me. It never occurred to me he might be out of the ballpark, much less trendy (à la NYT?)
Now, reading the comments, I find myself in the minority. Even when reading a Chronicles’ blog, I am in the minority. To deploy Waugh again, “…it takes most of the energies of civilized man to keep going at all.”
As long marches through the institutions go, we clearly must begin with our own. The aim is clarification of principles, not destruction or perversion. Mr. Williamson’s effort seemed to me a little essay in that direction.
(As for the irresponsible rich, the rich today are a political-financial entity that has little to do with rich folks, irresponsible or not. It is power-driven, voracious, parasitical, of no social utility and ultimately destructive. It does not deserve to exist in the normal class sense with accompanying responsibilities. It is like referring to the irresponsible mafia. As for the bubble rich, they are bubbles. Are we talking about some SUV driving Sunday golfer? Yes, let us zero in on him.)
"According to Paragraph 2440 [of the most recent Catechism of the Catholic Church] , 'It is also necessary to reform international economic and financial institutions so that they will better promote equitable relationships with less advanced countries.'"
I doubt that the catchism used by Mr. Kenny 55 years ago contained advice on international economic and financial institutions, and I don't see why such teaching is in the current catechism. As Mr. Williamson says, "The Catechism does not acknowledge the enormous obstacles inherent in reconstructing Third World societies, including the recurrence of “tragic historical events” endemic to the history of those countries, nor does it suggest the grounds on which its faith in the economic and financial institutions of global liberalism rests."
Paul V "Are we talking about some SUV driving Sunday golfer? Yes, let us zero in on him.)
I made it clear in post#6 that I was talking about our "finest institutions" as they are perceived in the cultural imagination and the classes that run them, staff them, support them, graduate from them and see to their future existence as "America's Finest." The golfer driving a SUV may or may not be part of my reference because there is so little difference bbetweenthe two. There is very little solemnity left in our culture,( unless you consider military funerals of out nation's leaders as solemn events) no authentic Aristocracy (unless Donald Trump, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett et al can be lumped together with Bill Clinton, G.W. Bush, John Kerry, Al Gore,and John McCain) I think the point I clearly made is that with a class of leaders such as this, the rhetorical and grandiose assertion toward Pope Benedict that " The world does not, it could not, it must not revolve around the claims, or even the needs, of the poor and the oppressed of the earth." Is at least melo dramatic if not a foolish version of conservative demagoguery.
To Robert at #9
If you mean the representatives of our finest institutions need to be re-evangelized, prayed for and evangelized, you will get no argument from me. But the people who are producing the genuine goods of the world, cultural and material, are already being drained and controverted at every turn, cultural, racial, moral, by these very people, and wealth redistribution of various kinds through taxation is one of the chief means of doing so. Multi-culturalism, diversity, etc., are merely logical implications, and consequently the lay of the land, of the focus on poverty fostered by to our finest institutions. Taxation in this respect is the least of our worries. Catholic bishops of this hemisphere and Europe have bitten deeply into this juicy apple, and so apparently has the Vatican. If sheer hatred of the West and Christianity were not factored in, I and my posterity should expect as a result to become highly productive units on some contemporary version of those plantations of yore, devoid of culture, morals, and most importantly sense of self. Hatred would not be content with this rosy picture. Then what? Universal poverty? We are still the birds that lay the golden eggs, and not only in terms of material goods.
If raising questions regarding current Catholic teaching in this area is trendy, or hardly distinguishable from attacks against the Church on other fronts by obvious enemies, then I’m hopelessly not a team player.
1)But the people who are producing the genuine goods of the world, cultural and material, ....Material goods, yes. Cultural goods, you gotta be kidding!!!
2)Multi-culturalism, diversity, etc., are merely logical implications, and consequently the lay of the land, of the focus on poverty fostered by our finest institutions."
No, it isn't poverty they focus on, it is buying cheap and selling dear . The focus on poverty you speak about is to sooth the resulting neurosis of attempting to live on bread alone.
3) If sheer hatred of the West and Christianity were not factored in, I and my posterity should expect as a result to become highly productive units on some contemporary version of those plantations of yore, devoid of culture, morals, and most importantly sense of self.
Once should arguably have more confidence in Al Gore's theory of global warming than the idea that a determinate number of contemporary Americans are going to lose their acute "sense of self." For evidence of this fact see : "We are still the birds that lay the golden eggs, and not only in terms of material goods." For Heavens Sake!!!!
Enough of this, I have sweet corn that needs hoeing, a horse that needs riding and a hive that needs looking after. I don't like team sports either but whatever else Pope Benedict has been accused of since his election, "team player" is not what he will be remembered for either.
To robert at #11
I see many decent, productive citizens whose properly instructed children, morally and otherwise, are the moral capital on which Christian civilization depends to survive. There are many such people in Europe as well, a minority surely, and all under attack at every point, not least by the multicultural, option for the poor, ideology being promoted in current Catholic teaching and by such political muscle as the Church still wields.
The bucolic view from the farm is enviable, but in my world corn, horses, bees and the reigning pope are not the touchstones of reality, as good – and necessary -- as they may be in themselves. What I do find interesting in your post is the pop psychology that seems to have invaded the pastoral vista.
Than you Paul for the good discussion. There is an article by George Weigel at http://article.nationalreview.com/399362/icaritas-in-veritatei-in-gold-and-red/george-weigel This was written after the Holy Father's last encyclical and is right on point for the position you and Mr. Williamson take. If I believed "the multicultural, option for the poor, ideology being promoted in current Catholic teaching" was the driving force of what is wrong with America and the reason why Pope Benedict would have better luck throwing his encyclicals in the Tiber river as to think anyone in American would read them, then of course I would not be defending him against the likes of George Wiegel and the normally much brighter, Chilton Williamson. As a farmer I never had much to do with pop psychology until my children started attending schools on the East Coast. You just can't keep all the smut out no matter how often you tell them to wipe their feet before entering. Those damned Eastern Yankess must be reading L’Osservatore Romano and teaching my kids Catholicism.
To robert at #13
Thank you, Robert, for your responses, and for taking in good part my last remark. I am far from espousing free enterprise as the true hand of God manifest in human relations, and I shall not read the George Weigel article because, weak fellow that I am, the flesh can bear only so much. I can’t speak for Williamson, but I think you are mistaken in seeing his article as in any way reflecting Weigel’s outlook. What is Weigel’s position on immigration and a host of other controversies? Very different, I would imagine, from anything stated or implied in the Williamson article. -- pv
One final comment. It is very difficult to see the history of ones own age. Defrauding laborers of their wages and retirments ala Enron and other such scams; willful murder ala Iraq, Paul Wolfowitz and his cronies at the World Bank, unatural vice and all the rest... are sins traditionaly recognized as crying to heaven. In an age such as our own when all of these are not only committed but supported by states and their political parties, it is not at all surprising to me that the Bishop of Rome would have more to say about morality than the standard GOP party line. Afterall, who does he think he is -- The Vicar of Christ on earth? It disappoints me when a man of Chilton William's caliber falls unexpectedly into the trendy cant of a George Wiegel, Novak and the other Catholic Republican water bearers of modern poitics. That is all, and that should be enough for the serious readers of Chronicles. Meeting deadlines, writing on old subjects with new insights and old themes with more melodius variations is a chore for any writer. But the best writers are best for a reason, and he is one of the best. I am happy you came to his defense, he deserves it, just as in my opinion, does the current Holy Father.
Mmmmmm! I'll have to go back and read again what Dr. Fleming said about this in The Morality of Everyday Life. I believe he is on Dr. Williamson's side, as am I, (raised Roman Catholic, but now an Eastern Orthodox convert). It sounds like many of you have not read Dr. Fleming's book. You should; even if you disagree, at least you will better understand the other side of the argument.
I believe he is on Dr. Williamson’s side, as am I, (raised Roman Catholic, but now an Eastern Orthodox convert).\
Then come out an state your case so we can further explore the issue and not before some children who are powerless to decide.
This is the thesis: ” The world does not, it could not, it must not revolve around the claims, or even the needs, of the poor and the oppressed of the earth.” Defend it or step aside.
No. That is not the thesis. The question is who am I responsible for and how am I responsible; what is my obligation? I'm not responsible and have no obligation to help everyone who lives on the other side of the world. I have no idea what they need and I do not have the resources to help them. I have an extended family, some of whom need help because of the current economic crisis. That is where my responsibility is. Read Dr. Fleming's book. I agree totally with his case. Present your argument against it.
Went back and re-read it. Still can't find the sneering at the Pope. Any Help !
Yes, Mr. Van Zant is correct. And I have read Dr. Fleming's book (several times)and find it a gem epsecially as to who the Christian owes a duty. Oddly I never saw the duty we owe the Pope to publicily correct him when his words"address the world for whose welfare he has been given no direct responsibility, and his constant calls for lo sviluppo umano integrale (the whole development of man), are irritating, tiresome, and, so far as I can tell, without grounding in scripture."
Rather than continue this back and forth sniping let me suggest that readers refer to St. Thomas Aquinas, Cantate Auria, and the church Father's commentary on the synnoptic gospel account of the rich man who has kept the law of Moses towards his neighbor and ask if there is more that needs done to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Padre Pio was another more recent Christian that noticed if Christian would simply learn their faith and accordingly there would ne no need for all the different isms of the world. Josef Pieper mentions in the final passages of his book on tradition the words of Gerhard Kruger (before his self imposed silence) that the "only reason we are still alive is our inconsitency in not having actually silenced all tradition. We are facing the radical impossibility of a meaningful common existence. although no one can imagine what this end would be like." I think this thread of commentary on one of the better blogs, is a good example of the ignorance of our own tradition through too much familiarity with politics and the resulting impossibility of a meaningful common existence. Thank you all for your comments and your courage for stepping up and speaking your minds and while I don't agree with anything you have written in defense of "The world does not, it could not, it must not revolve around the claims, or even the needs, of the poor and the oppressed of the earth” or who owes the duty and where, I admire you for at leasst looking for the answer.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Cantate Auria, and the church Father’s commentary
Should be "Cantena Aurea" and the church Father's commentary. I don't spell check because I don't know how to operate it and have never taken the time to learn, it is not out of disrespect for readers.
A small point, it was the 1979 election that brought Mrs Thatcher to power, and the 1983 election was a crushing defeat for the Labour party (mainly because a lot of its more moderate members and voters bolted for an expanded soft left party).
re #20 and #21: It is Catena Aurea, "The Golden Chain." A catena, literally a "chain", is a stringing together of short quotes from Scripture or the Fathers on a particular subject. It is an accessible and enjoyable form of sacred study for a beginner (i.e., all of us) in scripture and patristics, possessing the virtue of being digestible in small bites. The Catena Aurea is a commentary on the Four Gospels in the form of short patristic quotes selected by the "Angelic Doctor".
On the question of rich and poor one might also benefit from St. John Chrysostom's commentary (not a catena, by the way) on the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. It is available not only in the bulky Eerdman's edition of the saint's works but also in an easy-to-take-to-work thin paperback published by St. Vladimir Seminary Press. I think the little volume is entitled *On Wealth and Poverty*.
Thank you, Father. I write these posts between hearings and sometimes in great haste. That is to say from memory and without ever having taken typing lessons or having learned the finer points of the computer such as spell check. But it is not as embarrassing for me as it seems to my friends. I always remind them of Nathan Bedford Forest who always managed to get his point across one way or the other as when he rebuked one of his soldiers in writing for requesting too much leave:"I tote you twiced Goddamit no!"
Fr. Allen is correct concerning St. John Chrysostom’s commentary. The title of the St. Vladimir's Seminary Press volume is as he stated. The ISBN is 0-88141-039-X. It's available on Amazon for $10. (I was able to find my copy because I just organized my library. Now I can actually find the book I'm looking for!!) The four volumes of the Catena Aurea will set you back about $100 (or more), unless you get the Kindle version.
Mr. Kenny@3
I think you overreact to Williamson. His article is not anti-Catholic, but rather continues the type of debate we had in the recent series of articles by Thomas Storck, i.e., a respectful discussion of the possible meanings of various papal writings, and the requirements for Catholics thereby created.
As for Mr. Williamson's remarks on the influence of biblical stories on the consciousness and conscience of Christians, I found them insightful, not problematical. It makes eminent sense to me that internalizing the story of a nation held captive or a city destroyed for the sins of some indeterminate number, but not all, of its populace, should prepare the ground for ... "liberal assumptions of collective guilt, and to the conviction regarding a collective responsibility for the world that liberals teach."
And I should say, respectfully, that if your religious education entailed only ... "learn[ing] my catechism by rote memory (I can still remember many of the questions and answers 55 years on!). Later, I studied, essentially, the New Testament and papal encyclicals..." I must say I think you missed out. Some of my most treasured memories are of my mother, an Episcopalian, reading Old Testament passages to me from her King James, and of us wondering how Methuselah lived so long, and how Noah got all those creatures into the Ark, and why, oh why couldn't Lot's wife just keep her foolish head turned to the road ahead! In fact, with my son completing his first year of Catholic religious education, your description has added to the worries I've already had about his study materials.
I should have thought most people who read this website would know that Mr. Williamson, a well-known writer on the American right, is a thorough-going Catholic, a frequent contributor in years past to Human Life Review, and close friends (and more) with traditionalist Catholic journalist and publishers. It is amazing how predictable Mr. Kenny is. I suppose there is some use, though, in a compass that always points to South when facing North.
I recently read Mr. Williamson's book "The Conservative Bookshelf" and enjoyed it very much. It's essentially 50 very informative book reviews. I don't have time to read all 50 books but it convinced me to obtain a number of them.