The Morning Rant

THE PROGRESSIVE PLAYBOOK

Yes, perhaps one day I will write such a compendium.

But today is not that day.

No, today I am going to complain about yet another low and dishonest progressive tactic, one that is probably the most low and dishonest:

From this tweet commenting on some older Catholic bishops (and the pope!) looking with disapproval on the surprising preference of many young Catholics for the TLM (traditional Latin Mass), and a couple of screen shots were attached:

Also, this one:

Where to begin? First, the smug, arrogant attitude of condescension that drips from both these quotes is absolutely infuriating. If someone said that to me in real life, I'd have to resist a strong temptation to bop him on the beak. Because the shorter version of each of these is "anyone who disagrees with me has psychological problems", i.e. is insane.

The main problem here is that this tactic skips a step. That is, nothing in either statement proves that the young people who prefer the Latin Mass are, in fact, in error. They just assume the error and then explain why the error exists.

This goes back to the postmodern style (which derives from Marx) of 'deconstruction' which deals with counter-arguments by claiming some other reason for them. In Marx's case, it's because of "class interests" and in modern times, this has been expanded to include race, gender, and sexual orientation.

But C.S. Lewis caught on to this dodge as early as the 1940s. In his book, God in the Dock and Other Essays, there is an unfinished essay titled 'Bulverism' or, the Foundation Of 20th Century Thought where he lays it all out. Lewis lived his life in academia, so he saw the first sprouting of postmodernism/deconstructionism first hand, although I don't think he knew it by those names. 'Bulver' was the name of a fictitious character he whimsically invented to account for the origin of this 'debunking' (his phrase) style of argument. I think Lewis' analysis is prophetic:

I find the fruits of his discovery almost everywhere. Thus I see my religion dismissed on the grounds that ‘the comfortable parson had every reason for assuring the nineteenth century worker that poverty would be rewarded in another world’. Well, no doubt he had. On the assumption that Christianity is an error, I can see early enough that some people would still have a motive for inculcating it. I see it so easily that I can, of course, play the game the other way round, by saying that ‘the modern man has every reason for trying to convince himself that there are no eternal sanctions behind the morality he is rejecting’. For Bulverism is a truly democratic game in the sense that all can play it all day long, and that it gives no unfair privilege to the small and offensive minority who reason.

Once can see the advantage of adopting such an approach: arrogantly dismissing as irrational those who don't share your views relieves you of both the responsibility of having to actually engage with them, and the burden of having to think through your own. It's such a lazy and dishonest rhetorical tactic. Ultimately, you're wrapping yourself up in an impermeable bubble that no reason or logic can ever penetrate.

In addition, I thought the "true love is not rigid" line to be especially smelly. Apparently, accusing young people of being mentally ill because they prefer a different form of the Mass is not the least bit rigid. Every bit of shade the post-modernist throws at traditional thinking can be thrown right back at them. And they have to do a lot of convoluted special pleading to avoid stepping on the flaming bag of dog poo they've placed on their own porch.

In my opinion, if I was a Catholic prelate, a shepherd of the flock, I think I'd want to know why many of the younger generation Catholics are attracted to the old Latin Mass. To not seriously engage this question, to immediately dismiss a sizeable portion of the flock as silly or demented, seems, I dunno, kind of rigid to me.

And the task of collecting and classifying the taxonomy of progressive arguments may be made much easier by the fact that most of it boils down to name-calling.

Finally, given the advanced age of the pope, I like this response comment: "I can be retarded much longer than they can take their heart and cholesterol meds."

Thanks For the Good News!

Wouldn't It Have Been Easier Just To Retract the Article?

Don't Leave Home Without It:

Who Dis:

For the 'Ettes:

Friday Who Dis: Supposedly, South African-born actress Glynis Johns is one of the figures shown in the photo on the Led Zeppelin II album cover, but that's not known for certain. Perhaps best known for his role on The High Chaparral TV show, Cameron Mitchell starred with Ms. Johns in the 1957 tearjerker All Mine To Give, which, according to imdb.com, was alternately titled The Day They Gave Babies Away.

Today's Edition Of The Morning Rant Is Brought To You By Sourdough Bread:

(Click for bigger bread)

Sourdough recipe available here.

posted by OregonMuse at 11:16 AM

| Access Comments