Defending the 12th century since the 14th; blogging since the 21st.

Catholicism, Conservatism, the Middle Ages, Opera, and Historical and Literary Objets d'Art blogged by a suburban dad who teaches law and writes stuff.

"Very fun." -- J. Bottum, Editor, FIRST THINGS

"Too modest" -- Elinor Dashwood

"Perhaps the wisest man on the Web" -- Henry Dieterich

"Hat tip: me (but really Cacciaguida)" -- Diana Feygin, Editor, THE YALE FREE PRESS

"You are my sire. You give me confidence to speak. You raise my heart so high that I am no more I." -- Dante

"Fabulous!"-- Warlock D.J. Prod of Didsbury

Who was Cacciaguida? See Dante's PARADISO, Cantos XV, XVI, & XVII.

E-mail me

Sunday, September 17, 2006
Alternative-universe headlines:
Catholics worldwide condemn NY Times -- riots in Rome, Dublin, South Philly -- Chants of "Massacre those who insult our Pope" -- Mosques torched, imam shot in the back -- Security tight in Little Italy for Tuesday's San Gennaro Festival -- "Top editors must all apologize in person to Pope," says bishop -- "Press freedom sucks just like we've always said," says pres. of DeBonald Society....
But seriously folks, is the kind of instinctive respect that Islam now gets from the western MSM available to anyone who blows up Americans?

Some say it's precisely the absolute safety of attacking Catholicism and Catholic leaders that makes them do it: nobody really thinks we would fly airplanes into skyscrapers; they just pretend to. True, but that only explains why they don't refrain once they've gotten the urge to line up behind Islam's most puerile and zany spokesmen. The question is, what gives them that urge? Whence the secular left's highly unilateral love affair with radical Islam?

I allude above to DeBonald, who in the 1820s imposed press censorship in France in defense of the (shaky and recent) alliance of altar and throne; is the New York Times stuck in that time capsule? Or it delusional enough to see moral equivalence between Catholicism today and radical Islam today? Note the penultimate graf in the editorial, which makes clear that the Times's animus is not only against the Pope defending his religion against competitors, but against his defending it at all.

I'm trying to come up with explanations that don't make the NYT look like loonies or bigots, and I'm not getting anywhere. Admittedly my motivation is not intense, so I'd be glad to let others try....