Stephen Roney's Blog, page 253

Jean Vanier Disinterred to Be Crucified

Jean Vanier
There are of late charges of sexual impropriety against Jean Vanier.

The accusations against him were accepted as true by L’Arche, his foundation, “on the balance of probabilities.” This, to begin with, is not sufficient. One has the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. This is especially true for the dead, who cannot defend themselves against such charges.

I think we are morally obliged to discount these reports, so far as they concern the reputation of Jean Vanier, or else be guilty of the sin of calumny.

Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert strip, hosts a YouTube channel on which he comments on current events. He recently mentioned that, to his knowledge, anyone famous will have had multiple false charges of sexual impropriety lodged against them. It is automatic: claim that Elvis Presley raped you, and you get to share some of the fame and glamour of Elvis Presley. In the general population, someone is always sure to make the claim.

There is also a certain class of women who are drawn to celibate priests or married ministers, on the premise that, if they can get them to ignore their vows, this is a conquest, proving their desirability. Failing that, claiming to have done so is almost as good.

We have every reason to expect that there will be charges of sexual impropriety against Vanier without their being true. Six, over a long lifetime, would be a reasonable level of static. And we also have reason to believe that, if he was ever inclined to engage in sex, he would have no need to use compulsion or exploit his position to do so. His real experience was more probably having to resist attempts at seduction.

If he did not always resist, okay, he was guilty of fornication. Join the club. Even saints are not perfect, and have never been presumed to be.

The accusation that he was in some cases exploiting an “unequal power relationship” is also unreasonable. Given his international stature, any relationship available to him could be seen as an “unequal power relationship.” So does this mean he is obliged to have none? Nobody of his generation would have thought of such issues in any case: bosses marrying their secretaries used to be a typical romantic tale. Or patients marrying their nurses. To make this retroactively immoral is a violation of natural justice.

Again, the report is that “For some of the women, these relationships were experienced as coercive and non-consensual in nature.” One accuser is quoted saying “Was I consenting? I think at the beginning yes, but as time went on, the more I believe that I was not consenting.”

This is apparently a matter of opinion on their part. “Were experienced as.”

It is therefore plausible that Vanier’s honest understanding throughout was that they were consensual.

He might even have been feeling these women were coercing him. “Were experienced as.”

 Unless there is more than this, to pay any attention to such things is plain calumny.


'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.

Decarie: Road Closed

Richard DecarieThe Conservative Party has refused to allow Richard Decarie to run for their leadership.

Decarie has been criticized in the media for public comments that being gay is a choice, and that government health care should not fund abortions. He would surely have had no chance to win, but these are ideas with which the Conservative Party establishment does not want their brand identified.

This is further evidence that the process is being tightly controlled for a pre-ordained result. The elites within the party, whoever they are, do not want things messed up by the voters. It began with the stiff entry criteria, supposedly to avoid as many candidates as they had the last time.

But why was this a problem? Why was it a problem that they had many candidates? What is bad about offering their members a choice?

Someone seems to have gotten to Jean Charest, Pierre Poilievre, Rona Ambrose, and John Baird, in turn, making them some secret offer they could not refuse to clear the aisle for Peter MacKay. For that matter, Andrew Scheer might have been given the same message. His resignation was sudden and unexpected, and came after MacKay signs started showing up at his events. Perhaps someone left a horse’s head in his bed, too.

I did not detect at the time any popular groundswell for the great Peter MacKay. It is not as though he has charisma. It looks more as if he must have powerful friends. Or owners. MacKay does not have a record of honest dealing.

True, the grey eminences also let Erin O’Toole run. But you have to let someone—you need the appearance of a contest. Even the Communists run their dummy alternative candidates. Moreover, in case MacKay stumbles badly, you need a spare.

To me it all makes it highly dubious to vote Conservative federally. They are controlled by special interests, and we do not know who the special interests are. If their motives were admirable, we probably would.

This also makes the Conservatives the very opposite of a populist party, in a time when populism is sweeping the right.

It begins to make them look irrelevant.

'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.

The First Temptation of Christ

Tissot: Jesus ministered to by angels.

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. When he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was hungry afterward. The tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.” 

But he answered, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of God’s mouth.’” 

Then the devil took him into the holy city. He set him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written,
‘He will command his angels concerning you,’ and,‘On their hands they will bear you up, so that you don’t dash your foot against a stone.’” 

Jesus said to him, “Again, it is written, ‘You shall not test the Lord, your God.’” 

Again, the devil took him to an exceedingly high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. He said to him, “I will give you all of these things, if you will fall down and worship me.” 

Then Jesus said to him, “Get behind me, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and you shall serve him only.’” 

Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and served him.

The reading for the first Sunday of Lent is Jesus’s temptation in the desert, as told in the Book of Matthew.

This is the rite of passage found for males in most cultures at adolescence: Jesus’s Bar Mitzvah. North American Indians would go out to the woods alone and fast until they met their spirit animal. Xenophon tells of Herakles, as a young man, going off into the wilderness and encountering two women, Virtue and Vice.

The idea is that this spirit quest sets one’s life direction. What is your life going to be all about? It happens at about adolescence because this is when we reach the age of reason, and become fully independent moral agents, responsible for our own decisions.

One might think this unnecessary in Jesus’s case: his life course was pretty much already set. But, being fully human, he too must go through such a moment. He too must be genuinely tempted. At the same time, the temptations he encounters represent those encountered by every man.

The most interesting of the three is the second one: to throw himself down from the roof of the temple.

One can understand the temptation to bread; he has been fasting for forty days. One can understand wanting the kingdoms of the earth. But what does he get by jumping off a high building?

The obvious.

What does anyone get by jumping off a high building?

Not, by being borne up by angels, to reveal publicly that he is someone special and God is with him—because the quoted promise that God will save us from striking our heel against a stone is extended to all.

The angels referred to would be bearing him up to Abraham’s bosom.

Now let’s look at the three temptations. What are these three paths open to us at adolescence, as the guiding principles of our life?

If it is to turn the stones to bread, we have decided that life is all about satisfying basic urges: about enjoying food when we are hungry, and drink, and sex. Or drugs, and rock and roll. Maybe also sports and exercise and healthy foods; these are still a matter of satisfying the body. Many do take this path; the path, even if sometimes more upmarket, of Falstaff, of Pumbaa, of Baloo the Bear. It is not coincidental that the last two are animals.

The second temptation is to despair of this life and to snuffing it. Perhaps in hopes of a better hereafter—hence the reference to the temple. A lot of kids do. A lot of kids, even if they do not actually commit suicide, become deliberately self-destructive. If the first temptation is to hippiehood, this is the punk wave, with safety pins and razor blade jewelry. With playing chicken out on the local highway, or with anorexia. If we think here mostly of teenagers, not adults, it is because those who choose this path tend not to live to adulthood.

The third temptation is to live for what the world knows as “success.” Career, social status, power, and so forth.

This, it seems, is the worst of the temptations, for this requires explicitly worshiping Satan.

But all of these are presented as barren, dead ends. The proper path, the good fourth way, as Jesus advises, is to worship God, and to serve him only.

'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.

Twelve Rules for Life

Do not invade Russia.
Do not invest large sums in tulips.
If God tells you not to eat a fruit, don’t.
Urinate only with the wind at your back.
Do not rely on French troops to guard your left flank.
Never bet on the villain in a Disney film.
Never marry a woman whose family nickname is “Princess.”
Avoid staff picnics during a zombie apocalypse.
In the event of a nuclear holocaust, get under your desk and put your hands behind your head.
Avoid land wars in Asia.
Do not lick doorknobs during a coronavirus outbreak.
Never take life advice from a psychologist.

'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.

A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Coronavirus

I guess this counts as a public service announcement.

The Surgeon-General of the United States has asked everyone to stop buying face masks in hopes of avoiding the coronavirus.
This makes good sense. I have been giving my students in China and Korea the same advice.
Face masks do little or nothing to protect you from the virus. It is airborne, and can enter your system at the eye. They are useful mainly to prevent you from spreading the virus through sneezing if you have it.
Accordingly, it is important that masks remain available for the ill, in order to prevent the spread of the disease. Each mask you uselessly buy now risks taking it away from where and when it is genuinely needed.
Second piece of advice: stock up on non-perishable food. People commonly think of such actions as selfish, “hoarding.” This is the opposite of the truth. If you can ensure that you and your family are provided for during a crisis or a quarantine, you will be reducing the pressure on emergency services if the crisis hits. You are reducing the crowding and the possible spread of the virus if it reaches your neighbourhood.
If it does not hit near you, nothing is lost; you eat the non-perishable food anyway, when it suits you. So there seems to be no downside to stocking up on rice and beans. Don’t forget salt and oil.
I keep hearing about people stocking up on water. This seems to me unnecessary. I cannot see how the virus is going to cause municipal water supplies to shut down. Is the virus going to be spread by water? No indication that this is possible.
At worst, this is not going to be all that bad. And for all we know, the virus may mutate into something harmless tomorrow.

'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.

On Spanking

When I was young, I was terrified of needles. I was terrified of going to the dentist.

Now, having had so many needles, and having had teeth pulled, I more or less take it in stride. Yesterday, doing a brain scan, they poked me five times before finding a vein. Oh well…

The experience of pain toughens you to pain. The experience of suffering toughens you to suffering. Because it is really the fear of the suffering that is worse.

We do not seem to understand this simple fact.

It is one reason why it is important to spank a child, so long as the punishment is just and proportionate. It is important to tell them fairy tales with the scary parts still in. If you do not expose your children to some fear of pain, and some anticipated actual pain, you are actually causing them more suffering over the long term. You are making snowflakes who need to retreat with a colouring book in the face of any stress.

Spanking is just like that needle. It is an inoculation.


'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.

Nothing to Sneeze At

Following the progress of COVID-19 with grim fascination. It feels like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

Among the businesses and industries that are going to be disrupted by this: universities.

For a few past generations Canadians and Americans have more or less stopped having children. One might expect the universities to have been emptying out. The more so since they now face growing online competition.

Yet they have mostly been growing, while tuitions have been spiraling upward. I am amazed, on returning to Toronto after some years, at how Ryerson has expanded to take over much of the downtown. And new universities keep being founded.

Looks like another bubble bound to pop.

Until now, universities in Canada, the US, Australia, and the UK have been making their budgets by offering the traditional American/European university experience to international students. Especially large cohorts from China and Korea, where education is deeply valued. Walking through the Annex, the old U of T student shopping strip, I find mostly Korean stores and mostly Asian faces.

Now, suddenly, that finger is going to be yanked out of the dam, at least for a semester or two.

We’ll see how well the red tide will be contained.

In other coronavirus news, latest reports are that Israeli scientists think they have an oral vaccine, using new technologies, that might get through testing within ninety days.

It might fit well with a God-directed viral plague to have the hated Jews gallop to the rescue. Making it rather more difficult for a time to sustain the growing tone of antisemitism everywhere.


'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.

The Tory Leadership Contest Is Over

Don't say you haven't been given a choice. You can vote for Erin O'Toole.The deadline has passed.

It seems nobody wants to lead the Canadian Conservative Party. Nobody we have heard of, at least, except Peter McKay and Erin O’Toole.

It’s a strikingly thin field considering the apparent electoral prospects: Trudeau was expected to lose last election, and is in a minority. Whoever gets selected now has good prospects, on paper, of being PM within a year or two.

For comparison, look at 1967. Then, too, the Liberals were in a minority. Then too the Tories had fairly recently themselves been in power. The Copnservative leadership contest that year attracted two provincial premiers, the former federal leader, the former Justice Minister and BC provincial leader, the millionaire former Minister of International Trade, a former Minister of Finance and of Justice, and three or four other former federal cabinet ministers.

What’s the difference?

You could see a small field reflecting an absence of talent. But that is not the case: a series of big name Conservatives have declined to run. There is an unusually large number of conservative premiers and provincial administrations currently; and the party was only recently in power, meaning there are many former federal cabinet ministers available.

You could see a small field reflecting the inevitability of one candidate winning. But that is not the case: there are obvious concerns with either McKay or O’Toole as candidates. Lack of bilingualism, lack of charisma, pandering and shifting positions, being too far to the left for the party, timidity with the press.

I had theorized it was because Stephen Harper was about to step in, to become that inevitable candidate. But it did not happen.

You could see it demonstrating a lack of confidence within the party. But not only do the Tories face, on paper, great prospects of winning the next election. In other nations the right wing is ascendant and intellectually vibrant: Boris Johnson’s Tories just won a historic victory in the UK, Trump is dominating the US, right wing parties are surging across Europe. There ought to be excitement and ferment at the grassroots.

Nor is taking a resolute right-wing stand beyond the capabilities of a too-timid Canadian political class. We saw Mike Harris do it successfully in Ontario. We say Ralph Klein do it with great success in Alberta. We just saw Legault elected in Quebec. We saw Rob Ford or Mel Lastman do it successfully in Toronto.

It smells of some kind of corruption, of perhaps a ruling cabal intent on taking certain political options off the table, and pulling strings behind curtains.

This is more or less what Maxime Bernier claimed when he left the Conservative Party.

Looks like he was right. Some vested interests have taken control of the CPC.

I don’t imagine this is very hard in Canada; parties are not that organized or large, in world terms. One can see a relatively small Family Compact taking control. It has happened in our history, after all.

One can almost see the strings moving against the black backdrop. When Harper suddenly resigned from his party position, since it was not in order to get into the race, it seems likely it was because he did not want to be associated with the party corruption.

The most disturbing thing is that we do not know who it is in charge, and in whose interests a Tory government would now be acting.

The reassuring thing is that in our Westminster system, we are protected by the ease with which new parties can form, and old parties die.

Bernier may have seen it all before the rest of us. It is to his great credit. He is, it seems, a true leader.


'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.

The Urgent Need to Learn What You Already Know

Image from Tom Brown's School Days
A common lament in contemporary education is that we need to reflect the diversity in our classrooms. We need aboriginal materials, written by aboriginal authors, because some students are aboriginals. We need to teach aboriginal languages. We need heritage language classes of all sorts. We need materials on black history, because some of our students are black. We need gay materials, because some have gay parents; materials must be "relevant to their daily lives," and so on and on.

One teacher writes, “It would be a wonderful world in which teachers had time and energy to tailor curriculum for the kids they actually have in their classrooms: by ethnicity, skin colour, national origins, interests, gifts, learning styles, family situations . . .”

If we stop and think, this makes little sense. It is saying, we should force kids to sit in the classroom for hours every day to tell them things they already know. And quite likely know more about than the teacher does.

The classic idea of education is rather different: it is that school is for learning things.

This is why, in the really old days, it was ancient history that was taught, and not modern or local history. Not “even though,” but because none of those little towheads were Athenians, Romans, or Trojans, and familiar with that lifestyle. It was Latin, Hebrew, Ancient Greek, or Sanskrit that were taught, not “even though,” but because none of them would already speak it at home.

When did we invert things so completely? When did we kill school and stop educating our young?


'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.

No, You Are Not a Child of Nature

Pachamama. Note that she is actually made of stones.My friend Xerxes weighs in against the growing current tendency to anthropomorphize inanimate objects. 
And it is a growing tendency. We see it not just in talk of the planet Earth as “Gaia”; but of “harming Mother Nature,” of Nature having specific preferences and interests, or seeking revenge, or maintaining a “balance”; of Science “knowing” this or that; of this species being “more evolved” or “more highly evolved” than that, as though Evolution per se could have a plan or a direction. Or of “harming” or “damaging” as opposed to the climate simply changing. None of these are sentient beings.

Fine to use these things as convenient or poetic metaphors, as when Carl Sandberg says the fog “comes in on little cat feet.” But no, fog is not a cat. Fine to suggest that God, or even some other supernatural being separate from the object, demon or angel, has interests here. Fine, that is, if you know what you are doing, and can produce a coherent theology. But not the inanimate object itself.

I do not think actual pagans made this mistake. This is childish thinking. I think at least some pagans had to be too smart to do this. They presumed a god who had jurisdiction over the river; they did not suppose this was the physical river itself. That would be absurd. That would simply be an error, a logical fallacy, mistaking a physical for a spiritual thing.


'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.