Leadership, Relativism, and Pope John Paul II

*****************

This is a continuation of the thread that began in early April, but was lost for a time when this blog was accidentally killed by my fool fingers.

(Have I ever told my audience that I first learned DOS back in the mid-80’s after accidentally killing the main hard drive that stored all the standardization and evaluation records for the 62d and 596th Bomb Squadrons at Barksdale AFB? I thought not. The Chief of Stan/Eval, Major Meador—who could be quite intimidating when he wanted to be, which is why he held that job—was amusedly patient, but made it emphatically clear that my future in Stan/Eval, and perhaps even my upgrade to Aircraft Commander, rode on whether I could “get it back.” I did. Eventually. And I learned DOS. What happened last week was kinda the same thing……I now know some HTML! Some. One must break eggs to make an omelet. And a little knowledge is a dangerous thing…..)

Anyway, this post has a later date stamp than the original post because, while my correspondents’ posts are reproduced verbatim, my responses are new material, intended to recapture the main points of my earlier posts in abbreviated and/or slightly updated form.

--Monk

******************

Correspondent Izmud said earlier this month that the late Pope John Paul earned only middling grades--"yeah, you helped kill communism," he seemed to say, "but what have you done for me lately?"

Pope John Paul II may have been notable and respected for many of his achievements in his lifetime, most particularly in the international relations ealm. However, IMO he also bungled the handling of the priest sex scandal cases, and his hard-line stance on modern social issues has led to a Church-admitted net loss of the faithful averaging 10-15,000 per month worldwide! While conservatives may agree with his stance on these issues, or admire his doggedness in refusing to bend to modern convention and liberalism, the bottom line is that his effectiveness as a leader of a group of people comes into question if his numbers are dropping rather than rising. So, a mixed report card overall for the late Pope.

Surely, Izmud, he earned at least a "B?"*

I agree that PJP II was “notable and respected for his achievements in international relations”--I would take that praise a step farther and say the he was one of the central figures of the last half of the twentieth century. He, along with Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel, and others of similar ilk, helped kill history’s bloodiest form of tyranny and one of Christianity’s most dangerous and odious adversaries—the most verminous outgrowth (so far) of relativism as a philosophy.

All of that aside, however, I believe he deserves great praise for his handling of the doctrinal crisis that has beset Catholicism in the last fifty years and for his uncompromising stand against the “spirit of the age,” if you will: the latest incarnation(s) of moral relativism.

Gracia Grindal at A Lutheran Hymnal for Church and Home, put it quite well several weeks ago:

The reason for his success is not simply his brilliance, which was extraordinary, nor his genius at using the media to get out his message, which was astonishing, but most of all, his ability to lead by stating clearly and unwaveringly what it means to be Catholic today. Despite calls for him to adjust his message to the contemporary world, he stood firm. In contrast, we see the mainline Protestant churches in America tripping over themselves to be relevant and modern.

The evidence is in: it hasn’t worked…. When a church attempts to change its identity to fit with the times, it will lose.

This captures the soul of the matter, I think. In the wake of secular humanism’s seeming philosophical triumph, all of Christianity rushed to prove itself “relevant” to modern man—if its theology appeared to be irrelevant, it could still render useful social services or market a fuzzy-warm "product" that would make people feel good about themselves--enhance "self esteem," in the language of our age.

So from the New Frontier on, Christianity met the developed world with Presbyterian hootenannies, Vatican II, Methodism’s “you are loved” acceptance of everything, and the rise of “God on the gymnasium floor” congregation-pandering in the EvangiBaptist MegaChurches: “Do whatever steps you want if You have cleared them with the Pontiff …”

Bishops, Elders, and Deacons across Europe and North America, whether they wore lucre-encrusted vestments and tent-sized hats or sky-blue polycarbon suits and Brylcreemed DAs, thought that “Christianity must be “where it’s at”-- The Church of What’s Happenin’ Now.” They must offer the “consumer” “choices”—McChurch, if you will.

The churches that grew believers during this period were those that taught the right (as God gave them to see the right) and accepted the Holy Spirit’s inspiration and guidance. They may (or may not) have expressed the message in modern forms, but—bottom line—they did not compromise it (as the Catholic Church seems to have with many of the outcomes of Vatican II). They may have repelled some people who were more “of” the world than just “in” it, but such winnowing is not necessarily a bad thing.

And this brings us to the next issue: Izmud claims that it is a measure of the late Pope’s failure as a leader that the church lost “10-15,000 per month worldwide." First of all, this number is disputable, even if it did come from the Vatican. There is at least circumstantial evidence that it doesn't capture the whole picture. PJP II's part of the visible church may have lost absolute numbers, at least in the developed world, but he held fast to the essence of what it is to be a Catholic. I will be optimistic for a moment and assume that some of those 10-15,000 sought out a purer relationship with Christ and became Protestants. This was probably the case in the US. In Europe, sadly, those that fell away were probably lost altogether. But again, this is not all bad: the church has been tested by the spirit of the age like a military unit is tested in combat. Some fell in the battle. Many more deserted, but they were the weakest soldiers anyway. Those that remained were tested and proven--the Old Guard; the Grognards.

There’s a further issue here: is popularity (and the concomitant rise in supporters and poll numbers) really the best measure of leadership? If so, then this guy was the greatest leader of modern times:

Despite his many and manifest transgressions, he could milk a poll or a constituency for all they were worth. Conversely, this guy

Was defeated in popular election by a moral and intellectual homunculus who Churchill rightly summed up as, “a modest man, who has much to be modest about.”**

Likewise, this guy

Was popularly elected (in fact, this is a campaign poster--creepy, no?), while this guy,

though also popularly elected, was so by a much smaller proportion of his nation's population than Hitler was in '33, and was widely reviled even by portions of the press that supported "his" war, even as the Union was being won.

No, the real test of greatness in my mind is moral leadership: Is the leader willing to follow the right course, and guide those who will follow, regardless of what this does to his poll numbers? Note here that I say "moral" leadership--this presupposes that there is a "right course," according to some objective, absolute standard. There is no thought of ethical relativistic equivalency here--Hitler, after all, believed in his own carpet-chewing way that he was following the right path. John Paul II was following where God led him and was leading those who would follow down that path. This meant some would fall away, loving the world more than the Word--sad, but inevitable; one of the prices those who lead in God's paths must pay. The Grognards stayed with him, and eventually he began to attract

And this brings us to the next, perhaps most important, issue: John Paul II was among the 20th Century's staunchest opponents of moral relativism--the prevailing mind and spirit of this age and several past (depending on how you reckon an "age"). Man has always lived with this tension: "is the universe centered on God, or on me?" Eve and Adam gave the latter answer, and sin entered the world. It's always been an option, but it was the particular genius of the Enlightenment and later eras to systematize this relativism as a philosophy and put the entire engine of modern science behind realizing it in various forms: "God is toppled from His throne--let's see who or what we can put in His place!"

At best, this philosophy has led people into rootless nihilistic anomie. More often, it has led into tyranny and dark savagery. Humanist relativism may seem pretty harmless in modern American, feel-good garb:

We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity... Humanists strive toward a world of mutual care and concern [and] ... are concerned for the well being of all.

Which is all very good, but why? Why believe each person has "inherent worth and dignity?" Where does it inhere from? More to the point, what do I get out of that? If humanity is no longer tied to the transcendent and the infinite, then we are free to define ourselves however we want. Screw “worth and dignity”—that’s for sissies! I’m gonna see what I can get outta life for me ‘n mine! We no longer have to make our wishes conform to objective reality; we can now mold reality to conform to our wishes. And that means aligning the world as conveniently as possible to me and mine, however I may define those things, and, inevitably to some degree, as inconveniently as possible for not-me and not-mine.

The result has been unprecedented disaster. Every time man has dethroned God and seized the crown for himself, as it were, he has created untold misery and mischief, regardless of how noble or utopian the words used to describe the “cause:”

Is man born free, but found everywhere in chains? Well then, let’s free him! Of course, a few recalcitrants may have to be “encouraged” to accept their liberte, egalite, & fraternite. Oh, and we’ll need a big, modern army to overthrow the oppressors in the rest of the still-benighted world. [The Terror, 12-17,000 killed without trial; wars of the Revolution and Napoleonic Wars, 1,000,000 – 1,750,000 killed.]

Is our national destiny the hope of the world? Why, it must be—just look at the glories of our culture, at all we have achieved! Of course, these glories prove that we are evolutionarily superior to all the verminous, rat-like peoples around us. We must “educate” them about our superiority! [15 – 16,000,000 killed in all social-Darwinist wars of national aggrandizement, from the Austro-Prussian War to World War I.]

Has mankind lost touch with a vital part of his soul? Lost an essential link to the dark looming forests or the ancient polis in the process of building civilization? Well then, let’s give him his soul back, suitably dressed up with all the trappings that modern media make possible. Oh, and all those “people” who can’t appreciate this ancient yearning—they’re no better than animals at best, fit only to be slaves to those who can. Never mind the damn Jews! [30 – 55,000,000 killed in the wars of fascism, esp. World War II.]

Is mankind oppressed by a wealthy exploiter class? Arise ye prisoners of starvation! Arise ye wretched of the earth! For justice thunders condemnation--A better world’s in birth! Oh, and those that don’t realize this yet—that stand in the way of the inevitable march of history—they’ll have to be “re-educated.” And who can really trust a kulak, or anyone over thirty, or anyone who knows how to read, anyway? [We don’t yet know how many died to institute “scientific socialism” in its various forms from the revolutions of the mid-19th Century until the fall of communism. Let’s see: around 1,000,000 dead in the 19th C.; about 9,000,000 dead in the Russian Civil War; 19,000,000 or so in Stalin’s purges and terror famine (14,000,000 in the Ukraine alone); post-WW II European “resettlement” and national “relocations,” about 2,100,000; the Chinese Revolution, about 2,500,000; in Mao’s purges, the Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution, between 41 – 46,000,000 (never mind aborted babies and girls left to die as part of national contraceptive policies); in Vietnam (all wars), about 2,500,000; in Democratic Kampuchea, around 2,000,000; in assorted communist-inspired “wars of national liberation” around the Third World, from 3 – 6,000,000; so over 80 million conservatively—and still counting— Cuba and North Korea (or even all the Chinese dead) have not been reckoned yet.]

The latter death toll alone is enough to make PJP II a hero (and an “A student”) by any reasonable standard due to his role in killing that beast. But he was also among the loudest and most articulate enemies of the root disease in all its forms. Today, it infects mostly the American and European Left—John Kerry is not so very different in outlook than Trotsky or Che. The “liberal” state government of California is not so very different than a post-WW II East European communist suzerainty like Poland or East Germany. The city government of San Francisco resembles Paris under the Commune. The average Hollywood entertainer is more extreme in ideology than the average late-communist dictator. The entire Visible Body of Christ in the US, Catholics included, can and should do more to fight the latest incarnation of this disease.

So, ultimately, Izmud is right about one aspect of PJP II’s ministry, but for the wrong reason, I think. The late Pope can be faulted for not coming to terms with the sex scandal in the US episcopate, but not because he rendered the church too stodgy and hidebound. I think, rather, that he didn’t go far enough—that the Catholic Church is not yet conservative enough, not sure enough of itself again as a unique institution, not free enough yet of the taint of modern relativism to take the steps necessary to prevent a recurrence of this type of scandal. When John Paul toook office, the Catholic Church was mired in Vatican II-inspired, Mackerel Plaza leftism. PJP II started a revolution. He replaced many leftist bishops and cardinals around the world, populating much of the upper echelons of the episcopate with like-minded men. He did not complete the revolution, however, and several of the most entrenched bastions of Catholic leftist relativism survive. One of those is the US episcopate, from the seminaries to the Council of Bishops. It is no coincidence that one of the most “liberal” bodies of priests in the world was also heavily infested with predatory pederasts. The former produced the latter, just like crap produces stink. When he was first made aware of the mess, the late Pope should have called CNN and broken the news himself, helped law enforcement prosecute those that betrayed their vocations to the uttermost extent of the law, and swept the US episcopate clean of leftist buggerers and the other “filth” that new Pope Benedict XVI referred to in his speech before the Papal Conclave several weeks ago. For his failure to carry the revolution far enough in his many years in service, PJP II is culpable—I agree.

The good news is that the new Pope was John Paul’s closest intellectual mentor back when he was a mere mortal. He understands what the church must do. I congratulate new Pope Benedict and hope he gets speedily to work, for the sake of all in the largest single slice of the Visible Body present on the earth.

Monk

* I know, Izmud: “No he didn’t and don’t call me Shirley!”

** It is a testimony to Britain’s decline as a great nation that Clement Atlee was recently rated the UK’s third greatest Prime Minister of the 20th C—two places ahead of the Iron Lady, but thankfully two behind Churchill. I guess all the pub rats and soccer hooligans know where their bread was originally buttered—Atlee gave them the modern British Nanny State.

Exodus 22:24

Here's the final installment of the conversation Izmud and I started in February.

Izmud worte, in response to our conversation regarding “Going Michael” versus turning the other cheek:

Exodus 22:24 (New International Version):

"My anger will be aroused, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives will become widows and your children fatherless.”

Well, it isn't Michael speaking but close enough. My response to radical muslim verbosity.

This is a perfect segue into the theme, “always read for context—especially the Bible.” You’re right, MudMan, it isn’t Michael talking, it’s God Himself. And to whom is he talking? Yep—the Israelites themselves, telling them that this is what He will do to them if they are abusive of those to whom they’re supposed to extend charity. Here’s the whole context:

22 "Do not take advantage of a widow or an orphan. 23 If you do and they cry out to me, I will certainly hear their cry. 24 My anger will be aroused, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives will become widows and your children fatherless."

[This is in His elaboration of the social requirements attending the Ten Commandments, of course.]

Can’t say I disagree in principle with going Joshua Chapter 10 on radical muslims. They’re a people who have chosen war with God’s people specifically over the issue of which God is true—the Lord prescribes, shall we say, rather…harsh…treatment for such people(s). If anyone has earned “kill them all, let God sort them out” treatment, they have—and God was not chary about having His people accomplish this when called for. Still, He commands us to act in love and justice first and, interestingly, threatens to go Old Testament on us if necessary when we disobey. I say we let Him decide when Jo10 is warranted and pray for our leaders, so they’ll know when that call is made. (Of course, this means electing leaders who believe in the first place, but that’s a different topic…)

(And, having said that, I'll be loading up the B-52 with B-53s should they need me... Just hafta say the word... "Would you like a little Cobalt salt with those fries, Akhmed?")

Monk

Son of the Archangel Michael

Since Izmud was the first to ever solicit an input for posting, I’ll do him the honor of having first dibs on posting to the resurrected Vita ab Alto. Way back in Feb He wrote:

I had to comment on your lines: "I often get in “kill them all, let God sort them out” moods..., but I am always eventually pulled back ...only He forgives and loves entirely."

For a man who prides himself on independent thinking I would rather consider you more like Michael the Internet Arch Angel, sweeping the electronic Heavens free of the demonic with your flaming blade, driving the Lucifers to their eternal punishment, slaying the dragons from the pit, and being a general all-around Old Testament verbal bad-ass rather than the born-again, turn-the-other-cheek kind of modern Christian. After all, you are a bomber pilot for cripes sake! Not some pansy intel officer! :-)

Good luck on this venture--I've thought you should do it for along time.

Hmm. Hmmmmmm....

Something like this?

Naw…too traditional.

Perhaps this?

Oh, hell no! Way too pimply-gay-teen-obsessed-with-D&D…

Maybe this is what you had in mind?

No ... it has a disturbing Aryan Nations vibe ... (it'll scare the liberals ...)


But no…I’m not Michael; I’m just a humble Monk. I’ll slay what dragons I can and will doubtless sling around enough verbal bad-assery for anyone’s taste, but that’s not ultimately what we’re called to be. Turning the other cheek requires a lot more courage than taking up a sword. When you realize this, Grasshopper, you will many steps down the road to wisdom…


Peace—out,

Monk

Finally, A MAN'S UAV

Thanks to all those who sent me items to post. Our conversations will be back up shortly. I must first rebuild some of my portions.

But now for something completely different: I don't do much mil blogging around here, but as a former BUFF driver, I found this irresistible:

*

Yup: a fully-flyable radio-controlled B-52G.

Here is a movie of its maiden voyage. I must, with jaundiced professional eye and a weary cynicism born of many years in SAC, make a few comments:

-- I like the horde of modelers surrounding the plane before and after the flight. Nice touch. They only needed little tiny blue breadtrucks to complete the effect.

-- The takeoff looked like several MITOs I've been in.

-- The craft flies way too nose-up. Get it going faster, close to the ground--I need to see that nose-down flying freight train effect.

-- Nice landing! Probably the first BUFF pilot ever not to get a nosegear on his first try at landing the plane!

-- I like the markings--this particular tail number, 57-6483, was at 2 Bomb Wing, Barksdale AFB, LA for many years in later versions; the livery depicted would have been worn when G-models first arrived at Barksdale in 1965, which would have meant this was a 62nd Bomb Squadron bird when it arrived--my first squadron.

-- Sadly, this BUFF found its own version of Bud Holland, who got the thing into knife-edge flight and crashed it. Stoopid sumbiatch. Word up: BUFFs don't fly very well on their sides.

-- Okay ... now for the really frightening thing: I've flown the actual tail number this model was based on. In fact, I flew it in combat during DESERT STORM, if memory serves (must check logbook). It was a Barksdale bird again when it was retired in Sep '91. Man, I feel old.


Update: I did not fly 6483 during DESERT STORM. The aircraft was used by the schoolhouse at Castle from the time I went through as a copilot (where I flew it once) until July 1990, when my crew and I brought it back to Barksdale. I used the off-station training mission as an excuse to see my fiance--the Veep; we were planning our wedding in October. This aircraft wan't used in DS, but I flew it several times after in '91, before it was retired. I had it confused with "Old Crow Express"--57-6490, which I did fly in DS. 6483 is either still at AMARC or was scrapped prior to 1997.

Monk

* Yes, folks--photos! Bwhahaha! I can now photoblog--and so can you: just email me a copy of the pix you would like posted. Nothing too large, please. Oh ... and no more photos of Hans and Izmud together, naked except for galoshes and cassocks .... please! I still wake up screaming ....

Vita ab Alto!

To my regular readers and new correspondents alike: Greetings & Felicitations!

I have finally been shamed into entering blogdom by a “fan”—let’s call him Hans—who tells me flattering lies about my “writing ability.” I have posted to friends for years, feeling that broadcasting emails was less solipsistic and more urbane than hanging entries on a glorified electronic vanity press. Nonetheless, a blog is convenient—it allows me to share intelligent commentary I get from correspondents like ChefJeff and Izmud with a wider audience and it thus opens up the possibility for wider conversation. I hope it draws in some comment from readers who usually just read and don’t respond. Besides, millions of navel-gazers before me have worn smooth grooves in the stone steps leading to the heights of self-aggrandizement. Who am I to think I am better than, say, James Lileks?

To All Those Presents, Greetings:

The Veep—you’re in my heart, you’re in my soul…you help keep me on the right track ... but I can still quote Mike Yaconelli when I want to!

Hans—liebe meine Aufsmünkey, you magnificent black fascist bastard!

RedLeader—where are the posts you promised? A number of professional bus drivers read this blog; consider it a potential forum for some of your issues

RedLeader & The Miller—you both know the “F”-111 was a bomber, right?

The Administrator—may this help pass your hours among the heathen each day

ChefJeff—I salute my honorable liberal friend! Please keep up the great commentary. He tasks me…he tasks me and I shall have him

Bruce of Bagdad—as always, keep building a better mousetrap

Fingers & The Voice—only two things frighten me and nuclear war is one of them! [What's the other?] [Bloggers! Small hands ... smell of well-worn pajamas ...]

French Horn Lips—kid, have you rehabilitated yourself? I want you to go sit down on that bench that says “Group W”…Now, kid!

Rommel—Keep up the good fight, Desert Fox

Marvin—Life ... let's talk to him about life ...

Max—welcome back to my nightmare. As an F-15A/C guy, you’re the only real fighter pilot among my readers right now. Despite that, I don’t really think you’re gay

CaveDave—Bama drools, Auburn rules! Always has, always will.

Momma & Pappa Sattui—perhaps this site will offer an occasional voice of reason in the intellectual deserts of the People’s Republic; in lieu of that, keep Napa one hand, Amador in the other

Mustang Teach and Magical Trevor—(Eww…stop that! Get a room!) Diz & Bird--what a work of art! I must commission you, Magic. Ever thought of doing blog design?

To my Midwestern Mustang Mormon friends (One Southern Belle & Billy Bob)—luv ya!

Frenkenstein—run, Forrest, run!

Izmud—If you don't have time for blogging, when will you have time for a novel??

To all new friends who may encounter this site, welcome!

My original conceit was to name this blog "Mors ab Alto," to honor my airpower roots with a handle that was (at least somewhat) BUFF-specific. When I googled that title, however, I found it appropriated by a fellow in snake-eater togs and camo makeup. His site had numerous references to Latin phrases of the “I bring fear” and “I will destroy and devour” sort (you know—the kind favored by guys who never quite outgrew their girl-rejected, scrofulous, proto-Columbine phase), along with a picture of (I presume) himself under the heading, “The Devil,” wearing Air Force Tech Sgt rank and a readable nametag. To this brother-in-arms I say: nice site name! Now get over yourself. You’re not Satan, as you will find to your eternal horror if you meet the real one face-to-face. Oh…and efface your nametag, before Top 3 or some phone colonel finds your site and makes your life here resemble your life to come… I hope I’m wrong; maybe the “devil” is his NCOIC, in which case the usage is probably appropriate.

As I contemplated “MaA,” however, I was pulled by conscience and thought of MonkCorp’s Vice President for Acquisition and Inquisition back to a name that was more consistent with being a child of God. I intend, as always, to offer outrageous opinions, outrageously expressed. I warn readers now that I may proffer opinions that may sound like they came from the dude who purloined Mors ab Alto. I often get in “kill them all, let God sort them out” moods (whoever “they” are—leftist moonbats, sportocratic thugs, racist fools, linear thinkers, muslim fundamentalists, ground-centric military types, Ward Churchill…whoever), but I am always eventually pulled back to the correct perspective—that all are children of God in Christ alike, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, only He can judge the hearts of men, and only He forgives and loves entirely. If I stray from this perspective, dear reader, please feel free to pull me back and/or kick me in the arse.

(Consider this last my equivalent of Charles Foster Kane’s New York Journal “manifesto.”)

I envision this site as a collaborative effort and hope it encourages, cajoles, and/or provokes regular readers of my posts into contributing. Feel free to respond in the comments section. I will pull the best responses out and post them. Or submit articles to me for posting via email. I will post these under your noms de blog, which will be those listed in the greetings above (you know who you are), unless you choose different moniker. Responses may not be immediate (I’m not Glenn Reynolds), but I will try to have something new up every day. Please keep all discourse here civil and civilized, as befits…

The Monk

New! Improved! Lighter! Leaner!

Yes, folks ... your humble bloghost has fallen victim to one of the most preventable online disasters imaginable. Poor security practices on my part allowed my blog to disappear, leaving only such posts as I had saved in order to transfer from one machine to another, along with my correspondents' comments. Thank God I still have those--most of our conversations can be recreated from them.

I think this time around, however, I will respond to your learned and reasonable commentary (and Izmud's, too) either in phrases from the dreaded Necronomicon of the mad Arab poet Abdul Alhazred, or from the infamous Hungarian Phrasebook. Here are some examples:

Chefjef: BTW, UCLA is not a liberal campus. I spent a few years there, and can tell you that in particular, the graduate School of Public Policy and Political Science - where I have several friends, to include a doctoral candidate who was a schoolmate of mine- are filled with conservatives and Republicans.

Monk: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh UCLA m'wah Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl Repflabrikan fhtagn fhtagn!!

[Google translation: Great Cthulhu in dead city R'lyeh sleeping will consume UCLA in large Republican gyro spiced with cumin!]

--Or--

Izmud: Pope John Paul II may have been notable and respected for many of his achievements in his lifetime, most particularly in the international relations realm. However, IMO he also bungled the handling of the priest sex scandal cases, and his hard-line stance on modern social issues has led to a Church-admitted net loss of the faithful averaging 10-15,000 per month worldwide!

Monk: Ya, you great poof! Mine hovercraft is full of eels, but I am no longer infected! Drop your panties, Sir Winston ... I cannot wait til lunchtime--my nipples explode with delight!

I shall start things off again with a re-posting of Vita ab Alto's original manifesto, with a few names changed to better implicate the guilty.

Until then, to paraphrase the immortal words of Wensleydale and Customer:

Reader: It's ... um ... it's not really much of a blog then, is it?

Monk: Finest in the district, squire!

Reader (annoyed): Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please.

Monk: Well, it's so clean, sir!

Reader: Yes, it's certainly uncontaminated by blogging...

Monk

PJP II: Not All As & Bs?

When Pope John Paul II died recently, I wrote a tribute praising his contributions to the death of communism, his strong stance against dilution of his denomination's teachings, and his stance against moral relativism. The details of my post are unimportant now, but it started a long thread concerning Popes and religion in general that I will try to recapture in Vita ab Alto.

Monk

Izmud started the comments:

Pope John Paul II may have been notable and respected for many of his achievements in his lifetime, most particularly in the international relations realm. However,IMO he also bungled the handling of the priest sex scandal cases, and his hard-line stance on modern social issues has led to a Church-admitted net loss of the faithful averaging 10-15,000 per month worldwide! While conservatives may agree with his stance on these issues, or admire his doggedness in refusing to bend to modern convention and liberalism, the bottom line is that his effectiveness as a leader of a group of people comes into question if his numbers are dropping rather than rising. So, a mixed report card overall for the late Pope.

Izmud