Something Rotten in the State of the Holmes Family

Possible Sherlock spoiler.

Mrs. Holmes, somehow, is the Napoleon of crime.

Mother Holmes, the woman who is a mathematical genius and has written a book (according to fansites) called Dynamics of Combustion--these are two key elements of Moriarty's character in the original stories.

Is he not the celebrated author of The Dynamics of an Asteroid, a book which ascends to such rarefied heights of pure mathematics that it is said that there was no man in the scientific press capable of criticizing it?—Sherlock Holmes, The Valley of Fear

It's been the subject of comment in a number of places, and yet consistently no one seems to conclude that this might indicate something about Mrs. Holmes' character. Also, Jim Moriarty keeps threatening to "burn the heart out of you," indicating that he at least believes he also understands something of the dynamics of combustion. Perhaps he intends to complete what he believes Mrs. Holmes failed to finish? Mother Holmes, who made no appearance in Sherlock's mind palace as he lay dying. The only member of his family to show up there was Mycroft, who served as a stand-in for the parents. Mother Holmes, who has a lot to answer for--"You should tell her that. She doesn't understand much." Mother Holmes, whom Mycroft attempted to stand in for. Also, the putting down of Redbeard is compared by Sherlock to being murdered, essentially, and it's still one of his pressure points after all these years. Mycroft became a machiavellian manipulator who runs England, and Sherlock became a damaged, drug addicted, high functioning sociopath. John said they (his parents) seem so normal. Sherlock said that's his burden to bear, or words to that effect. And her husband is the sane one. Something's really, really wrong in the family Holmes.

Coren on Pope Francis: "This, remember, is the Pope."

An explication.  Excerpts:

...This, remember, is the Pope. As Catholics, we believe that he is the direct successor to St. Peter, given the keys to the kingdom by Jesus Christ while He was here, physically, on Earth amongst us. He’s not infallible when he gives opinions, or interviews — that only occurs on those rare occasions that he speaks on matters of faith and morals ex cathedra or “from the throne” — but his views are still profoundly significant for Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

So what are we to say, what to conclude? The Pope is, he reminds us in the interview, a loving, faithful son of the Church. As such, he will not and cannot change fundamental teachings on life, sexuality and morality. What he can do, and has done, is to remind us that the Church is primarily about Jesus, love, understanding, grace and forgiveness. Forgiveness cannot be given unless it’s requested; it takes, as it were, two to play the game.

What Francis has urged, though, is a new painting. Black and white is vital, but the true picture can only be understood through a whole variety of colors. So this is a Pope of nuance and backstory, of delicacy and empathy of delivery. Truth needs to be sung rather than shouted, and he is telling the world — and particularly those who have left the Church and those who hide behind its rules instead of being liberated by them — that while we cannot compromise on truth, we must not compromise on love.

On the gay issue, for example, we are all so much more than our sexuality, and are all supremely and superbly loved by God who is our creator. Marriage is absolute, but to dislike or even hate someone because they are gay is not only wrong, it is anti-Catholic.

Francis is clearly explaining that no gay person will give any attention to a Church that appears to close doors rather than greet newcomers. They may reject the message, but at least encourage them to hear it.

That is the papal message, and while the details are indeed difficult, the overall plot is simple and clear...

Francis sees the human within the theological, the person within the religious, the living, breathing, confused, confusing man or woman within the moral law.

This will be a more inclusive papacy leading to a more inclusive Church, and the larger the party the more challenging it is to get along with and agree with everyone. But the largest parties are the most fun, and also make the most noise.

On a light note, someone got video of what happened in the immediate aftermath of the release of Pope Francis's interview:

Yes, I'm a Holmes fan. Look! Coren's written a biography of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle!

The Dangers of Giving the Catholic Church a Fair Hearing

A former atheist, now a Catholic, bears witness. Excerpts:

...As a teenager, I realised that I needed to read beyond my staple polemicists, as well as start researching the ideas of the most egregious enemies of reason, such as Catholics, to properly defend my world view. It was here, ironically, that the problems began.

I started by reading Pope Benedict’s Regensburg address, aware that it had generated controversy at the time and was some sort of attempt –futile, of course – to reconcile faith and reason. I also read the shortest book of his I could find, On Conscience. I expected – and wanted – to find bigotry and illogicality that would vindicate my atheism. Instead, I was presented with a God who was the Logos: not a supernatural dictator crushing human reason, but the self-expressing standard of goodness and objective truth towards which our reason is oriented, and in which it is fulfilled, an entity that does not robotically control our morality, but is rather the source of our capacity for moral perception, a perception that requires development and formation through the conscientious exercise of free will.

It was a far more subtle, humane and, yes, credible perception of faith than I had expected. It didn’t lead to any dramatic spiritual epiphany, but did spur me to look further into Catholicism, and to re-examine some of the problems I had with atheism with a more critical eye.

First, morality. Non-theistic morality, to my mind, tended towards two equally problematic camps: either it was subjective to the point of meaninglessness or, when followed logically, entailed intuitively repulsive outcomes, such as Sam Harris’s stance on torture. But the most appealing theories which could circumvent these problems, like virtue ethics, often did so by presupposing the existence of God. Before, with my caricatured understanding of theism, I’d considered that nonsensical. Now, with the more detailed understanding I was starting to develop, I wasn’t so sure.

Next, metaphysics. I soon realised that relying on the New Atheists for my counter-arguments to the existence of God had been a mistake: Dawkins, for instance, gives a disingenuously cursory treatment of St Thomas Aquinas in The God Delusion, engaging only with the summary of Aquinas’s proofs in the Five Ways – and misunderstanding those summarised proofs to boot. Acquainting myself fully with Thomistic-Aristotelian ideas, I found them to be a valid explanation of the natural world, and one on which atheist philosophers had failed to make a coherent assault.

What I still did not understand was how a theology that operated in harmony with human reason could simultaneously be, in Benedict XVI’s words, “a theology grounded in biblical faith”. I’d always assumed that sola scriptura (“scripture alone”), with its evident shortcomings and fallacies, was how all consistent, believing Christians read the Bible. So I was surprised to discover that this view could be refuted just as robustly from a Catholic standpoint – reading the Bible through the Church and its history, in light of Tradition – as from an atheist one.

I looked for absurdities and inconsistencies in the Catholic faith that would derail my thoughts from the unnerving conclusion I was heading towards, but the infuriating thing about Catholicism is its coherency: once you accept the basic conceptual structure, things fall into place with terrifying speed. “The Christian mysteries are an indivisible whole,” wrote Edith Stein in The Science of the Cross: “If we become immersed in one, we are led to all the others.” The beauty and authenticity of even the most ostensibly difficult parts of Catholicism, such as the sexual ethics, became clear once they were viewed not as a decontextualised list of prohibitions, but as essential components in the intricate body of the Church’s teaching...

Why, yes, the Body of Christ is clothed in a seamless garment, and not one of his bones will be broken.

 It is impossible to be just to the Catholic Church. The moment a man ceases to pull against it he feels a tug towards it. The moment he ceases to shout it down he begins to listen to it with pleasure. The moment he tries to be fair to it he begins to be fond of it.--G. K. Chesterton, The Catholic Church and Conversion

Red Wedding, Song of Ice and Fire, and Blood-Colored Glasses Lie

just as much as rose-colored glasses.

**Language and Spoiler Alerts!**

Why I couldn't get into A Game of Thrones. (**SERIOUS SPOILERS AHEAD!**)

..."So - when you eliminate just about every character that I care about, then continue to kill anyone with any sense of moral compass with such vengeance so as to punish them for even thinking that principles mattered, allow the wretched and evil to win over and over again and gain more power, and basically remove any and all hope of anything good ever happening (because how can I enjoy a show when every character I liked is now dead,) why is it exactly that I should continue watching?" wrote Tony...

Truly hilarious Twitter commentary as well (language and general despair alert.  Oh, and spoilers).  And this is a gem.  Excerpts:

A plane on route to the San Francisco International Airport tonight had to make an emergency landing when passengers watching pirated versions of the HBO series Game of Thrones began hyperventilating, screaming hysterically, and violently damaging their tray tables. The situation turned more volatile when an airline stewardess unintentionally spoiled the ending of the episode for the captain, after which he stormed out of the cockpit shouting obscenities, forcing his co-pilot to land the plane on his own...

“This chick next to me just started freaking out” says Martin Lodge, 39. “She was sobbing and kept saying ‘why, why, why’. At first, I thought maybe her boyfriend had just broken up with her by email or something, but then I heard this guy at the back of the plane yell ‘no way! no f**king way!’ and I knew something was going on. But what really tripped me out was the lady behind me. She started laughing!”

That lady was Angelica George, 32, who says she would have given anything to have had a video camera. “This was one of the most hysterical things I’ve ever seen. I’m a huge Game of Thrones fan and I’ve read the books, so I know exactly what happened in tonight’s episode. I just couldn’t help but laugh at their reactions, especially when the captain ran into the cabin shouting “f**k you George RR Martin!”

After landing, the plane was unloaded quickly and the affected passengers and captain were rushed to a nearby emergency room where they were treated with oxygen, heat blankets, and a pint of Ben and Jerry’s Rocky Road Ice Cream.

There is no word yet on their condition...

Anyway, humor aside.  I posted about the whole "slaughter everyone with a conscience; bad guys full speed ahead" problem with the series.  A friend commented:

How like life...GRRM likes to make a mockery of the noble class, who proclaim chivalry and honor but snuff it out wherever they see it. He reminds me of a plebian Cormac McCarthy in a way.

And yet proclaiming that there are no more good guys is no way to generate new good guys. Resigning yourself to the prevalence of vice today is no way to become virtuous yourself. The response of St. Benedict to the collapse of the Roman civilization was heroic sanctity, and he and his helped save civilization. I refuse to accept the counsels of despair. The day we all accept them is the day we collectively commit civilizational suicide. Only in hope is there life, and realism.

The response:

Yet it's not about vice TODAY it's about vice in history--a critical look at the kings and lords of medieval Europe.

An utterly unrealistic one. What role--I mean a real, substantive role--has religion played in Game of Thrones? Where're the great saints, bending history around themselves--Thomas Becket, Catherine of Siena, Benedict of Nursia, Francis of Assisi, Dominic, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas More, Margaret of Scotland, Elizabeth of Hungary, and so on and on and on? Where are the people who won't be bought or bent, and why aren't their triumphs included, as well as their deaths? Because there really have been such people in every century. Bad men haven't always had their way, and sometimes good is so powerful that it shall never be forgotten. Criticize the sins of the Europeans all you want, but unless you at least nod to their saints, you are being as unrealistic as the person who wears rose-colored glasses.

The response:

It's a point, though I suspect secular figures who won't be bent are more common in life as well as art.

It would take a lot of time and effort to prove either way, but I'd bet that, given the prevalence of religion across times and cultures before the modern age, you'd be hard pressed to muster enough folk unmotivated by any religious impulse to make that a really provable point. That debate is irrelevant, though, because it reinforces the underlying problem with the Song of Ice and Fire: namely, he seems to not have room in his world for people who will not bend before temptation or evil, for grace and goodness that wins, rather than simply being eradicated by the ruthless. He's not writing a realistic saga. It's not even Machiavellian--it's barely even modern realpolitik. It's certainly ahistorical and antithetical to human nature. He may be demonstrating John Wright's point about the challenge some writers face when attempting to write realistic human beings. Excerpts:

...[W]hy are my favorite authors, J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Gene Wolfe, Mike Flynn, G.K. Chesterton, all members of this monstrous Syriac cult known as Christianity? I do like my freethinker authors just fine, but Bob Heinlein, Ayn Rand, Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke seem to have trouble with realism in characterization, both with their invented people, and with their invented societies.

Don’t get me wrong, I love their books, love and reread them many times, but the people who don’t believe in souls don’t seem to be able to portray their characters three-dimensionally and solidly, that is, as if their characters had souls.

Or as if the world were only this:

And this:

And never this:

Downton Abbey, Chesterton, and (Anti-)Catholicism

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

So I live with a Downton Abbey fan right now, which means the show has been playing in the background. And I heard Lord Grantham's expressed opinions about Catholicism. The Telegraph has more.  Excerpts:

The unseemly debate in last night’s Downton Abbey over whether the late Lady Sybil Branson’s daughter should be baptised as a Catholic touches on prejudices that its writer Julian Fellowes knows about only too well.

“It is really to illustrate that casual, almost unconscious anti-Catholicism that was found among the upper classes, which lasted well into my growing up years,” says Fellowes, 63, who is a Catholic and an old boy of Ampleforth.

Robert Crawley, the Earl of Grantham, has, in a previous episode of the series, opined that Catholics have “something Johnny Foreigner” about them. “It wasn’t that they were nasty – Robert certainly isn’t – but they thought that somehow Catholics were un-English and so 'not quite right’,” says Fellowes. “I am not aware that anyone else has ever touched on it, so I thought it might be interesting...

(For more on the Spanish Inquisition, see here).  The Catholic Herald is rather surprised there's not been more discussion of such things.  Excerpts:

Up to now I have been puzzled by the way Tom Branson, the Fenian ex-chauffeur and son-in-law, seemingly has no religion. I assumed he was a Protestant (some Irish nationalists were), but it turns out that, no, he is a Catholic after all. Funny it has only surfaced now, as I am pretty certain that someone like the Earl of Grantham, a self-proclaimed anti-Catholic, would not have employed Catholic staff, and would have died of apoplexy att he thought of his daughter marrying one.

How rife was anti-Catholicism in the 1920’s?

Drawing on my admittedly partial knowledge, among the upper classes it was common. It is possible that the aristocracy were less anti-Catholic than the people in the rungs directly below them: after all the Earl of Grantham would have known several Catholic peers, whom he would have seen regularly at the House of Lords. (The Earl in Downton never seems to go there, which is one of the many historical oddities of the series, but let that pass.) Edward VII, the recently deceased King, had several Catholic friends. So, one would imagine that Catholics were socially acceptable in the highest ranks of society, though this would not have extended to intermarriage, partly because of the Church’s laws on that. But further down the social ladder it was a different matter altogether...

Please note, though, that the Earl of Grantham lives in an Abbey, that is, his estate was stolen from the Church at the time of the Reformation. One can never like those whom one has unjustly defrauded of their rights...

Along those lines, I was thinking about the show the other day, and a snippet of Chesterton kept popping into my head from The Return of Don Quixote. Excerpts:

..."Do you mean," asked Herne almost timidly, "go into--Seawood Abbey?"

"Yes," answered Murrel shortly. "I daresay we're in the same boat. I might find the other house a little harder."

They completed the rest of their programme by a tacit, not to say taciturn agreement; and so it fell out that, before they had exchanged many more words, they had actually come within sight of all that for so long they had not seen and had avoided seeing; the evening sun on the high lawns of Seawood and the steep Gothic roofs among the trees.

Certainly they needed no words of explanation when Michael Herne halted and looked across at his friend, as if bidding him go on. Murrel nodded and went quickly with his light and agile step up the steep woodland path and over the stile and dropped into the avenue leading up to the main gateway. The gardens seemed much as they were of old, but rather neater and in some nameless fashion quieter; but the great gate, that had always stood open, was shut.

Monkey was no mystic; but this fact affected him with a mournful thrill that had in it something of mysticism. That incongruous element increased upon him in some indescribable subconscious way as he approached the great doors and, for the first time in his life, knocked on them and rang a great iron bell. He felt rather as if he were in a dream; and yet as if he were near to some more strange awakening. But queer as were his unformed anticipations, they were not so queer as what he found.

About half an hour afterwards he came out of the great doorway, which was closed after him, climbed the stile and came quietly down the lane to his friend; but even while he was still approaching, his friend felt that there was something odd about his quietude. He sat down on the bank and ruminated for a moment; then he said:  "An extraordinary thing has happened to Seawood Abbey. It has not been exactly burned to the ground, because somehow it seems to be still there, and looking rather more well-preserved than before. It has not been, in any material or meteorological sense struck by lightning from heaven. And yet I am not sure . . . anyhow a most stunning and crashing catastrophe has fallen on that Abbey."

"What do you mean? What has happened to the Abbey?"

"It has become an Abbey," said Murrel gravely.

"What do you mean?" cried the other, leaning forward with sudden eagerness.

"I mean what I say. It has become an Abbey. I have just been talking to the Abbot. He told me a good deal of the news, in spite of his monastic seclusion; for he knows a number of our old friends."

"You mean it is a monastery. What news did he give you?"

"He was full of Society Snippets," said Murrel in his melancholy voice. "It all began with Lord Seawood dying about a year ago. The property went to his--his heiress, who it seems has 'gone over' as the saying is. She's become a Catholic; and a very extraordinary sort of Catholic too. She has given up all this vast property to my friend the Abbot and his merry men; and gone down to work as a nurse in some Catholic settlement or other down in the Docks...

And this. Excerpts:

“Other English gentlemen have stolen before now, and been covered by legal and political protection; and the West also has its own way of covering theft with sophistry. After all, the ruby is not the only kind of valuable stone in the world that has changed owners; it is true of other precious stones; often carved like cameos and coloured like flowers.” The other looked at him inquiringly; and the priest’s finger was pointed to the Gothic outline of the great Abbey. “A great graven stone,” he said, “and that was also stolen.”

Chesterton on Victor Hugo, Les Miserables, and Democracy

From Dale Ahlquist.  Excerpts:

...Have you seen Les Misérables yet? You probably don’t know that in 1902, G.K. Chesterton wrote an essay on a nearly-forgotten writer named Victor Hugo, predicting that he would become very popular again. Chesterton wrote,

“…Hugo is a vague and remote figure, a doubtful and little discussed author. Yet he was, beyond question, one of the greatest men of letters that Europe has seen, and the day of his return into intellectual triumph is remote indeed, but certain.”

“Every one of his great novels was in itself a small French Revolution. In Notre Dame de Paris he revealed to the modern world all the beauties and terrors of the old medieval order, and showed how pitilessly the individual was sacrificed to such an order. In Les Misérables he showed, with a far more sensational illumination, how our own modern order of law and judgment and criminal procedure was, as far as the sacrifice of individuals was concerned, as cruel as any medieval order. In Ninety-Three he showed that such a sacrifice of individuals became necessary, and in a strange, bitter manner, attractive, even in the modern age...”

For the whole essay, follow the link at the top of the page..

Sherlock Holmes, Life-Long Learning, and The Game is Afoot

I, of course, believe there are a ton of other very important things to learn from Holmes, but this is a good start!  Excerpts:

...Holmes doesn’t have to keep learning. How easy it would be to have his reputation do all the heavy lifting and let the same old tricks of the trade continue to, well, do the trick. But he doesn’t do that. Instead, he chooses to take those cases that keep challenging him, that allow him, in his words, to seek “knowledge at the old university” of life.

And in that continuous quest for self-correction, in his never-flagging intellectual curiosity, Sherlock Holmes is set apart from everyone who lets the lure of complacency reel them into successful indolence—an indolence that will soon translate into the atrophying of the very creativity and drive that got them there to begin with. And that’s one lesson in Holmesian thought we would do well to remember, no matter how successful we ourselves might get.

Hitchcock: "Robots Are Boring. Come On, Let's Have Mass"

Heh.  Excerpts:

...At the time, I was a graduate student in philosophy at UCLA, and I was (and remain) a Jesuit priest. A fellow priest, Tom Sullivan, who knew Hitchcock, said one Thursday that the next day he was going over to hear Hitchcock's confession. Tom asked whether on Saturday afternoon I would accompany him to celebrate a Mass in Hitchcock's house.

I was dumbfounded, but of course said yes. On that Saturday, when we found Hitchcock asleep in the living room, Tom gently shook him. Hitchcock awoke, looked up and kissed Tom's hand, thanking him.

Tom said, "Hitch, this is Mark Henninger, a young priest from Cleveland."

"Cleveland?" Hitchcock said. "Disgraceful!"

After we chatted for a while, we all crossed from the living room through a breezeway to his study, and there, with his wife, Alma, we celebrated a quiet Mass. Across from me were the bound volumes of his movie scripts, "The Birds," "Psycho," "North by Northwest" and others—a great distraction. Hitchcock had been away from the church for some time, and he answered the responses in Latin the old way. But the most remarkable sight was that after receiving communion, he silently cried, tears rolling down his huge cheeks...

Mr. Bean for Free Speech!

Or Lord Blackadder!  Or pick-a-character Rowan Atkinson has played for lo, these many years!

He and Mark Steyn should get together sometime!

Or perhaps Ezra Levant!

Good God--The Queen! Save US!

Heh.  Excerpts:

To the citizens of the United States of America from Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

In light of your failure in recent years to nominate competent candidates for President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately.

(You should look up 'revocation' in the Oxford English Dictionary.)

King Arthur...St. Armel?

Well, this is cool.  Anyone know if it's true?  Excerpts:

...St Armel, a 6th century saint born on Welsh soil to of noble Breton lineage, is a lesser renowned missionary recorded briefly in an episode detailing his duel with a dragon in the Forest of Teil.

It is said that having been educated in Welsh monasteries, he went on to fight on the side of King Iuthahel of Brittany in AD 555 against marauders and invaders.

So impressed was Iuthahel with the noble fighter that he granted Armel lands in the forest where he was noted and revered for founding a monastery.

Having previously performed miracles of restoration at the court of King Childebert, the soldier-saint soon took orders and settled into holy life.

Yet no sooner had he done so than the monastery and the neighbouring towns found themselves under fire from a rogue dragon.

Not flinching from his duties, St Armel set out into the dark forest and faced off against the dragon, eventually strangling the beast with his vestments and drowning it in a river.

Such is where the fantastical element of St Armel story ends… except for one small detail.

Armel was also, prior to accepting holy orders, known as Arthmael, a name which is more commonly translated in modern English as Arthur...

Happy Guy Fawkes Day!

Remember, remember,
the fifth of November,
the Gunpowder Treason
and plot.
I know of no reason
why the Gunpowder Treason
should ever be forgot.

2012 London Olympics--The Funny Side

This is quite funny.

Behold! The TARDIS!

A Guide to the Doctor's Tardis Page 1 by ~Time-Lord-Rassilon on deviantART

And more!

The Economist, the Catholic Church, and Utter Confusion

A wonderful response to this recent article from The Economist.  Excerpts:

I am guessing The Economist does not have a copy of the Code of Canon Law. Even a glancing read of the Code would have revealed that the Church is quite clearly not run like a multinational corporation such as Walmart or General Electric and I for one am glad it’s not...

NPR's Top 100 Teen Books

Even though a number of them are far from merely teen books (Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and anything by Madeleine L'Engle, for instance).  But still.... 

Neil Gaiman's Creative Godfathers

Ahem.  Hat tip Leo Partible.  Excerpts:

There are authors with whom one has a personal relationship and authors with whom one does not. There are the ones who change your life and the ones who don’t. That’s just the way of it...

Chesterton and Tolkien and Lewis were, as I’ve said, not the only writers I read between the ages of six and thirteen, but they were the authors I read over and over again; each of them played a part in building me. Without them, I cannot imagine that I would have become a writer, and certainly not a writer of fantastic fiction.

Free Catholic Books and Resources

Courtesy of a friend.

Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!

Coolness.  I like the suggestion.  Excerpts:

DURING MY UNDERGRADUATE studies as a Linguistics major, one of the things that struck me most is the amazing fluidity of language. New words are created; older words go out of style. Words can change meaning over time, vowel sounds shift, consonants are lost or added and one word becomes another. Living languages refuse to be static.

Chesterton Makes the Chronicle of Higher Ed!

Libations and carols all around!  Excerpts:

It has been over half a century since Maisie Ward's major biography of G.K Chesterton (1874-1936) appeared in 1943. Since then, Chesterton has largely been a darling of Anglophiles, conservatives, and orthodox Roman Catholics, the sort of writer often invoked in the pages of the National Review. And oh, yes, read by mystery-story lovers everywhere for his Father Brown series.

More recently, however, he has begun to find a sympathetic audience in wider literary circles, as evidenced by G.K. Chesterton, Ian Ker's detailed and compelling new biography from Oxford University Press, and a generous collection of his writings this year from Everyman's Library, selected by Ker, a senior research fellow at St. Benet's Hall, Oxford University. From my viewpoint, it's time Chesterton was taken seriously as a major critic and biographer, a thinker of sharp wit and deep learning...