The chair is empty

Pope Benedict XVI's resignation became effective at 2pm (EST) today. The papacy is now vacant and Catholics across the world await the election of a new pope by the cardinals of the Church.

The role of big government in enabling segregation

Megan McArdle explains yet another example of the role of big government, this time the FHA, in interfering in internal market conditions to guarantee a specifically desired outcome, in this case, residential segregation in the 1930's through the 1950's: How Good Principles Can Make Bad Rules.

When we look at things like slavery, Jim Crow, segregation in the North, bans on interracial marriage and other various racial evils that our nation has endured, it always has to be remembered that those evils were maintained by intrusive governmental systems designed to suppress personal liberty and limit the power of the free market.

And that last point is why I am baffled when I run across libertarians who defend things like slavery and segregation. Even if such things are arrived at through individuals contracting between themselves, say with a contract where one person sells himself into slavery, or covenants on real estate to restrict sales to a particular racial or ethnic group, those private agreements (if they are to be effective) have to be enforced by the power of the courts, which is, after all, just one mechanism by which the State exercises its power.

The effectiveness of private contracts rests, ultimately, on the authority of the State. Thus to make an idol of private contracts in the way in which people's lives are ordered is a severe mistake if one seeks to limit the State's reach into people's private affairs. The State can be just as oppressive acting through the mechanisms of the judiciary as it can be when acting through the mechanisms of regulation or legislation.  Here are some key examples of the U.S. Supreme Court standing by approvingly while human beings were denied their rights to life, liberty and property.

Surprise! Turns out pot is bad for you after all

Not that the public health consequences will dull the movement towards legalization of this harmful substance, but it is worth noting that marijuana is hardly the benevolent crop that its users and their fellow-travelers proclaim. As this post from Peter Hitchens (Christopher's younger and wiser brother) makes plain, marijuana is a serious drug that causes serious harm:  The Irreversible  Profound Risks of Cannabis -- An Expert Speaks. As Hitchens quotes a doctor who treats patients suffering from marijuana addiction:

The hardest addiction to break, he adds, is to cannabis. Cannabis - certain strains at least – is also the drug that can cause the most profound and the least reversible neurological damage, often quickly, often in very young and otherwise healthy adults. The drug many people think of as harmless can send you mad, swiftly and permanently.

Sounds like just the sort of thing that a society in the midst of a major melt down in public ethics and self-discipline should legalize and promote.

The conservative John Adams, president & thinker

Gleeves Whitney explains the intellectual and political significance of our nation's second president, John Adams, over at The Imaginative Conservate: American Founding -- John Adams (Part 1). Whitney does an excellent job of charting the rise in interest in John Adams' life and work.  In Part 2, Whitney explores Adams' strengths and weaknesses as a lawyer, politician, and statesman.

Adams is one of the most under-rated leaders in our nation's history, and his life and work provide numerous examples of paths both to be taken and avoided in the tangled jungle of public life.  A conservative thinker with perhaps the finest mind of the Founding Era, Adams is well worth studying.  Russell Kirk understood this well when he included Adams in his groundbreaking work on conservative intellectual history, The Conservative Mind.

Woodward alleges White House threat

Here's video of the famed Watergate era reporter's allegations against the Obama White House:



(Hat tip to Adrienne's Corner.)

Human Events restructures after shutting down its print edition

One of the truly venerable conservative news journals has announced the end of its print run, another victim of the relentless push towards online-only publishing.  Here's hoping that Human Events: 1) thrives as an online only publication; and 2) finds a buyer soon who can provide the necessary capitalization for the journal to succeed on the internet alone.  I would also add a separate petition that the people who just got laid off from the journal will quickly find new jobs doing what they do best.

Nat Hentoff on our nation's changing national character in the Age of Obama

The self-described leftist, Jewish, atheist, pro-life journalist has written a must-read op-ed on the shifting scope of basic liberty under the current regime of targeted assassination of American citizens without due process:  America, we've lost who we were. Hentoff also blasts the mainstream media for their partisan defense of the Obama administration.  A defender of civil liberties and government under law, and a relentless critic of government corruption under both Republican & Democrat administrations,  Hentoff is one of the most principled journalists writing today.

John Stossel on the uneasy alliance between conservatives and libertarians

A very much worth reading essay from a libertarian perspective on the not-quite comfortable relationship between the two camps:  Libertarians and Conservatives Are Still Awkward Bedfellows. Stossel's essay demonstrates perfectly why libertarianism is at its core hostile to conservatism, and it comes to to the last sentence in the essay.  To libertarians, things like traditional marriage, the sanctity of human life, living in a public square that is open to faith, a public order that isn't baked out on drugs, all of those things are fundamentally unimportant.

The "important things," as Stossel puts it, involve budgets and spending and the like.  And make no mistake, those things are important.  But without virtue, without a legal order that reinforces basic, fundamental rights like the right to life, without a public policy that reinforces personal responsibility and the central institution of social life -- the family -- then the "important things" of economy and finance will collapse.  A free market is impossible without a free people, and a free people is only possible in a balanced polity of ordered liberty that promotes both individual choice and public virtue. Libertarianism's refusal to both understand and embrace that fact is what makes libertarianism a threat to liberty, as Russell Kirk well knew.

Celibacy and the clerical sexual abuse crisis

One argument that is sometimes heard regarding the sexual abuse scandals in the Catholic Church regards the requirement that most priests in the Latin Rite must be celibate.  The argument goes like this, "if only priests could get married, there wouldn't be this problem." Such an argument overlooks the fact that sexual abuse scandals like those in the Catholic Church are sadly common in religious traditions that have a married clergy, as well as in secular professions (like elementary and middle school teaching).

Fr. James Martin, S.J., has a very good refutation, published over at the Huffington Post, of the idea that clerical sexual abuse and celibacy are linked: It's Not About Celibacy: Blaming the Wrong Thing for the Sexual Abuse Crisis.  Fr. Martin effectively and systematically addresses the objections to celibacy in light of the sexual abuse problems in the Catholic Church. He also provides a very powerful and beautiful explanation of the charism of celibacy in the priesthood and religious life. Well worth a read.

Why do Catholics call the liturgy "the Mass"?

Catholic theologian Taylor Marshall explains the terminology for Catholic worship over at this blog, with an assist from the angelic doctor:  Thomas Aquinas on the Word "Mass."

Natural law is inevitable in non-religious moral arguments

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry makes that point in this essay over at The American Scene: Natural Law and Secular Enlightenment Morality. The only question is whether we are going to admit that natural law binds us or whether we decide to try to escape the restraints of our own nature.

Two thoughts from Edmund Burke against libertarian ideology

From the great Anglo-Irish statesman of the 18th century, who critiqued both the rise of the murderous totalitarianism of the French Revolution and the imperial abuses of the British Empire, here are two statements of principle incompatible with the idea of libertarianism:

• "To make a government requires no great prudence. Settle the seat of power; teach obedience; and the work is done. To give freedom is still more easy. It is not necessary to guide; it only requires to let go of the rein. But to form a free government; that is, to temper together these opposite elements of liberty and restraint in one consistent work, requires much thought, deep reflection, a sagacious, powerful, and combining mind." -- from Reflections on the Revolution in France, 1790.

• "Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." -- from A Letter from Mr. Burke to a Member of the National Assembly in Answer to Some Objections to His Book on French Affairs, 1791.

Radical Ohio nun implicated in voter fraud

Here's report of an investigation of alleged election fraud in Ohio during the last election cycle. If true, a very sad commentary on the state of religious life in some Catholic religious orders.

The triple whammy of the Obama economy

That topic is explained by The Lonely Conservative in this post over at her blog: Retailers Prepare for "Triple Whammy." As she writes, Wal-Mart and other retailers are beginning to experience the trickle-down effects of the Obama administration's policies increasing the economic stress on lower-income Americans. The troika of "lower paychecks, higher gas prices and sluggish employment" have people on the lower end of the income scale cutting back their purchases. And as The Lonely Conservative notes, Obamacare hasn't even fully kicked in yet, and is likely to bring its own set of woes to the economy.  Very bad news, and there is no sign, as she points out, that the Democrats are willing to acknowledge the damage the current administration's policies are inflicting on the working and lower-middle classes.

Wash. State governor identifies radioactive leaks at Hanford

News of problems at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in eastern Washington as reported by Seattle's own KOMO 4 News: Inslee: 6 underground Handford nuclear tanks leaking. Both state and federal officials acknowledge the problems, and Washington's liberal Democrat governor Jay Inslee seeks to reassure the residents of the surrounding area that the leaks are not an immediate threat. Forgive me if I am skeptical of the assurances provided by various federal and state agencies that have long failed to treat with adequate seriousness the ongoing threat posed to eastern Washington, Idaho and eastern Oregon by the extensive nuclear contamination at the Hanford site. The contamination stretches back to the 1940's, contamination that has lead to such dreadful horrors as the "down-winder" phenomenon.

The right ways to cut defense spending

• Pat Buchanan looks at the budget realities that are moving the government towards cutting defense spending and urges both Congress & the current administration to look at cutting those aspects of our military budget that are unnecessary in a post-Cold War world: Cut Commitments, Not Muscle. The United States should remain the world's preeminent military power, both for our own immediate defense and the defense of our interests across the world, interests we have as a global trade partner and commercial republic. But cuts are coming, and as Buchanan notes it is best that those cuts are undertaken to increase our flexibility in a changing world, not tie us down to entangling alliances that place American forces in unnecessary jeopardy. Why do we have troops stationed in Germany today? In Italy? In South Korea? Why do we have bases throughout the world, each one a tripwire that could draw us into conflicts beyond our true interests? 

• Well, what kind of cuts could start to be made in the defense budget that could move our country towards a leaner, more effective and less bloated military? Over at The American Conservative Jon Basil Utley has a substantial list of areas that could be cut, reducing spending while maintaining the core function of the military:  16 Ways to Cut Defense. (Hat tip to A Conservative Blog for Peace.) There is plenty of bloat and corruption that can be ferreted out of the defense budget, and Utley's suggestions are good places to start.  

• We also need to embrace the wisdom of the past to understand why excessive military spending is a problem. It isn't just a question of wasting money, which is reason enough. It also raises questions about the priorities of the nation and our basic approach to foreign affairs. President George Washington spoke to the latter concern in his Farewell Address of 1796, and President Eisenhower spoke to the former concern in his Farewell Address of 1961.  Here's video of Eisenhower's warning to the nation about the then-rising "military-industrial complex":

Two posts from Megan McArdle on problems in American higher eduction

• America's New Mandarians:  a critique of the insular and ideologically stultified training shaping the current crop of elites in our society. Aside from narrow education, our current elites are crippled by a lack of real-world experience in business as well as a raging sense of entitlement. That isn't a recipe that bodes well for our country's long-term success.  

• What's the Use of a Ph.D.?: a solid presentation of the underlying problems with the ultimate degree in our academic system, the dissertation-defended doctorate. As McArdle notes, this degree is largely designed to train people to do one thing and one thing only: become a professor. As the academic market shrinks for demographic reasons, there simply aren't enough jobs for all the Ph.D.s produced. In some disciplines, like the hard sciences and the fine arts, there are other outlets for Ph.D.s aside from the teaching market, but for the humanities and social sciences, that is largely not the case. The result? Ph.D.s on food stamps or teaching in high schools. 

Related item:  Robert Stacy McCain discusses McArdle's New Mandarian's piece over at his blog: Our Homogenous Elite. Well worth a read for McCain's own observations about the troubling situation McArdle identifies. 

Ten worst states for taxes

The Fiscal Times identifies them here.  No surprise, California and New York at terrible (New York State is the worst in the nation when it comes to taxes), but there are some surprise states in the mix as well, like North Carolina and Iowa. Also a surprise, deep blue Washington State (only half-jokingly nicknamed "The Soviet of Washington") isn't on the list. Although our current governor, reliably leftist Jay Inslee, is signaling that he would like to remedy that oversight.

The ongoing bank bailout the MSM isn't telling you about

Llana Glazer explains it over at David Frum's blog at The Daily Beast: You Are Funding Jamie Dimon's Salary. As Glazer explains, the profits that the big banks are experiencing now is a direct result of massive infusions of government cash courtesy of the Obama administration to the tune of $83 billion. All a product of the "too big to fail" phenomenon. And a prime example of why "too big to fail" should also mean "too big to exist at the expense of the taxpayers."

What is natural law?

There's a discussion going on over at The American Conservative regarding the utility of natural law arguments in the American political system. You can read some of the back and forth on the topic in these posts:

• Rod Dreher: Politics and Natural Law, Cont'd.
• Alan Jacobs:  More on Natural Law Arguments.
• Rod Dreher: Why Natural Law Arguments Fail.

Whenever discussions about natural law take place, one of the major issues usually left unaddressed is precisely what one means by the term "natural law," and the related term "natural rights." Noted libertarian legal theorist and law professor Randy Barnett has a guide to understanding natural law available on the web:  A Law Professor's Guide to Natural Law and Natural Rights.  Originally published in 1997 by the Harvard Journal of Law & Policy (a journal which has also published work by your humble blog author), Barnett's take is no substitute for the work of men like Aquinas, Hooker, Grotius, Rommen and d'Entreves. But is much more accessible to a current reader, both because of its length and Barnett's writing style.  Barnett also helpfully distinguishes natural law from the related but still distinct concept of natural rights.  The difference between the two is often overlooked by modern jurists and writers, much to the detriment of both. Barnett sums up the relationship between the two thusly:

Natural law refers to the given-if-then method of analysis where the "given" is the nature of human beings and the world in which they live. This method can be applied to a number of distinct problems, the "if." When discussing moral virtues and vices, or the problem of distinguishing good from bad behavior, the imperative for which is supposedly based on human nature, natural-law ethics is the appropriate term (though such principles are sometimes referred to simply as natural law). When discussing the contours of the moral jurisdiction defined by principles of justice, or the problem of distinguishing right from wrong behavior, which is supposedly based on the nature of human beings and the world in which they live, the appropriate term would be natural rights. 

In short, natural-law ethics instructs us on how to exercise the liberty that is defined and protected by natural rights. Whereas natural-law ethics provides guidance for our actions, natural rights define a moral space or liberty, as opposed to license67, in which we may act free from the interference of other persons. Although principles of natural-law ethics can be used to guide individual conduct, they should not be enforced coercively by human law if doing so would violate the moral space or liberty defined by natural rights. And human laws that violate natural rights do not bind the citizenry in conscience.

While Barnett's approach here is heavily influenced by libertarian theory, it stands as a good compliment to the work of Aquinas and other natural law theorists. And as Barnett's essay demonstrates, the discussion of natural law and natural rights really are inevitable in the American system of law and politics. Those who would seek to downplay natural law and natural rights reasoning in our political sphere are not doing themselves any favors.

Tariffs, fair trade and the legacy of Reaganism

"A trade balance is a measure of national power that reliably identifies rising and falling nations." So writes Pat Buchanan in this must-read op-ed on the state of the American economy: Who Killed the Middle Class?  As Buchanan notes, the policy of free trade begun under the first President Bush worked to accelerate the problem of America's trade deficits with foreign powers, one of the fundamental drivers of the collapse in the growth of the middle class:

Since Bush 1, when some of us began to argue loudly that a mindless ideological pursuit of free trade would imperil America’s industrial base, the total of U.S. trade deficits in goods with the world is approaching $10 trillion — 10 thousand billion dollars! 

Might this humongous dumping of foreign goods into the U.S.A., killing our factories, and the liberation of our transnational elite to close plants, outsource production, and bring foreign-made goods back free of charge into the U.S. market, have had something to do with killing the middle class? 

The U.S. median income stopped growing in the mid-1970s, the same time we began to run 40 straight years of ever-expanding trade deficits.

Buchanan's analysis skirts around something that few politicians will openly admit:  the ideology of free trade has resulted in the deliberate de-industrialization of our country. This policy of de-industrialization has had catastrophic consequences across the board not only for the middle class, but also for the working poor. As manufacturing jobs in industry & textiles have collapses, the engine for economic mobility in our economy has gone from a sprint to a crawl.

If one raises this point among conservatives or libertarians nowadays, there is almost always an eventual retort to the legacy of Ronald Reagan. Wasn't Reagan, the argument goes, an advocate for free trade? Rhetorically, Reagan embraced the language of free trade while actually using tariffs and trade protections for American industry to support the policy of fair trade. And that's not just my candy-colored reading of history. Here's a report, issued by the pro-free trade libertarian Cato Institute, written in 1988 (the last full year of Reagan's second term), demonstrating conclusively that the Reagan administration engaged in a large number of interventions in the trade system in order to protect the American marketplace for American companies and American workers.

In trade, as in most other aspects of his administration's policies, Reagan was no doctrinaire ideologue. Buchanan, who worked in the communications department of the Reagan White House, understands far better than most what roots of the current American economic crisis. At its root, it is a crisis of the middle class. And it is a crisis that pre-dates the 2008 melt-down by decades.

Free market health care reform

That's the topic of this post over at Reuters.com:  The future of free-market healthcare. An interesting read of some proposals to reform the still-embryonic Obamacare system in a free-market direction. Of course, the author's beg the question as to whether the overall system set up by Obamacare can be reformed in a free-market direction, or whether the planned structure and inherent defects in the program render it irreformable. At that point, the argument isn't about reform, but about repeal and what comes after repeal. There is where the real debate, I think needs to occur.

"Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism?"

That's the title of this essay by the late philosopher Robert Nozick, available over at Libertarianism.org. As Nozick writes:

Intellectuals now expect to be the most highly valued people in a society, those with the most prestige and power, those with the greatest rewards. Intellectuals feel entitled to this. But, by and large, a capitalist society does not honor its intellectuals. Ludwig von Mises explains the special resentment of intellectuals, in contrast to workers, by saying they mix socially with successful capitalists and so have them as a salient comparison group and are humiliated by their lesser status. However, even those intellectuals who do not mix socially are similarly resentful, while merely mixing is not enough—the sports and dancing instructors who cater to the rich and have affairs with them are not noticeably anti-capitalist.

The whole essay is on target and well worth a read.

Approaching college

Megan McArdle posts on how to think about going to college:  How to Make the Most Out of Your Higher Education. Along with some very common sense advice about picking the right major, getting the undergraduate degree done in four years, and avoiding graduate school unless it is either necessary for your career path or lucrative, McArdle suggestions taking time off between high school and college to work, at least for year.

The advice to go to a community college is particularly good. That's the route I took when I went to college back in 1988: two years of community college getting my Associate of Arts degree, then two years at university finishing up my Bachelor's degree. It saved me thousands of dollars in tuition and living expenses. I also worked while in school, not just during the summers but during the school year as well. When I graduated with my B.A., I not only didn't have any debt, I had $4,000 in the bank.

One area where I would disagree a bit (but only a bit) with McArdle is her approach to the humanities.  She says never major in history or English. If the only degree you are going to get is the B.A. degree, that is good advice. History and English are not solid career degrees -- and I would add psychology, sociology and philosophy to that mix as well. But if you are planning on doing graduate work, they can be invaluable. Again with McArdle's cavets about grad school in mind, if a student is intent on grad school -- and by intent I mean "I am going to go to grad school and I have the money set aside to do it and there is nothing that could ever stop me from going to grad school including a giant asteroid strike") -- then history or English or philosophy or a degree like that is a fantastic undergrad degree to have. I majored in history as an undergrad, and while it never got me a job, when I went to law school I had a much easier time of things because of the training I had received in my history program. But if the student is going to be on the standard "one and done" track when it comes to degrees, then by all means he or she should stay away from the humanities or social sciences.

RIP, Judge John Schultheis

Former Washington Court of Appeals judge John Schultheis of Spokane passed away recently. Here's a story about his life and career from the online edition Spokane's very own newspaper of record, the Spokesman-Review. Schultheis was a giant on the bench in eastern Washington -- a compassionate yet rigorous judge, he was a jurist with a temperament that is unfortunately becoming something of a rarity these days:  he was a Burkean liberal.

While I never had the opportunity to formally appear before Judge Schultheis as an advocate in court, I did see him around Spokane from time to time, and he was a friendly and outgoing public servant. He spent time talking to law students, to ordinary citizens, and to the people who had business before the court. He never forgot his roots in the community and that his task as a judge was to apply the law to the messy and often tragic situations of human life. While I often found things to disagree with in his written opinions, his heart and his analytic legal reasoning were always on display. He will be remembered, both by the legal community and by anyone who reads through the Washington Appellate Reporter printed for the years when he was serving on the Court of Appeals. May he rest in peace.

The catch-22 plaguing the US Post Office

In a nutshell, it isn't allowed to compete like a private entity, and it isn't funded adequately by the federal government:  Mandate pushed Postal Service into the red for the first quarter. It has the key burdens of both the free market and the public sector, without the primary benefits of either.

Just for the record, I like the US Postal Service, and I use it regularly -- to send actual letters to people!

The enduring relevance of Russell Kirk

Is explained nicely by George Nash over at The Imaginative Conservative:  The Essential Russell Kirk.   A fascinating exploration of Kirk's life, his intellectual battles and the principles that he fought for in his writing and in his life. Well worth a read.

What did Shakespeare's plays really sound like back in the day?

Tea at Trianon has a blog post on just that topic, available here. When I was in high school, long ago and far away, my drama/theatre arts teacher mentioned that it was then standard theory that English is Shakespeare's day was spoken much faster than it is now. The thinking went that what is for us a four-hour performance was for Shakespeare and his contemporaries about an hour and a half.

Russell Kirk on Abraham Lincoln

Today is Lincoln's Birthday and in honor of the day I thought I would again direct my readers' attention to this analysis of our first Republican and second-greatest president by the late Russell Kirk:  The Measure of Abraham Lincoln. Kirk does a very apt job of demonstrating that Lincoln was conservative, going so far as to quote Richard M. Weaver that Lincoln was a greater conservative than Burke! As Kirk writes, Lincoln was "a conservative statesman of a high order," explaining as follows:

Lincoln never was a doctrinaire; he rose from very low estate to very high estate, and he knew the savagery which lies so close beneath the skin of man, and he knew that most men are good only out of obedience to routine and convention. The Tire-eater and the Abolitionist were abhorrent to him; yet he took the middle path between them not out of any misapplication of the doctrine of the golden mean, but because he held by the principle that the unity and security of the United States transcended any fanatic scheme of uniformity. As Mr. Weaver observes, “he is astonishingly free from tendency to assume that ‘the truth lies somewhere in between.’” Here he was very like Burke; yet it is improbable that he ever read Burke, or any other political philosopher except Blackstone; his wisdom came from the close observation of human nature, and from the Bible and Shakespeare. The Radical Republicans detested him as much as the Southern zealots did. In his great conservative end, the preservation of the Union, he succeeded; and he might have succeeded in a conservative labour equally vast, the restoration of order and honesty, had not Booth’s pistol put an end to the charity and fortitude of this uncouth, homely, melancholy, lovable man.

As Kirk goes on to write, Lincoln was committed to the old Whig principles of the rule of law, of individual liberty, and that "[h]is greatness came from his recognition of enduring moral principle." A man of prudence and insight, Lincoln understood the conservative concept that there is a transcendent Providence that governs in the affairs of men. As Kirk concludes his essay, Lincoln's beliefs were far from radical:

This a long way from the big battalions; it is also a long way from Jacobin abstraction. Lincoln’s strength, and his conservatism, did not arise from an affection for the excluded middle, which he called a “sophistical contrivance.” He knew that what moved him was a power from without himself; and, having served God’s will according to the light that was given him, he received the reward of the last full measure of devotion.

Amen, Russell Kirk. Amen.

That would explain the Pope's resignation all right...

Hat tip to: What Does the Prayer Really Say?

Pope Benedict XVI resigns the papacy

Here's the story from the New York Times. Well, that's certainly a bit of information for a Monday morning.  According to this report from Bloomberg.com, the Pope is resigning due to health reasons. His resignation will be effective Feb. 28, after which a conclave of the cardinals of the Catholic Church will meet to elect the next pope. The pope's resignation statement addressed to the cardinals present in Rome may be found here, and reads as follows:

Dear Brothers, I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is. 

Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects. And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.

This is the first papal resignation in roughly 600 years.  The last Pope to resign was Pope Gregory XII in 1415.

Updates: 

• Fr. John Zuhlsdorf has some explanation about what happens next over at his blog What Does The Prayer Really Say?:  Some notes about the upcoming conclave.  If you are so inclined, you might want to spare a prayer for the cardinals of the Church, that they will have the wisdom and guidance to select the next Pope.

• The Anchoress has posted reflections on the Pope's resignation, and has provided a roundup of links to reactions across the web.  Worth looking at to get an idea of what Catholic bloggers are saying about today's news. 

• Vatican Radio has an official news release on the Pope's resignation, which you can read in English here. The Vatican Radio release includes a link to an audio file of the Pope's statement, so you can hear it in his own voice. (Hat tip to A Conservative Blog for Peace.)

• Samuel Gregg has a reflection posted over at The Corner on Benedict XVI's legacy: Reason's Revolutionary. As Gregg notes, Benedict's primary intellectual project has been the restoration of the place of reason in human affairs.  

• Stephen Bainbridge notes the importance of Benedict XVI's resignation as a break with long-standing custom, and states that it may count as "the bravest thing he's done in office." Bainbridge also points out some of the vicious anti-Catholicism on display on the left-side of the blogosphere. 

• Taylor Marshall notes that Benedict XVI has likely been contemplating resigning his office for some time, and provides some evidence to support this contention:  Pope Benedict's Devotion to Saint Celestine Signaled His Resignation From the Papacy.

• Ross Douthat has some thoughts on Benedict XVI's resignation, posted over at his blog at the New York Times online:  The Pope Abdicates.  Douthat looks at both the short-term and long-term consequences of the Pope's decision, and has some insightful comments on the Church's resilience. 

• Pat Buchanan comments on Benedict XVI's papacy and resignation in this op-ed:  A godly man in an ungodly age. Buchanan reflects on the long decline of Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular in those places where it has historically been strong. 

Quinquagesima Sunday

[St. Matthew Passion by J.S. Bach, performed by the Münchener Bach Orchestra & Choir, Karl Richter, conductor.]

Today is the last Sunday before the season of Lent begins in the coming week on Ash Wednesday. While the Sundays in Lent aren't days of penance and fasting (Sunday is always a day of celebration in honor of our Lord's resurrection), this particular Sunday is usually somber, looking forward to the penitential season that is about to begin.

The celebration of abortion in America

Clinical law professor William A. Jacobson notes how far our culture has fallen, where for many abortion is something to be celebrated:  Where did we go so wrong as a nation that laughing at and celebrating abortion is hip? The celebration of abortion, something that was on full display in President Obama's re-election effort, is one of the clearest signs that our nation is is in deep, deep trouble. The future belongs to those who are there to enjoy it, and the normalization and celebration of abortion means a profound lack of hope for the future of our nation. Not to mention a profound violation of the basic right to life of all the children killed in the womb by abortion.

George Will says it is time to break up the big banks

And I agree with his op-ed putting forth that position:  Break up the big banks. As Will points out so well, the current practice of businesses being "too big to fail" does nothing more than propagate "the pernicious practice of socializing losses while keeping profits private[.]" A break up of the giant banks, far from hindering capitalism and the free market, would release the competitive forces of the market from the constraints imposed by the government-supported forces of these giant conglomerates, as Will notes:

By breaking up the biggest banks, conservatives will not be putting asunder what the free market has joined together. Government nurtured these behemoths by weaving an improvident safety net and by practicing crony capitalism. Dismantling them would be a blow against government that has become too big not to fail.

Big government and big business travel together hand in hand. Can't have one without the other. Encouraging competition and conditions that enforce responsibility on the part of business is good for the free market and good for consumers. Breaking up the big banks and ending the cycle of big government bailouts of big business would be steps in the right direction.

The constitutional difficulty with President Obama's drone strike policy

That topic is explored by Michael Ramsey over at The Originalism Blog: Originalism and Drone Strikes. (Hat tip to Instapundit.) As Ramsey argues, the president's assertion of the right to kill American citizens who are not posing a direct and immediate threat to the United States is in conflict with the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Read his entire analysis -- it is chilling reading.

As Pat Buchanan comments on President Obama's policy:

According to a Justice Department “white paper,” any “informed high-level official” can decide a target is a ranking operative of al-Qaida who “poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States,” and if we cannot apprehend him, order him eradicated with a Hellfire missile. 

As law professor Mary Ellen O’Connell argues: “For a threat to be deemed ‘imminent,’ it is not necessary for a specific attack to be underway. The paper denies Congress and the federal courts a role in authorizing the killings or even reviewing them afterwards.” 

And they called Nixon the imperial president. 

As killing a U.S. citizen is a graver deed than waterboarding a terrorist plotter to get information to save lives, Obama, who bewailed Bush’s detention, rendition and interrogation policies, appears guilty of manifest hypocrisy. 

But with 3,000 to 4,500 now killed by drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen over 10 years, and an estimated 200 children and other civilians among the “collateral damage,” it is past time for a debate on where we are going in this “war on terror.”

More than hypocrisy, though, the serious charge is that the president is refusing in this instance to comply with the 5th Amendment, one of the cornerstones of the Bill of Rights. Such a refusal to comply with the Constitution implicates the very notion of the rule of law, for as Buchanan points out, the president's policy denies the rightful power of the courts or Congress to pass any judgment on the killing. Thus, we arguably have a president threatening freedom in two ways:  1) by authorizing extrajudicial killings of American citizens who pose no immediate threat to our country; and 2) by subverting the checks and balances of our constitutional order by refusing to submit his actions to the judgment of the courts and Congress.  It is difficult to imagine more serious charges against an Administration and its policies.

Related items:

• The Pittsford Perennialist links favorably to this call for the Congress to begin the impeachment process against President Obama:  Why Obama Should Be Impeached. Impeachment would be an extreme measure, and one that has never been successfully used against a president before.  Hopefully the regular processes of our republican democracy will be sufficient to restore the security of our nation under the rule of law, without resort to articles of impeachment.

• Jacob Sullum asks a very good question over at Reason.com:  Does Obama Think He Can Order Hits on Americans Inside the U.S.?

Dr. Ben Carson's speech at the National Prayer Breakfast

Dr. Ben Carson, one of our nation's leading neurosurgeons is well worth listening to as he takes apart Obamacare piece by piece during his speech at this year's National Prayer Breakfast. (Hat tip to Adrienne's Corner.)



That's an example of speaking truth to power.

Remembering Richard III

In light of the recent confirmation of the discovery of the remains of the last Platagenet king of England, I thought that I would link to this post over at The American Chesterton Society, excerpting G.K. Chesterton setting the record straight about the reign of Richard III. Much of the popular imagination about Richard stems from the clever writing of Tudor propagandists, notably St. Thomas More (who had begun his political career under Henry Tudor, the man who triumphed in the battle that cost Richard III his life), and Shakespeare (who composed his play Richard III during the reign of the last of the Tudors, Elizabeth I). The truth about Richard is, therefore difficult to determine, although I am inclined to agree with Chesterton's view that he was not nearly so bad a man as the Tudors would have us believe.

During his two-year reign, Richard III enacted significant legal reforms, including incorporating the practice of bail into the criminal justice system of England, mandating that laws and legal decisions be written in English rather than in Norman French or Latin, and improving representative government for the common people of the north of England. Whatever his faults, that does not appear to be the program of a tyrant bent on blood. Richard, again for all his faults, was a believing Catholic and if he had retained his life & his throne, there is little doubt that English history would have radically different than the path it took under the Tudors. When Richard III ruled, England was one of the most Catholic countries in Europe, a well-spring of the faith. It likely would have remained so had the Plantagenets kept the throne.

But at this point, such speculation is neither here nor there. History took the turns it did, and now all the remains is to remember this fallen king, not a hunchback with withered arm (as More and Shakespeare both portrayed), but a young leader burdened by scoliosis and in the end betrayed by his followers. Let him rest now, given a proper burial and remembered not just for the evil attributed to him by his enemies and detractors, but for the good that he did during his short reign.

Of course, as The Pittsford Pereniallist points out, wherever he is given burial, the rites should be those of the Catholic Church, the Church that Richard was baptized into and died a member of.  To bury Richard as an Anglican would be perverse, given that the Church of England was started by Henry VIII, the son of Henry Tudor, the man who overthrew Richard.

Related item: did Richard III order the murder of the Princes in the Tower? This post over at The Richard III Society makes the argument that Richard had nothing to do with the disappearance and killing of the sons of Richard's brother, Edward IV:  Were the "Princes in the Tower" Murdered?

Earth-like planet may be right in our cosmic backyard

Look to Proxima Centauri!

Puritanism and republican political practice

Historian Thomas Kidd has a post over at Patheos.com exploring the relationship between the Puritans and the development of American republican political practice:  Puritans:  The Original Republicans? As Kidd notes, while long identified with democratic theory and practice, Puritanism provided a Reformed approach to civic life that had strong republican overtones as well.

The collapse of etiquette and the collapse of culture

That's the topic of this post by Ken Larive over at The Examiner:  Failing etiquette is another sign of social decadence. (Hat tip to Tea at Trianon.) Manners are a product of training, of habit, as Larive observes:

Etiquette is something not readily taught in school. It is learned early by trial and error, by lessons, a training, of sorts, by family and friends, and by observation. Observation, i.e., a good example. Most likely it is set in place by the age of seven, and from my point of view, constantly corrected throughout one's life. It is called good breeding. It is called an education.

The coarsening of our culture is mostly clearly evident in the collapse of manners in our daily interactions with each other. While good manners are not a substitute for good character, good manners are an essential social virtue that enables people to interact with each other productively and peacefully. Manners are a way of showing concern for others -- and in an overwhelmingly narcissistic age, it should be no surprise that manners are on the decline.  Redeem the time, however, and begin to practice the virtues of good etiquette.