Supremely Inappropriate

Not content with blaming his wife for one instance of dubious use of a flag associated with an insurrection at an Alito residence, the resourceful Justice has blamed her for another at a different Alito property.  That would be the second time he's thrown her under the bus in response to requests that he recuse himself from cases involving this incident, but not content with this misdirection he's done it yet again in his curious written response to those requests, solemnly (and unsurprisingly) declaring he need not--and indeed cannot--do so.

The notion of a judge having a duty not to recuse is one I find quite odd.  The duties a judge would have in response to a request would, I think, be to the parties involved in the case.  Justice Alito seems to think he has a duty apart from them--a duty to decide, although he's accused of bias or at least he appearance of it; indeed, perhaps because he has been so accused, and has decided himself (as he's allowed to do under the Supreme Court's unenforceable "code of ethics") that he cannot be accused of bias and is (and presumably--hopefully?-will be) impartial.

The truisms he employs in explaining he won't recuse himself are so off point it's difficult to believe he resorts to them.  Nobody has claimed his wife isn't a person, or an individual.  No one doubts she has her own opinions.  The fact she has flown other flags is neither relevant nor interesting.  The concept of joint ownership of property is well known.  No one thinks she has no right to fly a flag.  No one thinks she has no First Amendment rights.  No one doubts she was called bad things by others, nor is it maintained that neighbors did not exercise their own right to place signage on their property she found objectionable.

We may take Alito at his word that he wasn't involved in raising/flying the flags.

None of this is pertinent, and one would like to think that a Justice of the Supreme Court has the wits needed to know that's the case.  None of this is pertinent because the issue is whether, even under the toothless code which "applies," his impartiality may reasonably questioned.  Impartiality may reasonably be questioned regardless of whether it is or can be established.

Everyday people governed by codes of ethics must grapple with the question whether what they do creates the appearance of impropriety.  There's nothing unusual about this.  In most cases, honorable people feel, rightly, that when called upon to decide or participate in a decision involving their spouses professed beliefs and claims and whether they are valid or invalid, an appearance of impropriety exists.  This is because a spousal relationship is normally considered an unusually close one, in which spouses profoundly influence one another and share common interests and concerns.

Perhaps Justice Alito and his wife don't have such a relationship.  Perhaps he disdains her views, or pays no attention to what she thinks or does.  Even if that was the case, though, it would be reasonable for someone to think that they're a normal married couple, that they respect one another and know what each other do, at least in most cases.  Certainly, one would think, when it comes to flying flags over the home in which they live.

Assuming, then, what most would assume in the case of a marriage, i.e. that each partner will love, honor and respect their spouse, it's not at all unreasonable to expect that what one spouse publically declaims on matters in which the other is involved in deciding will influence the making of the decision, or will at least lead reasonable people to believe it will do so.  Pedantic recitation of each partner's individuality and legal rights isn't persuasive in such circumstances.  In fact, it seems disingenuous, and even dishonorable.

Supreme Court Justices seem to be doing a kind of ethical limbo dance.  How low can they go?

You Take 16 Nuns And What Do You Get?

How to complete the phrase making up the title to this post so that it matches with the song made famous by Tennessee Ernie Ford?  In the circumstances, I suppose something like:  "An undersized, dubious Catholic sect."  How's that?

It's unusual for me to post about the Church twice in a single month, but I find myself fascinated by the news about 16 Spanish nuns, of the Order of St. Clare or "the Poor Clares", who have declared themselves separated from Rome and their putative superiors in the well-established Catholic hierarchy, thereby becoming a self-described sect.  The Church has had a number of sects and heretics over the centuries, but this one must be remarkable at least for its small size and the fact that it's made up of nuns.

Instead of the Pontifex Maximus (as I enjoy calling the Pope) and their duly appointed bishop, the nuns have pledged their allegiance, as it were, to a person who calls himself a bishop, Pablo de Rojas Sanchez-Franco, who was excommunicated by the Church in 2019.  The declaration or manifesto of the nuns in which their schism from the Church was announced makes it clear that they object not only to the current occupant of the Throne of St. Peter, but to all of those who have sat in it since Pius XII.

From these facts it may be inferred that the sectarian nuns are very conservative Catholics, or traditional Catholics, or perhaps best described as Catholics who utterly reject the reforms which have taken place since 1958, when Pius departed this sinful world.  And if what we read about the manifesto is correct, that certainly is the case.  I'll admit I haven't read it, and must do so.  In fact I will do so now, if I can locate it via Google.

Well, perhaps not.  It seems to be 70 pages long, and I'm having trouble finding it.  I'll read the letter to which it's attached instead.

No, I won't.  As far as I can ascertain, both the manifesto and the letter are only available in Spanish.  Perhaps there'll be a translation someday.  No doubt I won't be interested in reading it then.

There are indications in some articles I've read that the manifesto may echo criticisms of clerics of the Church's authorization of the blessing of same sex marriages.  It's uncertain whether that's true, as it may be the person who wrote the articles merely refer to that as an example of dissent in the Church.  The nuns presumably condemn this practice as well, by implication if not expressly, its authorization being given post-Pius XII.  Regardless, it appears the Sisters complain that in general, Catholic pastors have failed their flocks, leaving them exposed to the (homosexual?) wolves.

What we see here may be another example of the claimed tendency of modern Catholics to desire a return to the "halcyon days" of the Church, i.e. the days pre-Vatican II, which has been remarked on by some as I noted in a prior post.  If that's the case, this desire goes beyond the aesthetic (and perhaps sentimental) preference I have for the old forms and rituals of the Church, which I think is understandable given the dreariness of its current ritual.  It is instead, I think, a sign of a sort of atavism among Catholics.  There is it seems a desire to revert to the past, not only as to form but substance.

I wonder if this desire is a sign that many of us today seek certainty more than anything else.  Certainty of thought and doctrine, even if that means disregard of what's taking place, perhaps even the disregard of what facts and reason indicate or suggest is true, or regarding the nature of the world with which we must interact.  Adherence to a doctrine already established and unquestionable creates a sense of comfort and stability, lacking in our all-too-interesting times.  It also instills a sense of fellowship; those who accept the doctrine and the lore are part of a community, no longer alone in the face of seeming chaos.  

What can compete with such a sense of solace?

  

Under the Upside Down Flag (Alito Incognito)

It's said that displaying the picture of a Supreme Court Justice upside down is a sign of profound distress due to an emergency threatening the nation.  It may also be used as a symbol of protest.  This picture of Justice Alito was posted by here by someone.  I don't say it was me, but I take advantage of it to comment on the flying of the Stars and Stripes, Old Glory, The Grand Old Flag of our Glorious Republic, The Flag Of Our Fathers, upside down at his house  in January, 2021, contemporaneous with the insurrection effort of January 6 of that year and the silly "Stop the Steal" movement related to the 2020 election.

Justice Alito when confronted with proof that this took place promptly hurled his wife under the bus, and claimed that she had done it without his knowledge or consent.  He was, it seems, unaware of events taking place at his home and of the conduct of his wife, who as far as I know has neither confirmed nor denied his gallant claim.  Alito claims she treated our flag in such a fashion because of signs on display in the yards of certain of his neighbors, which we're to believe were so offensive as to merit this call for distress, or which otherwise required that she brandish her support for the claim the 2020 election was stolen in this fashion.

It's not a persuasive claim or explanation, I think.  The Justice has displayed an ignorance of women in general in the past, but it doesn't follow from this that he was, or is, ignorant of the thoughts and actions of his wife specifically.  Also, just why anyone would think flying the flag upside down is an appropriate response to nasty neighbors is unclear.  I can't help but wonder if this was Alito acting incognito; i.e. with his identity rather thinly concealed by the person of his wife.

If hanging the flag upside down was conduct in support of the "Stop the Steal" farce or was intended to express belief that the election had been stolen, it's remarkable that the spouse of a Supreme Court Justice would act in this fashion given that even at the time, as I recall, the claims made in that respect had been laughed out of courts throughout the nation.  One would think a belief in judicial impartiality and reserve would cause a reasonable person to question the basis for the assertions being made in court which various judges dismissed, and it may be expected that even the wife of a Supreme Court Justice would hold such a belief, if not the Justice himself.  But perhaps this isn't to be expected of either the Justice's wife or the Justice himself in this case.

We see at the Supreme Court as we see elsewhere in our politics and society a sense of disdain for lives different from ours and thoughts which are contrary to our own.  We also see self-righteousness of an extreme kind.  In politics and in an increasingly political judicial system, the expression of this self-righteousness is pharisaical.  

We know the Supreme Court Justices have recently refused to adopt a code of ethics similar to that which applies to other federal judges.  It seems they're serenely confidant that no such code need exist (it's to be hoped they don't think that ethics themselves are unneeded at the Supreme Court, but only in lesser courts).  We know also that another Justice and his wife have blithely accepted costly gifts from very rich friends and admirers, for the most part wealthy conservatives, and see nothing objectionable about this mooching on their part.  This kind of self-regard can be dangerous, as Supreme Court Justices, who have no term of office and whose decisions cannot be appealed, can come to think of themselves as truly supreme.

We can expect that neither Justice Thomas (whose wife supported claims of a fraudulent election) or Justice Alito will recuse themselves from cases involving the January 6th insurrection under the circumstances, of course.  

It's unsurprising that the reputation of the Supreme Court is diminishing.  Lawyers know judges better than most, and probably are no more impressed by the knowledge or characters of the current Justices than they are of most other judges of appellate courts.  They know there's nothing particularly laudable or admirable about them and their significance is simply in the power they wield.  But it strikes me that others are coming to know this as well.  Unfortunately, certain of the Justices seem bent on making certain that respect for the Court continues to dwindle.

Benevolent Dictatorship

It seems a growing number of persons in our Great Republic have come to believe it should not be a republic.  They think it may continue to be great, of course, unless they're one of those who believe it isn't great currently, but may be again, once it is no longer a republic.  

Those who think this way apparently favor a form of government more in line with autocracy or dictatorship.  They're certainly not the first to do so.  The belief that there has been or may be such a thing as a benign despot, or benevolent dictator, has a long history in our long, and sad, history.

It's an attractive belief.  We imagine someone holding near absolute or absolute power who would do the thinking for us, act in our interest, for our benefit, dispense what we think is justice, create and maintain prosperity, allow us to do what we think we should be able to do, all without hinderance from opponents or onerous regulations and requirements.  But has there ever been such a ruler, or could there be one?

Pictured above is one person who was considered a benevolent dictator, Lucius Ouinctius Cincinnatus.  He was quite literally a dictator as that was a position one could be appointed to by the Roman Senate.  The Roman dictator had unlimited authority, or imperium, but only for a specified period of time (usually 6 months).  A dictator was appointed in times of emergency.  Cincinnatus held the position twice.  When his term was up, he returned to private life.  In accordance with his legend, he's shown plowing his fields when representatives of the Senate arrive to tell him of his appointment. 

He's a model of the disinterested figure who takes up sole power solely for the benefit of the state and its citizens, and gives it up when his service to the state is done.  George Washington enjoyed being compared with him.

Later dictators weren't necessarily as popularly remembered.  Lucius Cornelius Sulla in particular is remembered as a man who brought his legions into Rome in violation of tradition, during the conflict between him and Gaius Marius, and essentially through force of arms remained dictator as long as he pleased.  During his dictatorship he proscribed all those he considered his enemies and dangerous to the patricians he favored.  He did give up his powers, though, eventually, and lived a comfortable private life until his death.  

Augustus may actually have been something close to a benevolent dictator after he seized supreme power in Rome, but was ruthless in his quest to obtain it.  The later so-called "good" emperors, Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius, may be called benign at least in comparison to other emperors of Rome.

In more recent history, Frederick the Great was thought of as a benevolent despot but I suspect that was because he was something of a philosopher, learned and cultured, in addition to being a great military leader, and such things played very well in the Age of Enlightenment.  Napoleon was believed to be one as well, at least by some, at least for restoring order and glory to France after the chaos of the French Revolution and the Terror.

Subsequent rulers with great power can't reasonably be considered benevolent, however.  Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Mussolini aren't considered benign by most, and for good reason.  It seems they were considered to be benevolent for quite some time, however.

A dictator must be considered disinterested to be benign, I think.  In other words, the ruler's goals and conduct mustn't be selfish, or favor friends and relatives, or supporters, primarily if not solely.  Likewise, enemies should be punished based on the extent the state is harmed by them.  Although great or absolute power may be exercised, it must be in the service of the state or its citizens.  Otherwise, a ruler is merely self-serving.

But what one considers a benign dictatorship is subjective, now, entirely.  And calls made for it are, sometimes blatantly, dishonest,  Those seeking power for themselves or others do lip service to justice and impartiality and patriotship, but do so in such an inane manner as to bring their credibility in question.  Just listen, and hear.

Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Mussolini considered liberal democracy to be a weak and ineffective form of government, too inclined to consider elements they and those like them thought to be foreign or contemptible.  Those who now dream of an autocracy replacing the democratic type of government here think much the same, judging from their comments.  They imagine absolute power applied in their favor and against others.  There's nothing benign about an autocracy which is intolerant and exclusive.  

If there is such a things as a benevolent dictatorship, that's not what's being sought or desired, here and now, and no amount of fear-mongering or misrepresentation can hide that fact.  What's being sought is a government by certain people, for certain people and of certain people.

The Tedium of Sexuality and Emoting in Narrative Art

I was watching a series on one of the streaming services which it seemed would be amusing, in an absurd and fantastic way, and which proved to be amusing, when something happened.  Certain of the characters began to display feelings for each other, by which I mean romantic and sexual feelings.  The times being what they are, the characters are gay, or are in the process of "discovering" they're gay, or bisexual, or whatever the appropriate description may be.  As would be the case for me even if the characters and relationships were irretrievably straight instead of gay, my amusement and interest diminished.  Now, alas, what was amusing and fantastic in the show will become secondary, no matter what effort is made to make the romance or sexuality exotic or, I suppose I must say it, inclusive; or, as I suppose I might say it more accurately, didactic in the manner of today's creators of narratives .

There must be something which makes the creators of narrative art, but especially the film and media arts, include at least one sexual relationship in the story being told.  That relation comes to dominate the story if only by virtue of the fact it's displayed in one way or another on many occasions as the story plays out, regardless of context.  No doubt sex is of great importance to us all and very much part of our lives, but it's as a consequence very commonplace.  Now and then a sexual relationship may be uncommon, and even extraordinary, but that's the case only rarely.  It strikes me that sexuality and sexual/romantic relations are therefore not subjects of great art and shouldn't be.

Think of great films.  Which of them centered on a sexual/romantic relationship?  Which of them involved such a relationship or relationships not in passing, noting or referencing them infrequently, but primarily? Casablanca, perhaps.  Dr. Zhivago?    I don't know; there was quite a bit else going on, like the Russian Revolution.  I find it hard to think of anything else.  Gone with the Wind?  I'm not sure it's great, frankly.

Then, consider those that weren't.  2001: A Space Odyssey, Paths of Glory, Dr. Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange to give Kubrick his due.  The Godfather and Godfather II; Lawrence of Arabia, Citizen Kane, The Manchurian Candidate, The French Connection, The Bridge on the River Kwai; etc., etc.

There is Psycho, however.  Perhaps it's possible for great film art to be based on the depiction of a sexual obsession or sickness.  

Sexual relationships and romance being exceedingly mundane for the most part, however, there's not much interesting which can be done with them.  They take away from the story.  How is it, then, that they're omnipresent in film and series, TV and otherwise?  Is there an expectation on the part of creators and consumers that one will intrude necessarily?  There shouldn't be, and I claim that good and memorable works of art don't involve them to any significant extent.  

I think it takes a real effort to insert sexuality in any interesting narrative, but we see those efforts being made and their results all the time.  Even when sex isn't involved the characters are given opportunities to display emotions and weaknesses.  When watching an absorbing mystery or fantasy or drama, it's difficult to care whether the characters have feelings for one another which they must express together with various insecurities and attributes which it appears the writers, directors and producers think should be pointed out for reasons unrelated to what's taking place.  What's taking place must, in fact, be interrupted while the characters emote.  Past failures and traumas are revealed and discussed while war and murder and social conflicts rage.  

Perhaps it's hoped the viewer will come to sympathize with the characters, or see themselves in them.  But the self-pity and conceit indulged in on screen is just as mundane as the sex and romance.  People don't watch to see and hear what they may see and hear everyday, everywhere.  They wish to escape from it.  I think they wish most of all not to be lectured about it.

Catholics Get Back To Where They Once Belonged

I saw an interesting article while browsing the news on the Web today.  Buried among the stories regarding student protests (but are they, really?) and the trial of America's Trimalchio for payoffs to a porn star was a story which claims to describe the rise of traditional Catholicism in these Not-So-Very United States.  Can it be so?

Perhaps.  Those who've indulged me by reading this blog with some attention will know of my sentimental fondness for the ceremony and ritual of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as it existed before, and even for a time after, Vatican II.  It seems that others are fond of them as well, and miss them or seek in them something they've been unable to find in the bland proceedings which take place each Sunday hosted by the local churches.

It seems to me that something not necessarily bad, but stupefying, happened as a result of the reforms of Vatican II, in this country at least.  I don't pretend to any knowledge of what took place elsewhere.  But here it seems that Tom Lehrer was right when he said that the reforms were being made in an effort to make the Church "more commercial" (as he noted in introducing his song The Vatican Rag on the TV show That was the Year that Was).

There was the switch from the recitation of the liturgy in Latin to English, of course, but other reforms were made as well.  For example, the priest said mass on an altar, which consisted of something resembling a large table, facing those attending the mass.  Prior to Vatican II, the altar was as shown in the picture above and the essential portion of the mass devoted to the transubstantiation of the water and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ took place with the priests facing the altar with their backs to the worshippers.

The idea was, I think, to make the worshippers participants rather than observers and make the mass and the Church more popular, as it was believed people were leaving the Church.  So, the clergy was to encourage involvement of laypersons in arranging the ceremony, and did so.  Whether as a consequence of that or of the efforts of priests and clergy as well, the music accompanying the ceremony was replaced by other music considered more popular, and the language of the liturgy itself was changed, not merely to English but to an English it was believed would be more comprehensible and less challenging, in other words more "modern" than "old fashioned."

Perhaps it was an effort to make the Church more "popular" rather than more "commercial" but I think that the result was the same.  It seems to be an axiom of marketing of products in our economy that the pitch to sell be aimed at the "lowest common denominator."  A formula was arrived at for that purpose.  There was to be nothing unusual or exotic.  Songs sung and words used were commonplace, and sometimes even maudlin or cheesy.  Attending mass became more and more a like watching a sitcom, or to put it more kindly a drama of some kind.

Instead of becoming interesting to more and more people, the Church became less and less compelling, less worthy of interest.  It was much the same as everything else.  

What it seems the Church forgot, I think, was that people don't want religion to be like anything else.  There's an expectation that it be different.  There's a view that those of a particular religion should be distinguishable from others--that they form a community, devoted to certain beliefs.  This is desirable as it is establishes the difference between believers and others.  It makes the followers of a particular religion special.  The best way of making a religion and its adherents distinct and a separate, presumably superior, community is through ritual and ceremony.

It seems to me that the apparent tendency towards "traditional Catholicism" is a result of these expectations and desires.  The Tridentine (Latin) mass was certainly exceptional, and some (like me) probably think it remarkable and even inspiring.  The old music was beautiful and ornate, not mundane imitations of bad rock or country songs with references made to Jesus and love.  The ritual, the incense, the chiming of the bells, the solemnity of the Eucharist, must seem quite attractive now in comparison with the tepid performances which have been endured so long.

What I find concerning, though, is that "traditional Catholicism" which may be making a comeback includes old doctrine and forms which express not the beauty of the old ritual but the repressive aspects of the Church.  That women are now beginning to wear hats or little lace hair coverings as they did in Church before Vatican II seems to single them out due to their sex, and in an oppressive fashion.  Requiring that only men be priests, and they be celibate, is much the same in that respect; the claim that men only be priests because the Apostles were all men makes no sense.  They weren't women, true, but neither were they priests.  Early Christianity owed much to the participation of women and they were very involved in its spread.  Only later did it begin to imitate Judaism and reduce their status.

There are various problems with Catholic doctrine, and I would find a resurgence of belief in them disturbing, but I can understand why the old ritual and ceremony that distinguished the Church before Vatican II is seeming more and more attractive to religious believers.