Even though he terminated one of my comments with extreme prejudice in his combox, your humble Blog Goliard is becoming a fan of Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, aka “Fr. Z”.

Fr. Z now has a column in the Catholic Herald, the premier Catholic newspaper in the United Kingdom. There is a nifty feature available to bloggers, such as yours truly, who have digital subscriptions to the paper, whereby we can post clippings on our own blogs. Here is Fr. Z’s recent column on the new, corrected English response to “The Lord be with you”:

The Catholic Herald

18 March 2011

Page 16

Any of your humble Blog Goliard’s several readers who might have an interest in this fine publication will wish to know that there is a special offer being extended in the month of March. When using the promo code “CHPROMO”, a digital subscription to the Catholic Herald costs only £10 right now, for a whole year. (When paying by credit card and bypassing PayPal’s conversion service, this came out to just $15.94 for me, as Capital One is the least evil card provider by far when it comes to international transactions.) For more information, see Fr. Z’s link and instructions.

As a member of what we used to call “Generation X” (before our society more or less forgot that there are people my age at all), the headline to this piece on Fr. Z’s fine blog is music to your humble Blog Goliard’s ears.

The post inspired the following longish comment, which is being posted here as well, as yours truly is happy with the effort it represents, in summing up the position of some of us traditionalists of a certain age.

So many things were swept away in the 1960s and 1970s, and not just in the Church. As a lawyer, your humble Blog Goliard also thinks immediately of the radical and willful breaking from previous restraint and precedent exemplified by the Warren Court nationally, and the Traynor Court in California.

If the towering arrogance and self-centeredness of these people wasn’t sufficiently clear at the time, it is now. For the erstwhile iconoclasts now whine that we can’t possibly make this or that change, discard this or that aspect of their glorious handiwork. Don’t we realize that we are obliged to adhere faithfully to all the precedents and traditions handed down to us by our elders? Don’t we realize that change will be disruptive, and disheartening to the poor souls in the pews?

(If you ever find yourself bereft of a good definition of “chutzpah”, that right there would do in a pinch.)

Of course, there’s a paradox that arises from where your humble Blog Goliard is standing as well. How can I condemn them for having disrespected their elders and rejected their heritage, whilst I work to sweep away so many of the things that they, my elders, have wrought and seek longingly to have my generation adopt and carry on? Or, more tartly: how can I possibly resent and undermine my forebears for having committed the crime of resenting and undermining their forebears?

So they’ve given me, in many cases, stones to eat instead of bread. Or at least what I perceive to be stones. Doesn’t humility require me to ask on what grounds I can claim the authority to judge what are stones and what are bread? Don’t filial piety and obedience to tradition oblige me to keep trying to make the best use of the stones I can? (I mean nutritively…not simply chucking the stones at Marty Haugen.)

The best one can do is to let go, as best one can, of the bitterness and grudges that percolate in the soul. However much it may feel good and seem entirely justified to get worked up into an anti-Boomer lather, it isn’t helpful to anyone in the end.

And we should remember that not all those of the previous generation—maybe not, if truth be known, even anywhere near most of the previous generation—support and honor the wreckage that has been wrought. Much of it was accomplished over the strong objections of this blogger’s own parents, for starters.

Finally, if things are to be pushed back towards earlier traditions, we younger folk driving the change must make absolutely sure that we are truly in conformity with and submitting to those traditions, rather than using an idealized (or even largely fabricated) vision of such traditions as mere cover for the imposition of our own particular tastes, our own Zetigeist, and our own wills.

One generation of radicals refashioning everything into the image and likeness of themselves is, after all, quite enough.

I very much hope that Mr. Gingrich’s story of personal maturation and redemption is true. I rejoice that he is now a fellow convert to the Catholic faith, and pray that he shall benefit from limitless graces.

I recognize that Mr. Gingrich is a brilliant man, and hope that his ever-bubbling cauldron of fresh ideas and unique insights will always be readily available to Republicans as they deliberate over their governing agenda.

All this notwithstanding, I still believe that the former Speaker has forever forfeited his right to be considered for high office (and not merely on moral grounds), and find it perplexing that anyone is seriously considering running him for President next year. Even in the uninspired 2012 field as it now stands, we can do much better.

You’ve had your chance, and your time has come and gone. Kindly stand aside, sir.

Fr. Robert Araujo and others on the “Mirror of Justice” blog have been calling attention to an academic program to be held this fall entitled “More Than A Monologue: Sexual Diversity and the Catholic Church”.

Your humble Blog Goliard would be most interested in attending such an event. Not out of agreement with the conveners’ worldview and goals, mind you; but rather for the opportunity to try, through the promised dialogue, to finally comprehend exactly how such dissidents propose to construct and properly ground an alternate ethics of sexuality. This is something which he quite honestly has never been able to come close to comprehending, even after perusing various representative writings of such thinkers.

While dissenting from certain orthodox teachings, these theologians do not consciously place themselves outside the Catholic community and Christian tradition. Yet what they are positing makes an implicit case that all major monotheistic religions have been consistently wrong about the morality of sexual acts since the beginning of time.

That’s a big ask, to put it mildly.

So what arguments are they able to deploy, exactly, that support the idea that after thousands of years, this band of enlightened 20th/21st century dissenters are the ones who have finally gotten it right? Your humble Blog Goliard has thus far only managed to find a lot of soft-pedaling of Sacred Scripture, the teachings of modern Popes, and everything in between. True engagement with any of these authorities is then evaded by privileging “contemporary experience”, the autonomous and unguided conscience, and the claims of social and human “science” over all of them.

It would be enlightening and encouraging to learn that there is something deeper and more solid underlying all this; that despite appearances, the dissenters are in fact grounded in something more than the typical Boomer-style narcissism, willful wish-fulfillment, and disdain for Dead White European/Semitic Males.

Clarification of just what is to replace traditional sexual morality would also be most welcome. If there is a coherent alternate sexual ethic being proposed by anyone, to guide us as to what intimate acts are licit and what are illicit, it has somehow entirely escaped your humble Blog Goliard’s attention.

Or is to state it that way to miss the point? Is it instead the dissenters’ position that sexual acts are, in and of themselves, morally neutral? Or that the moral question depends so utterly on the specific persons and situations involved, and on individuals’ subjective judgments and soveriegn consciences, that making clear distinctions and moral judgments is impossible?

Dissenting theologians do not seem inclined to do much more than leave hints as to how we are all to behave once the old oppressive sexual teachings have been finally routed. One can only hope that this is more the byproduct of mere thoughtlessness than of active evasion.

Finally, there is a direct (and, truth be told, rather impolite) question that your humble Blog Goliard would love to be able to ask such an assembly, full as it promises to be of religious persons who favor radical redefinition of the sacrament of Marriage:

Precisely how do they propose to define, for purposes of unions of two men or of two women, the act of consummation?

The question is posed not in a spirit of provocation or prurience, but rather in hopes that the answer—as well as the manner in which it would be delivered—would prove highly instructive for all concerned.

Your humble Blog Goliard has taken some time to tardily commit his thoughts on the Libyan situation to paper (er…okay, to electrons); and it has been a bit of a struggle to reconcile an “I told you so” tone with the whole practicing-humility aspect of Lent.

That would be because it has been clear to this observer, since the day the Arab League called for action against Libya (said action to be taken by others for them, of course) that a heel turn was coming. Recent news reports indicate that this turn—from inciting the intervention in Libya to opposing and undermining it—is already underway. It may be coming a skosh sooner than some might have guessed; but in no other sense does any politically-aware grownup has any excuse to be surprised by this.

Why would the members of the Arab League have chosen to call upon us, and wait passively for us to act, if they were so deeply concerned for the well-being of their Libyan brethren? Have they not planes and ships and tanks of their own? (Of course they do. We sold these things to them ourselves.) Are they not capable of striking against their enemies without the assistance, or even approval, of anyone outside their circle? (Of course they are. Just ask Israel.)

But they are not lifting a finger militarily, and have no intention of doing so, because the fate of Libya’s “rebels” is a secondary consideration…one is even tempted to call it a pretext. Instead, foremost in their minds is the glorious opportunity they have been given to draw the United States and its allies into a trap. (Cue Admiral Akbar.)

Once the cruise missiles and bombs started falling, it was inevitable that a large enough share of them would come directly from U.S. aircraft and ships that it wouldn’t matter to the Arab world how many of our allies were also involved, or even technically “leading” operations. The average person in the Arab world would see this as a Yankee military action, full stop, and any and all collateral damage would be charged entirely to Uncle Sam’s account.

It was inevitable that such damage would ensue…and even more inevitable that Qaddafi’s goons would work to both maximize real collateral damage (you think his Tripoli compounds became crowded with civilians by happenstance?) and spin fanciful tales of invented carnage for the eager consumption of the Arab street.

Which would be all the Arab League would need to start their turn. “Yes, we called for a no-fly zone, but we didn’t mean for them to do this” is their opening line, but it is just the start. It won’t take long before they join Qaddafi and Putin (!) in baying about infidel crusaders spilling Muslim blood.

Here’s what we should have done, in your humble Blog Goliard’s opinion. When the Arab League called for action, we ought to have applauded them, and offered to rearm, refuel, and repair any of their fighter jets employed in the fight against Qaddafi, free of charge, at any airbase of ours or theirs they might find it expedient to use.

We would then have needed to set our diplomats to work crafting appropriately unctuous and rueful statements for release in the coming days and weeks, expressing our deep regret that the Arab League never took us up on our offer, and instead sat on their keisters while the people of Benghazi who are so dear to their hearts faced terror and massacre…which we join them in deploring in the strongest possible terms.

But no. That would require us both to correctly identify and to fully understand our enemies. It would also require us to be able to think at least two or three moves ahead. (Though right now, I’d be grateful for signs that they were thinking even one move ahead. Doesn’t anybody up there in D.C. know how to play this game?)

P.S. Looking forward now, here’s a question yours truly hasn’t seen asked yet. Let’s say we luck out, and the allied air campaign does soon lead to the complete triumph of the “rebels” in Libya. Suppose also that this victory leads to vicious reprisals (as victories of irregular forces tend to do) against Qaddafi’s supporters, collaborators, suspected supporters and collaborators, and also the odd innocent Tripolean or two…or hundred…or thousand. Do we then resume our air campaign, this time against Qaddafi’s vanquishers? And to whom will we then be able to look, to help us get rid of them?