The Taos Tatler.

From PJ Media:

Biden Looking at Huge Concession to GOP on Border Policy . . .

How badly does Joe Biden want that funding for Ukraine? That’s the question Republicans are asking as border negotiations tied to Ukraine funding continue this week.

If the reports about what’s been agreed to are true, Republicans have already won a big victory. Senators and the White House have reached agreements on “tightening asylum interviews, expanding expedited deportations, and creating an authority to expel migrants without humanitarian screenings when border agents are overwhelmed,” according to CBS News.

It’s a virtually certainty, shortly after the president [sic] signs this bill, soon after, while campaigning and reading the speeches his minders craft for him with big block letters, he will take full credit for the bill’s passage, claiming he had been working tirelessly for its passage for months; at the same he will blast Republicans for their obstructing it every inch of the way, for purely cynical and political purposes.

The fact the boarder crisis is entirely Biden’s and the Democrat’s creation will of course receive nary a mention in the media and they, getting in on the fun, will further the charade by praising Biden for at last showing real leadership and resolve, thus relieving them of the irksome and unpleasant task of criticizing him on the matter. Instead, the media will resume their far pleasanter and easier job of covering up for Biden; praising him to the sky and covering up his multiple and collosal failures, as is mete, right and their bounden duty.

Slipping into the Abyss, a play in one act.

Whatever faint grasp of reality the left might have had once is rapidly disappearing. Might it be, despite having control of most of the major institutions in this country, their sense the never-high public support they had is waning to insignificant? It must be terribly frustrating not having anyone in the pews to preach to, other than a light sprinkling of your fellow wackos. It might explain the deluded woman in this video insisting to a McDonalds employee the company’s new blue and white wrappers for their chicken meals are, in reality, the company’s clandestine expression of support for Zionist pigs.

Who knows? Meanwhile, enjoy the show. We’ll likely be seeing more comic vignettes of this kind, but no matter how high their number, they’ll always leave us in stitches.

– – –

h/t For What its Worth.

The venerable Glenn Reynolds, proprietor of Instapundit, asks poetically in his Substack blog: “Claudine Gay has gone away, is this the dawn of a new day?”

Professor Reynolds is referring to, inter alia, the ubiquitous and heinous policy of DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) when hiring: in the private sector, government, and the academy. Read a short description of this discriminatory woke practice here, in typically banal and seemingly benign language.

Diversity, equity and inclusion is a term used to describe policies and programs that promote the representation and participation of different groups of individuals. DEI encompasses people of different ages, races, ethnicities, abilities, disabilities, genders, religions, cultures and sexual orientations. It also covers people with diverse backgrounds, experiences, skills and expertise.

A still shorter definition: all genuine qualifications for a situation are secondary in importance to minority status. If a job candidate is fortunate enough to be a member of a preferred minority group, he gets first dibs at a position, even if less qualified than ones not so lucky in birth, i.e., whites and Asians (Asians, it is true, are a minority also, but since they are generally successful, they are disqualified).

Claudine Gay is an obvious example of DEI hiring, possessing zero qualifications that higher ed institutions not long ago used to demand of potential officers. Ms Gay rode the DEI express to the front of the line of those seeking Harvard’s presidency. Her DEI qualifications? Her race and her sex, the PhD in a worthless discipline just frosting on the cake.

That scholarship played no part in Gay’s hiring is patently obvious. Her publications in putatively scholarly journals are mostly  jargon-filled gobbledygook posing as fact. She would also, using slightly different wordings, copy the works of others in her field, or even copy them verbatim, often “neglecting” to cite her sources, an absolute basic of scholarly writing.

The problem is, and this is where your Tatler parts company with the estimable Instapundit, the academy today is rife with low-grade scholarship, even among those holding high administrative positions in the most august colleges and universities. The majority of members on the Harvard Corporation’s board are no exception, including Senior Fellow Penny Pritzker, a Barack Obama crony who, notwithstanding her billions in wealth, shares much with  Claudine Gay. So far she has refused repeated demands to step down. To Pritzker and most Corporation board members, the faux-scholarship of Claudine Gay is status quo, the model of modern scholarship, not to be dismissed, but rewarded.

The Board of the Harvard Corporation did appoint Alan Garber, who is highly qualified, pro-tem president when Gay finally quit (blaming racism, of course, for her plight). Garber, a widely respected scholar of the law, happens to be black. He is however not likely to be considered for Harvard’s presidency. As permanent president he would no doubt feel irrepressible urges to shake things up at Harvard, ridding it of its numerous fraudulent mediocrities and restoring its once formidable reputation. The present board wouldn’t dare allow such heretical acts.

Given the make up the Harvard Corporation’s board, Denise Gay’s replacement will be her academic double, an identical twin. Similar hires will take place at other, once respected, institutions as well. Glenn Reynolds’s new day, alas, is still a long way off.

– – –

This splendid piece ought to be read by those who labor under the illusion the Pope is the Church and the Church is the Pope, and that anyone who believes otherwise is, as this writer was recently informed in a scathing message on social media, not a true Catholic. 

Not at all, according to Eric Sammons, Editor in Chief of Crisis Magazine, and he provides much persuasive evidence to prove his point

Some excerpts:

If you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church from front to back, you’ll note that at least 98% of the content has nothing to do with the papacy. Creation, Original Sin, the Incarnation, hypostatic union, the Resurrection, moral commands against killing and lying, the inspiration of Scripture, sacramental grace, the all-male priesthood: none reference the pope. In fact, the subject “pope” doesn’t even get its own entry in the subject index; instead, it reads, “Pope: see Apostolic Succession;

Yes, indeed. This writer, who did read the Catechism front to back in his remarkably thorough instruction 15 years ago, before his reception into the Catholic Church, can testify. Apparently the subject of the Pope was not of overriding importance to the writers of it.

Sammons offers a number of explanations how the change of emphases regarding the place of the Pope evolved, positing especially that the

most important factor, however, is that we all live in a post-Reformation world, in which a large section of Christianity decided to chuck the papacy to the curb. Because of this, Catholics realized they needed to defend the pope and the papal office, for fear of falling into the same individualist errors of Protestantism.

Most plausible, and Sammons goes further, pointing out, not surprisingly, this is particularly evident “in the area of morality,” despite the many other virtues in Church teachings.

When we enter the territory of morality and the Catholic Church these days, controversy is bound to ensue, as it almost always involves sexual matters. That has happened, in spades, with Francis exploiting it to the max.

If the pope says that artificial contraception is wrong, then you need to avoid that practice out of obedience to the pope. Not because artificial contraception violates human sexuality in so many ways, and fundamentally undermines the purpose of marriage, the procreation and education of children. No, it’s because the pope said so.

The problem with this distortion of Catholic teaching is that it places the entirety of morality on the shoulders of one man. If a pope rightly condemns artificial contraception, fine. But if a pope suggests (or even his advisors suggest) that perhaps there are “exceptions” to the moral law in this area, then a debate opens about what should be an undebatable topic—at least if you understand the reasoning behind the prohibition.

Dear Lord, what a mess we’re in.

– – –

h/t GR.

From the Catholic News Agency.

Pope Francis on Friday had an audience with Cardinal Raymond Burke, the Vatican said, several weeks after a flurry of reported controversy involving the pontiff and the 75-year-old U.S.-born prelate . . .

The meeting comes weeks after reports that Pope Francis had stripped Burke of his Vatican housing and salary privileges, with the Holy Father allegedly claiming that Burke was a source of “disunity” in the Church and that he was using the privileges afforded to retired cardinals against the Church . . .

Francis at the end of November reportedly confirmed that he was planning to take away the prelate’s apartment and salary. The Holy Father at that time allegedly denied that he referred to Burke as his “enemy.”

What in heaven’s name did they talk about, the weather?

Sheer speculation here, but could it be it has finally dawned on Francis the plethora of radical, even heretical innovations he and his ordained henchmen have jammed down the throat of Holy Church have taken their toll, infuriating and alienating good Catholics everywhere? Perhaps this meeting with the Cardinal is an attempt somehow at making peace with those angry and disillusioned Catholics.

Maybe, but again, what could the two possibly say to one another? The Peronist Pope seems hardly likely to back off his mission shaping Catholicism into a more ethnic version of low-church Episcopalianism. Cardinal Burke seems unlikely to have had a sudden change of conscience and acquiesce to Francis’s ruinous acts.

My guess is, the Pope may be feeling, if capable of it, remorse for his childishly vindictive act of taking away the Cardinal’s salary and housing, apologizing and perhaps even restoring them, but nothing more. Francis we may be assured will not budge an inch reconsidering his ruinous agenda, which would require loving his neighbor as he loves himself. That doesn’t seems likely.

From the New York Sun.

The head of the Catholic Church, Pope Francis, has drawn the ire of the world’s most prominent rabbis, signaling a level of tension with the Jewish community that has not been seen since the days of Pope Pius XII and the aftermath of the Holocaust.

At issue is a reported phone call last month between His Holiness and Israel’s president, Isaac Herzog, during which the pope told Mr. Herzog that it is “forbidden to respond to terror with terror . . . ”

A rhetorical question: is Pope Francis the Joe Biden of the Catholic Church, or is Joe Biden the Pope Francis of the United States of America?

If there is an answer to the question, I believe it is: Yes.

Persuasive evidence of the Star of Bethlehem.

Eric Hedin, a professor of physics and astronomy at Taylor University and Ball State University in Indiana, as well Biola University in Southern California, is also a science writer. In a recent book review for Evolution News, he writes,

A few years ago, while I was living in Southern California, a local church asked me to present a talk on the Christmas Star as part of their Christmas outreach events.

Taken by the request, he researched the matter by reading several books on the subject. One of them in  particular struck him: The Great Christ Comet, by Colin R. Nichole, with the seemingly audacious subtitle: Revealing the True Star of Bethlehem.

Nicholl, like Hedin, is an academic, holding a doctorate in theology. He also holds a firm belief there really was a Star of Bethlehem. Before writing his book however, he consulted extensively with astronomers, seeking their informed opinions how scriptural accounts of the Star might jibe with astronomical phenomena.

Hedin, in his review, writes Nicholl

suggests that part of the difficulty with arriving at a satisfactory theory for the Star stems from a compartmentalized approach, with astronomers or theologians undertaking the task within their separate disciplines. Astronomers are largely ‘untrained in Biblical studies’ while Biblical scholars find themselves ‘in alien territory’ when considering the astronomical possibilities.

After teasing out possible explanations for the Star of Bethlehem, planetary conjunctions, super novas, and comets, Nicholl concludes the star was in fact a comet, as the orbital characteristics of them fit nicely with scriptural descriptions of the star

From The Great Christ Comet:

A comet with orbital elements within certain ranges could have heliacally risen in the eastern sky and, shortly thereafter, shifted to the western evening sky, and then migrated to the southern evening sky on schedule to usher the Magi to Bethlehem and point out the location of those where baby Jesus was….The setting of a tailed comet on the western horizon is uniquely qualified to be perceived to ‘stand over’ a particular house.

Hedin provides just a small sample of Nicholl’s explanations of the complex and puzzling apparent movements of comets in their orbits, but enough to illustrate his scholarship when seeking explanations that complement scripture; for example, the account of the Magis in Matthew: 2:2 (ESV), when they ask, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” He thus provides substantive support of a significant astronomical phenomenon occurring at the time of the birth of our Lord.

---

h/t Instapundit.

Is schism already happening in the Holy Catholic Church? Catholic blogger Shane Shaetzel thinks so and has drawn up a map (above), showing where the fractures are occurring. Bishops in those areas in red are strongly resisting Pope Francis’s constant stream of innovations since being elected; not only Fiducia supplicans, but a slew of others rammed through previously, though Fiducia may be the last straw.

Shaetzel writes,

While the worldwide Catholic crisis is a schism de facto (in fact but unofficial), focused on (but not limited to) the blessing of same-sex couples. A de facto schism does not become de juris (in law or official), until communion with the pope is declared broken by some official act. This has not happened (yet).

Also,

The Ukrainian Eastern Catholics have declared that Fiducia Supplicans does not apply to any Eastern Catholic rite. So unless some Eastern Catholic bishops deny that, all Eastern Catholics will be included in the resistance — and that includes those few in Russia.

This writer is not quite so pessimistic. Schism is a god-awful occurrence, hugely destructive and the final result of it could be not several churches, but no church at all. I am sure resisting bishops are aware of that and will hold out as long as they possibly can before throwing up their hands and breaking with Rome.

Others however, more pessimistic than I, will point out our renegade Pope is hell-bent (expression specifically chosen), along with his left-wing comrades, on remaking Holy Church in accord with their revolutionary intentions, rendering it unrecognizable, thus amounting to its defacto destruction, regardless if it still bears the word “Catholic.” Francis has shown he is up to this with his earlier wholesale routings of the restorative institutions established by his predecessor, John Paul II.

It certainly appears things are going to get ugly. Pray.

In Rorate Coeli read in detail, if you can stomach it, how Pope Francis has, one by one, eviscerated the heroic efforts of John Paul II to save the Holy Catholic Church from innovation, moral relativism, socialism and a host of other evils, and is back on the road to destruction.

Rather than reiterating the list of Francis’s ruinous actions, which Rorate Coeli has already done admirably and comprehensively, if depressingly as well, we’ll simply quote from the excellent precis near the close of the essay.

. . . Francis and his allies, on the outs for decades, have returned to destroy [the actions of John Paul II] — using not persuasion but the exercise of raw institutional power. For now at least, ‘the hermeneutic of continuity has proved to be incapable of countering ecclesiastic Jacobinism, which has no interpretative line of theological documents, but a project to gain power through men and facts.’* The backroom political maneuvers of the Peronist Pope have succeeded in devastating John Paul II’s legacy within the Church.

This writer must remind himself constantly that our Lord will not allow the destruction of His church. At the same time though, he is also reminded, in an entirely different context, of the exasperated plea made by Henry II, weary of his archbishop thwarting his illegal and evil designs: “Will no man rid me of this turbulent priest?” Such an extreme measure of course is not only morally horrendous, it is unnecessary; the heretical priest in the Apostolic Palace is old and ailing, and eventually will go to his reward, whatever that is. A greater concern is, who will be his successor?

Pray for the Holy Catholic Church.

*Roberto de Mattei,
Corrispondenza Romana, Rorate Coeli.

– – –

Thanks to WT and GR for catching an unfortunate typo.