WWWtW Greatest Hits Archives
May 30, 2007
The two freedoms.
Many a careful and penetrating student of politics — Burke, Oakeshott and Weaver come immediately to mind — has made a distinction between freedom as enjoyment and freedom as power. The former is tethered firmly to the historical and the particular, and even to the personal. This freedom, as Weaver put it, “is something that gathers around the hearth, inheres in local associations, and endears to a man his place of habitation.” It is not about action or force, but rather appreciation. Its spring is gratitude and its provocation the threat of change or deprivation. The man aware of this liberty will be more aware of his obligations than his rights; and he will feel, deep in his bones, the honor and joy it is to fulfill obligations honorably. He will not hesitate to embrace sacrifice.
Freedom as power is ahistorical and idealized. Not enjoyment of the things that exist, but the potential of those that one day might, is what gives it life. Its mark is that it almost has no tether, but rather a balloon that carries it to and fro according to the wind. Its spring is concepts spun out of the minds of men. It is adventurous and dissatisfied with the present; it needs no external provocation, but often demonstrates a complicated lineage of influence. Though this freedom is dismissive or even contemptuous of history, it is perfectly unintelligible without it. That is to say, the observer must consent to enter the history or world of this theory of freedom in order to understand it. Its historical roots are deep, tangled and long, but we may take the French Revolution as its great exemplar and solidifier. Its parlance is “rights”; its aspiration is to rule or possess; its currency is force. It operates on human desires, downplays obligation in favor of privilege, which its construes as right, and is oriented toward the future. Men possessed by this version of freedom tend toward grandeur of theory, stridency of debate, bafflement at reluctance, and exasperation at dissent.
June 3, 2007
The Consolations of Nihilism
I'd thought I was done with him for the present, but I'm afraid I must resurrect the spirit of Samuel Johnson one more time. It is not the consequence of an obsession, but an obligation imposed by coincidence. He has been the victim of an insult and needs defending. I'm here to return the vituperation in kind, to heap calumny, shall we say, on the calumniators. It's dirty work, but somebody's got to do it. To make a short story long, here's how it happened.
July 11, 2008
"They're Planting Stories in the Press" - WWWtW Hits the National Media....
....In the July 12, 2008 Washington Times and on the Catholic News Agency (11 July 2008).
They both concern the Professor-Myers-Eucharist-desecration postings.
However, let us not forget that Christ's body was broken for us, and thus we should not think it unseemly that we find ourselves on occasion broken for him. This means that in this present case we should remember that Professor Myers, though indeed a troubled soul, is one for whom Christ died. Let us lift him up in prayer on this Feast of St. Benedict, which happens to be my 21st wedding anniversary. (How providential that my wife and I married on the Feast of St. Benedict only to be received together into the Catholic Church 20 years later under the papacy of Pope Benedict. God, indeed, has a sense of humor).
July 25, 2008
Identity Theft on the Brazos?
From Rod Dreher at the Dallas Morning News blog:
Dear "Francis Cunningham:"You may wonder why the post of yours commenting about me, and Catholic priests as child molesters, was taken down.
I took it down for taste reasons, but also because you pretended to be a well-known Baylor professor in the e-mail address you left with this post. But I knew this couldn't be that particular professor, for various reasons. So I checked your IP address against records on my Beliefnet blog, on the off chance that you'd posted there before, and what do you know, I've found out your name, that you are a Baylor alum, and the name of the McKinney Ave. law firm where you work.
You are welcome to post on this blog, guy, and we won't even ask your real name. But you have no right to assume the identity of someone else (in this case, a Baylor professor whose views you have openly opposed). You might want to think about that before coming around here again.
And, regarding your views on Catholic priests, you are mistaken that a) I am still a Catholic, and b) that all Catholic priests are child molesters. But that's okay. Judging by your picture on your firm's website, I imagine people misjudge you as a stand-up guy.
I've been iJacked!
September 17, 2009
Thank you, and goodbye
I would like to thank Paul Cella for inviting me to be a contributor to What's Wrong with the World.
I've decided to quit WWWtW and stop blogging except for on my Return to Rome blog and occasionally at First Things.
I wish I could tell you precisely why I am doing this. I guess I'm just tired. Between professional writing, teaching, speaking, and blogging there's little time left for the most important things in life. The last several entries I posted have been deleted, precisely because they were not my best work and I want you to remember me fondly.
I must confess that some of the comments on my last entry really stung, mostly because they asserted claims about my inner life that are so obviously false that I could not bear to read them anymore. I know it is difficult for some of you to believe, but I am a person with real feelings, who is sometimes compelled, though not pleased with, trying to out-clever the other guy. If that seems like a sign of weakness to some of you, so be it. I'd rather be happy than "right." After I wrote my last comment on my last entry, I thought to myself, "Enough."
Blessings to you and yours.