2024 Election Post Mortem, Part I. What the heck happened?

And so the finger pointing, blaming, and name calling has begun.

The 2024 Presidential Election was supposed to be close.

It wasn't.  And that means something.  How did the nation elect a convicted felon who hung out with a procurer and who is a creepy serial polygamist, who also is likely sliding into dementia, as President of the United States?

Well, there are a lot of views out there.  We offer ours, including some things we noted early on.

1.  It turns out that we were correct that Biden shouldn't have run in the first place, and that Harris shouldn't have stepped into the breach.

Biden was supposed to be a caretaker President.  "Go with the Joe you know" only made sense as long as it was just one cup of coffee.  People didn't want a refill. Biden was supposed to carry on for four years while the nation got back on its feet from a traumatic Trump presidency and figured out where to go next.

Biden's diehard insistence on running again doomed that, and in some ways, the Democrats chances in 2024.

Biden, in his defense, was dealt a bad hand right from the onset.  Left with an economy impacted by COVID, he had to deal with it, and he did a good job.  The inflation that caused was not of his making, and he actually pulled off a soft landing.  In the future, he's likely to be regarded as having pulled an economic rabbit out the hat.

And his rallying to the cause of Ukraine is singularly responsible for the country not being overrun by the Russians.

But people are stupid about economics, and stupidly believe that once inflation slows, prices return to the pre inflation norm, which actually required deflation, which generally causes a depression.  That tar baby is now Trump's, as Trump won't be able to pull that off either.

More than that, however, Biden's advanced age was showing, whereas its seemingly not as noticeable with Trump.  It was real hubris of Biden to run for a second term, and he shouldn't have done it.  That set the Democrats behind.

When he finally stepped out, I noted that the time that Harris shouldn't step in.  She did.  She actually also ran a much better campaign than I initially thought she would.  Frankly, I don't know that I can blame her for running, or blame the Democrats for running her.  She proved to be too easy to tag with the issues that had hurt Biden, however, which did not make up the reasons that I thought she should not have run.

2.  It's actually the social issues, stupid.

El Paso Sheriff : What's it mean? What's it leadin' to? You know, if you'd have told me 20 years ago, that I'd see children walking the streets of our Texas towns with green hair and bones in their noses, I just flat-out wouldn't have believed you.

Ed Tom Bell : Signs and wonders. But I think once you quit hearing "sir" and "ma'am," the rest is soon to foller.

El Paso Sheriff : Oh, it's the tide. It's the dismal tide.

No Country For Old Men. 

We warned prior to 2016 that Justice Kennedy's opinion in Obergefell had awakened a latent sleeping giant.  It did.

People keep analyzing the race in terms of the economy, which I myself partially did above.  But the big issue, to put it bluntly, is that Obergefell shocked many people into confronting the moral decline of the nation, something that had been going on for a very long time.

Sexual immorality in the US really commenced its roll in the late 1940s, as we've discussed before, and started to accelerate in 1953 with the launch of Playboy, and then really took off in the 1960s with the pill and the Sexual Revolution.  The irony of all of this, however, is the public tolerated it, although not always very comfortably, as it fit into conventional immorality.  That is, the White Anglo Saxon Protestant community basically tolerated a boys will be boys attitude at first, and then accommodated itself to other trends later, as long as things roughly worked out the way they were supposed to in the end, although they have not been working out for quite some time.  Once Obergefell came along, however, the public was asked to accommodate something else, and it hasn't, and for a host of reasons.  Transgenderism, which really doesn't exist, came hard on the heels of homosexual marriage, and it was just too much for large sections of the country.

At one time, it might be noted, it was a common assertion that the Babylon Berlin atmosphere of 1920's Germany had brought about the Nazis, in part, as they seemed to stand against unconventional immorality.  In truth, homosexuality was present in the early Nazis, but the movement did a good job of plastering over it so it was ignored, if known, just like Trump's flagrant immoral conduct with women is at least somewhat known, if ignored.  It allowed people to believe that that the Nazis would foster a return to pre 1914 moral standards, while ignoring that they would inflict new horrors.*  A lot of that has gone on in the populist movement as well, which sort of imagines that the country will sort of return to an imagined 1950s, or an imagined 1970s.

The Democrats didn't even try to do anything about this, but rather embraced the matters that the Trump populists and their fellow travellers opposed.  That's a big part of what occured.  Americans proved to be willing to go pretty far with changes in Christian morality before they started regretting it, which they did, but to be kicked into a new room with a bunch of very unconventional behaviors was more than they could bear.  It not only spawned a massive counterreaction, but it spawned radical new theories about the nature of what was going on, much of them false, and sort of a modified variant of a Great Awakening, that we haven't seen the end of yet.**  This reaction, moreover, wasn't limited to the US, but has been scene all over the Western World, caused by similar events.

You have to know the times you live in.

3. What we repeatedly said about abortion being a hill to die on was correct.

Hell Courtesan by Kawanabe Kyōsai.

Part of the solid evidence of the Democrats being marooned in a post Vietnam War liberal past is the absolute adherence to swimming in a sea of blood.

I warned earlier that grasping tight to abortion was a critical mistake for Democrats, but they saw it as a great issue, one that would turn women out to vote in favor of infanticide.

Instead, what it did was to force truly adherent Christians to vote against them, even if not to vote for Harris. I was one of them.  I voted for the American Solidarity Party.  I would have anyhow, but in a state that was close, this cost the Democrats votes.  It may very well have cost them the election.

Ironically, and the Democrats failed to grasp it, Donald Trump's wishy washiness on this helped him.  Lots of Evangelicals and even Catholics could rationalize voting for him as he seemed to be against abortion, sort of.  Hadn't his court brought Dobbs around?  And Republican women who otherwise adhered to the American Civil Religion could rationalize voting for pro abortion ballot measures while voting for trump, essentially voting for the things they were comfortable with from the 1970s, like abortion and birth control, while voting against homosexuality and transgenderism.

Indeed, the entire religiosity of the Trumpites is much like this, although not of the National Conservatives. They're okay with cheating men, up to a limit, premarital sex, and divorce, as long as the plumbing matches. They aren't okay with homosexuality.  Truly religious voters were never supportive of abortion, which Harris leaned deeply into.

Democrats should have known that and figures out a way to deal with it.  Even simply taking the same position as Trump, let the states deal with it, would have leveled the choice for many.  Or they could have just remained completely silent in the election on abortion and transgenderism, which would have caused some votes to swing their way.

If the Democrats don't modify their position on abortion, they're not going to do better in 2028.

4.  What we noted as long ago as 2016 about ignoring rust belt issues is still true.

We noted a long time ago that Trump's 2016 victory was brought about in part due to a massive discontent over immigration issues and American jobs going overseas.  Both Democrats and Republicans were complicit in this for years.

The problem here is that this festering sore has become infected, and crossed from discontent into malevolence.  Basically, its much like small town Germans thinking that a local Jewish butcher was odd, to thinking he's in league with evil. This has been downright scary.

Democrats woke up to the problem of decades long mass illegal immigration, but too late.  Now, it appears, we're about to engage in a mass immorality.

This one was a hard one for the Democrats.  Biden screwed up early in his administration on this issue.  Harris was tarred with it.  It would have taken a different candidate to distance from it, perhaps, quite frankly, a Hispanic one.  There are solutions, but some of them are quite out of the box, very pre 1940, and a bit drastic.

Likewise, Trump introduced his absurd tariffs concept.  The idea is underdeveloped and economically flaccid.  But Rust Belt people don't care as in their minds if electric vehicles don't come in from China, 1965 Chevrolet Impalas will come back. This won't happen, and this will rapidly prove to be incorrect.

5.  Demographics change.

Roman Catholic Cathedral Santuario de Guadalupe (Cathedral Shrine of the Virgin of Guadalupe), Dallas Texas

Dedicated in 1902 as the Cathedral of the Sacred Heart, this cathedral was renamed the Cathedral Santuario de Guadalupe in 1977, when another aging Dallas church dedicated to the Lady of Guadalupe was torn down. This cathedral has the second largest parish congregation in the United States.

Democrats in the 1960s abandoned white Southern racists in favor of the minorities of the time, much to their credit.  Up until that time, African Americans had been Republicans.  Democrats remembered that Italian American and Irish Americans had been, and were, theirs.

But they failed to notice that Roe v. Wade shattered the Catholic immigrant retained vote of earlier eras. For some reason, they didn't grasp that retaining abortion and embracing transgenderism and abortion would come to offend  large groups of American, and even immigrant, Hispanics, who had a similar Catholic morality.  And they didn't grasp that at the pew level, this was also true for the Black Church and many African Americans, who came to resent having their cause compared to ones based on sexual orientation or practice.

They also forgot that minority adherence to patronage only lasts as long as poverty does.  Once a demographic moves into the Middle Class, it begins to disappear within a generation or two.  Irish Americans and Italian Americans were once solidly Democratic.  This hasn't been the case for a long time.  Hispanics have been moving out of poverty, and so have African Americans.

And Hispanic Americans, which are a diverse group to start with.

This left the Democratic party a party of old Boomers, and the white upper middle class, and lower upper class, white, effete, elites.  They're aren't enough of them to win an election.

Footnotes

*The Nazis ended up sending homosexuals to the death camps.  They were highly resistant to women working, and only relented on it as the war began to go very badly.  They'd also encourage pregnancy, including out of wedlock, by German women, which was definitely contrary to traditional Christian morality.

This is of note, not because there will be death camps, but because Germans voting on morality issues didn't get what they bargained for at all.  Americans doing the same in the 2024 election are likely to find they may be surprised.

**As an example, while at the county courthouse to vote early, I encountered an elderly man wearing a MAGA hat who was informing people that transgenderism "wasn't invented here", whatever that would mean, and that this was a reason to vote for Trump.

The Christian, and more particularly the Catholic, vote. 2024

I recently noted, after the second assassination attempt on Donald Trump, a group of folks I know posting prayers for Donald Trump.  

I've noted this before.

In this instance, I post the example below.

Now, let me start off by noting, that  praying for anyone, particularly those in some kind of danger, distress, or bad situation, is a Christian thing to do, and should be done.   That's not the point here.

What is, is the adoption by some Christians, and more particularly by some Catholics, of the concept of Trump as a Christian warrior, is badly misbegotten.  The "Cause his enemies to stumble and fall into confusion and panic" line is particularly worrisome.  Indeed, if he were granted "clarity", it seems to me that he'd have to spend darned near all of his remaining days on Earth in reparative acts of repentance.

There's not an observant Christian in this race.

Indeed, while praying for Trump should be done, and for Kamala Harris as well, the real question in this race, if you are an observant Christian, is not necessarily which of these two candidates should you vote for, but rather should you vote for somebody else.

I'd suggest that at least if you live in a state which is going to go for Trump, or going to go for Harris, you must in fact vote for a third party.  

Lets start with the situation I find myself in.  What if you are an observant Christian, or more particularly a Catholic, and live in a state Donald Trump is going to win.  As an observant Christian, you should not vote for Donald Trump.

First of all, there's no real reason to believe that Trump himself, in spite of some, particularly Evangelicals, claiming him as a Christian, is a Christian.  He's a nominal Presbyterian, we know, but if he actually believes any Presbyterian doctrine, he must be an extreme Calvinist that believes in predestination as he apparently feels he can do whatever he wants and it doesn't really matter.

Personally, he's a serious polygamist who has not only repeatedly married, divorced, and remarried, but he's had at least two well known affairs while married.¹   His conduct towards women in general is abhorrent.

He's also a constant liar, with serious lies being a grave sin.  He tried to steal the 2020 election, which is obviously a grave sin.

Among the horrific lies he's spread are ones about immigrants.  And he's threatening to deport millions of people who are, granted, illegal aliens, but who now live in the country, with some having done so for a very long time.

What some will say, is that Christians have to vote for him, as he stands opposed to the moral decay that's brought about such things as transgenderism, and he stands against the sea of blood that the Democrats would unleash in regard to abortion.  Both of those are valid point, although on abortion he's modified his position to one that resembles that of a lot of Democrats.

Then there's Kamala Harris.

Harris is a Baptist, but hardly reflects the traditional religious positions of the Anabaptist Protestant faith.  She isn't a serial polygamist, to be sure, but her spouse had a prior marriage, which is problematic in Christian theology.  Setting that aside, as it's become so common amongst Christians, and as it is ignored by most of Protestantism, its her views on other things that make her a no go for Christians.

She's in favor of the current Democratic platform that fully endorses the horror of Roe v. Wade, which she'd see enshrined as law.  The current GOP platform is silent on abortion, as an act of cowardice, but the Democrats are all in on it.

The Democrats are also all in on transgenderism, something for which there's no evidence as being grounded in nature, and may well be grounded in mental illness.   And while confusing the boundaries between natural marriage and genders has not been a big issue in this campaign, it's clear where the Democrats are on that as well.

For those reason, an observant Christian cannot vote for her.

But you don't need to.

At least you don't need to, as noted, if you live in a state that's going hard for Trump, or hard for Harris.

The only political party that really squares with Christianity is the American Solidarity Party.  If you've heard the Four Things homily I noted the other day, it's the only party you could be a member of and not be squirming in your seats.

It's the only really moral choice in this election, and if you live in a state that's going hard for Harris or Trump, I'd argue its the choice you have to make. In those states you don't have a "lesser of two evils" choice, but rather a protest against evil requirement.  Voting for Trump or Harris in a state that's going  hard for one or the other endorses their platform, and serves to only do that.

It also serves to reinforce the insane two party system that is not serving the country, at all and needs to end.  It's time to end it.  Voting for a third party starts that process.

Footnotes:

1. Recently I've seen it noted that Melania Trump is the first "Catholic first lady since Jackie Kennedy".

Yeah, well not a very observant Catholic.  In the eyes of the Church she's in an invalid marriage for more than one reason.  Barron Trump was, we'd note, baptized in an Episcopal Church, even though Catholics have a duty to raise their children as Catholics.

I don't know her current moral state, of course.  She's not seen much with Donald.  Given Trump's behavior, they may well be living as "brother and sister".  But the point is that she can't exactly be held up as an example of public female Catholicism.

Related threads:

The Four Things.

The Four Things.

Because I've referenced it more than one time, but apparently never posted it (cowardice at work) I'm going to post here the topic of "the four sins God hates".  I'm also doing this as I'm getting to a political thread about this years elections and the candidates, in the context of the argument of "Christians must. . . " or "Christians can. . . "

First I'll note using the word "hate", in the context  of the Divine, is a truncation for a much larger concept.  "Condemns" might have been a better choice of words, but then making an effective delivery in about ten minutes or less is tough, and truncations probably hit home more than other things.

Additionally, and very importantly, sins and sinners are different.  In Christian theology, and certainly in Catholic theology, God loves everyone, including those who have committed any one of these sins, or all of them.

This topic references a remarkably short and effective sermon I heard some time ago. The way my 61 year old brain now works, that probably means it was a few years ago.  At any rate, it was a homily based on all three of the day's readings, which is remarkable in and of itself, and probably left every member of the parish squirming a bit.  It should have, as people entrenched in their views politically and/or economically would have had to found something to disagree with, or rather be hit by.

The first sin was an easy one that seemingly everyone agrees is horrific, but which in fact people excuse continually, murder.

Murder is of course the unjust taking of a life, and seemingly nobody could disagree with that being a horrific sin. But in fact, we hear people excuse the taking of innocent life all the time.  Abortion is the taking of an innocent life.  Even "conservatives", however, and liberals as a false flag, will being up "except in the case of rape and incest".

Rape and incest are horrific sins in and of itself, but compounding it with murder doesn't really make things go away, but rather makes one horror into two.  Yes, bearing a child in these circumstances would be a horrific burden.  Killing the child would be too.

The second sin the Priest noted was sodomy.  He noted it in the readings and in spite of what people might like to say, neither the Old or New Testaments excuse unnatural sex. They just don't.  St. Paul is particularly open about this, so much so that a local female lesbian minister stated that this was just "St. Paul's opinion", which pretty much undercuts the entire Canon of Scripture.  

A person can get into Natural Law from here, which used to be widely accepted, and which has been cited by a United States Supreme Court justice as recently as fifty or so years ago, and the Wyoming Supreme Court more recently than that, and both in this context, but we'll forgo that in depth here. Suffice it to say that people burdened with such desires carry a heavy burden to say the least, but that doesn't make it a natural inclination.  In the modern Western World we've come to excuse most such burdens, however, so that where we now draw lines is pretty arbitrary. 

Okay, those are two "conservative" items.

The next wasn't.

That was mistreating immigrants.  

This sort of speaks for itself, but there it is. Scripture condemns mistreating immigrants.  You can't go around, as a Christian, hating immigrants or abusing them because of their plight.  

Abusing immigrants, right now, seems to be part of the Conservative "must do" list.

And the final one was failing to pay workmen a just wage.  Not exactly taking the natural economy/free market approach in the homily.

Two conservatives, and two liberal.

That's because Christianity is neither liberal or conservative, but Christianity.  People claiming it for teir political battles this year might well think out their overall positions.

The 2026 Election, 1st Edition: Spring Training Edition.

Walter "Big Train" Johnson, April 11, 1924.

Yes, the 2024 Election hasn't even occured yet, and the 2026 one is clearly on, at least locally.

What we can tell for sure is that Chuck Gray is running for the office of Governor.  He always was.  The Secretary of State's office was very clearly a mere stepping stone in that plan, and the plan probably goes on from there.   By coming to Wyoming, a state with a low population and a pronounced history of electing out of staters (we nearly have some sort of personality problem in that regard), it was a good bet, particularly when combined with his family money, although it was never a sure bet that he'd make the legislature and on from there.  His plan requires, however, or at least he seemingly believes it requires, that he keep his name in the news, which he's worked hard to do, being involved in lawsuits, which is probably unconstitutional on his part, and releasing press releases that are extraordinary for his role, and for the invective language they contain.  Mr. Gray has probably used the term "radical leftists" more in his two years of office than all of the prior Wyoming Secretaries of State combined.

This explains something that was otherwise a bit odd that we noticed recently, which was Secretary Gray's appearance in Casper in opposition of something he'd otherwise voted for:

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 63d Edition. Strange Bedfellows.

 

Misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows.

William Shakespeare, The Tempest

The environmental populists?

Politics, as they say, makes for strange bedfellows.  But how strange, nonetheless still surprises.

Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray, who rose to that position by pitching to the populist far right, which dominates the politics of the GOP right now, and which appears to be on the verge of bringing the party down nationally, has tacked in the wind in a very surprising direction.  He appeared this past week at a meeting in Natrona County to oppose a proposed gravel pit project at the foot of Casper Mountain.  He actually pitched for the upset residents in the area to mobilize and take their fight to Cheyenne, stating:

We have a very delicate ecosystem, the fragility up there, the fragility of the flows … the proximity to domestic water uses. All of those things should have led to a distinct treatment by the Office of State Lands, and that did not happen.

I am, frankly, stunned.  

I frankly never really expected Mr. Gray to darken visage of the Pole Stripper monument on the east side of Casper's gateway, which you pass by on the road in from Cheyenne again, as he's not from here and doesn't really have a very strong connection to the state, although in fairness that connection would have been to Casper, where he was employed by his father's radio station and where he apparently spent the summers growing up (in an unhappy state of mind, according to one interview of somebody who knew him then).  Gray pretty obviously always had a political career in mind and campaigned from the hard populist right from day one, attempting at first to displace a conservative house member unsuccessfully.

We have a post coming up which deals with the nature of populism, and how it in fact isn't conservatism.  Gray was part of the populist rise in the GOP, even though his background would more naturally have put him in the conservative camp, not the populist one.  But opportunity was found with populists, who now control the GOP state organization.  The hallmark of populism, as we'll explore elsewhere, is a belief in the "wisdom of the people", which is its major failing, and why it tends to be heavily anti-scientific and very strongly vested in occupations that people are used to, but which are undergoing massive stress.  In Wyoming that's expressed itself with a diehard attitude that nothing is going on with the climate and that fossil fuels will be, must have, and are going to dominate the state's economy forever.   The months leading up to the recent legislative session, and the legislative session itself, demonstrated this with Governor Gordon taking criticism for supporting anything to address carbon concerns.  Put fairly bluntly, because a large percentage of Wyoming's rank and file workers depend on the oil and gas industry, and things related to it, any questioning on anything tends to be taken as an attack on "the people".

Natrona County has had a gravel supply problem for quite a while and what the potential miner seeks to do here is basically, through the way our economy works, address it.  There would be every reason to suspect that all of the state's politicians who ran to the far right would support this, and strongly.  But they aren't.

The fact that Gray is not, and is citing environmental concerns, comes as a huge surprise.  But as noted, given his background, he's probably considerably more conservative than populist, but has acted as politicians do, and taken aid and comfort where it was offered.  Tara Nethercott ran as a conservative and lost for the same office.

But here's the thing.

That gravel is exactly the sort of thing that populists, if they're true to what they maintain they stand for, ought to support.  It's good for industry, and the only reason to oppose the mining is that 1) it's in a bad place in terms of the neighbors and 2) legitimate environmental concerns, if there are any.  But that's exactly the point.  You really can't demand that the old ways carry on, until they're in your backyard.  

Truth be known, given their nature, a lot of big environmental concerns are in everyone's backyard right now.

The old GOP would have recognized that nationally, and wouldn't be spending all sorts of time back in DC complaining about electric vehicles.  And if people are comfortable with things being destructive elsewhere, they ought to be comfortable with them being destructive right here.  If we aren't, we ought to be pretty careful about it everywhere.

There actually is some precedent for this, FWIW.  A hallmark of Appalachian populism was the lamenting of what had happened to their region due to coal mining.  John Prine's "Paradise" in some ways could be an environmental populist anthem.

Right about the time I noted this, Rod Miller, opinion writer for the Cowboy State Daily, wrote a satiric article on the same thing:

Rod Miller: Flip-Flops Around The Ol’ Campfire

We have no idea, of course, who his opponent will be, unless it's Gordon, who is theoretically term limited out, but we already know from prior litigation that the restraint on his running again is unconstitutional.  And Gordon clearly doesn't like Gray, a dislike that's not limited to him by any means.  Gordon would have to challenge that in court, however, unless 1) a group of citizens does, and 2) the court ruled they'd have standing.

As voters, they should.

If that happens, I wouldn't be surprised to see Gordon run again, and to be asked to run again.  While he was a candidate initially I worried about him, as he was further to the right on public lands issues than any candidate since Geringer, but he's actually acted as a very temperate Governor, something made difficult by 1) the intemperate level of our current politics, and 2) the occasional shortsightedness of the legislature.¹

Anyhow, if you've ever had the occasion to see, Gordon and Gray together in an official setting, it's clear they don't get along.  Indeed, on the State Land Board, it's clear that Gordon isn't the only one that's not keen on Gray.  Gray for his part reacts back, as he did recently when he sent an unprecedented lengthy letter to the Governor on his vetoes. 

Gray, like Donald Trump, has some feverish admirers.²  Indeed, this seems to be a hallmark of the populist right.  They not only run candidates, but they develop personality cults routinely.

Rod Miller, again, in a recent column noted a real problem that Gray has.  As, so far, they haven't really been able to advance their agenda without the help of conservatives, they have an advantage there as they always portray themselves as besieged by the numerous barbarians, the last legionnaire on Hadrian's Wall.  Trump has actually, at a national level, worked to keep that status by ordering his party to defeat immigration legislation that was probably a once in a lifetime conservative opportunity.

Anyhow, as noted, Rod Miller recently noted a problem that Gray has.  He's not married.

Rod Miller: Bride Of Chucky – Or – Advice To The Lovelorn From The Ol’ Campfire

Is this actually a problem?

It shouldn't be, but it might be.

Indeed, without going into it, there was a figure in Wyoming decades ago whose marriage was questioned by whisperers on the basis that they believed he married just to end the speculation on why he wasn't married.   The marriage lasted a very long time, so presumably the rumors were without foundation, but there were questions, which is interesting and shows, I guess, how people's minds can work.  

Another way to look at it, I supposed, was prior to Trump if a person was a conservative people would ask about things that appeared to be contrary to public statements about conservatism.  Not being married, for a conservative, was regarded as odd, and for that matter there are still people who whisper about Lindsey Graham, while nobody seems to worry about AOC being shacked up with her boyfriend or whatever is going on with Krysten Sinema. 

And then there's Gray's age.  It will make people suspicious of him at some point, or people will at least take note.  Indeed, some of his critics from the left already have, but in a really juvenile way.

Actually determining Gray's age is a little difficult, and indeed, knowing anything about his background actually is.  But Cowboy State Daily, a conservative organ, managed to reveal about as much as we know.

Gray was born in California and raised outside of Los Angeles.  According to somebody close to the family, or who was, he was homeschooled by his mother.³ He felt uncomfortable about his birthplace, and stated in the campaign

I come from a divorced family, like many people in our country. A judge said I was to live in a different place, but my dad lived here, built a business here, and I spent my summers here during the time that was allocated by the judge.

According to the same source, he didn't seem all that happy in Casper, Wyoming as a kid, but the circumstances could well explain that.  The same source, who probably isn't a family friend anymore, reported to the Cowboy that Gray's father had a focus on the family owned radio station impacting legislation at a national level.  Photos have been circulated of the father with President Reagan.

Gray graduated from high school in 2008 and the respected University of Pennsylvanian in 2012, which makes it all the more remarkable that he's been a success in Wyoming politics.⁴   If we assume the norm about graduation ages, he would have been 22 in 2012, which would make him 34 now.

In Wyoming, the average age for men to marry is 27.8 years on average, while for women it's 25.6.  Gray's now notably over the median age, but that is a median.  I was over it too when I married at age 31.  My wife was below the female one.  That's how averages work.

My parents, I'd note, were both over the median, although I don't know it with precision for the 1950s.  In the 50s, the marriage age was actually at an unusual low.  My father was 29, and my mother 32.

So his age, in the abstract, doesn't really mean anything overall, although it might personality wise.

As has been noted elsewhere on this site, Gray is a Roman Catholic and indeed I've seen him occasionally at Mass, although I would never have seen him every weekend as there are a lot of weekend Masses and my habits aren't the same as his.  I have no reason to believe that he didn't attend weekly as required by the church.⁵  Catholics are supposed to observe traditional Catholic teachings in regard to sex and marriage.  I'm not really going to be delving into that, but again we have no reason to believe that Gray isn't observant, in which case, as he is not married, he should be living as a chaste single man, and he probably is (something that has casued juvenile left wing ribbing).

Wyoming, however, is the least religious state in the union and while Catholics, Orthodox, Mormons and Protestants of traditional morality observe that morality, here, as with the rest of the United States, the late stage mass casualty nature of the Sexual Revolution means that a lot of people in these faiths don't, and the society at large does not.  We've gone from a society where such outside the bounds of marriage behavior was illegal in varying degrees, to one where, nationwide, society pushes people into things whether they want to or not.

Be that as it may, save for Casper, Laramie, and probably Cheyenne, sexual conduct outside the biological gender norm is very much looked down upon.  Indeed, in a really dense move, a Democratic Albany County legislator went to a meeting in Northeast Wyoming a while back on homosexual issues and was shocked by the hostile reception she received.  She shouldn't have been.

No, I'm not saying this applies to Gray.  I have no reason to believe that, and indeed I believe the opposite.

However, we've gone from a state whose ethos was "I don't care what you do as long as you leave me alone" to one in which, largely due to the importation of Evangelicals from elsewhere, a fairly large percentage of the population really care about what you do, particularly if they don't like it.

Indeed, at the time that Matthew Shepard was murdered, I was surprised when I heard an anti-homosexual comment.  Such comments do not surprise me now, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear one now in the context of a murder.  As noted, the exceptions seem to be Laramie (where Shepard was murdered, but which has never been hostile to homosexuals), Casper (which has had a homosexual 20 something mayor and which has a lesbian city council member) and Cheyenne (which has a homosexual member of the state House, as does Albany County).  Well, I omitted Jackson and should include it here too.

At any rate, being an open homosexual and aiming for major office probably is impossible, although for minor ones it hasn't proven to be.  The point is, however, that Miller is right. At some point, people are going to start wondering why staunchly populist Gray isn't married.

Maybe it's because he is in fact a staunchly populist out of state import.  There aren't that many women in that pool.  Indeed, having a one time vague contact with our staunchly populist Congresswoman, I was very surprised when it turned out she was a populist, or even a conservative.  I'm not saying that she's not, I'm just surprised.

Gray is in a sort of oddball demographic.  Not being from here, he wouldn't be in any circles in which women from here, professionals or otherwise, would be in.  He appears to really be a fish out of water in terms of the local culture.  When he appears at things, he does wear cowboy boots, but you can tell they've never been in a stirrup, and he otherwise is, at least based on my very limited observation of him, always dressed in what we might sort of regard as 1980s Denver Business Casual.  I'd be stunned if I saw him on a trout stream or out in the prairie with his bird dog, Rex.  I've seen him at a bar once, for a grand opening of something, but I don't imagine him walking up to the tender at The Buckhorn or The Oregon Trail and ordering a double Jack Daniel's either.

I was once told by an out-of-state lawyer who had been born in the state but who had moved to Denver after graduating from law school, regarding Wyomingites, that "you have to be tough just to live there".  People who live here probably don't realize that, but there's more than a little truth to it.  I'm often shocked by the appearance of populist legislature Jeanette Ward, as it's so clear she just doesn't belong here.  She's not the kind of gal who would be comfortable sitting next to the ranch girl chewing tobacco who has the "Wrangler Butts Drive Me Nuts" bumper sticker on her pickup truck.⁶   Gray probably isn't comfortable with such a gal either.  "Tomboys", as they used to be called, are sort of the mean average for Wyoming women.  

Gray is well-educated, of course, which is part of the reason that I suspect a lot of his positions are affectations.  I don't think he really believes the election was stolen, for example, unless he's doing so willfully, which would mean that he really doesn't believe that.  Recently he's taken on the topic of firearms arguing, as part of the State Facilities Commission, that the state needs to open up carrying guns at the capitol, which is frankly absurd.  While I don't know the answer, I suspect that Gray isn't really a firearms' aficionado. 

Up until very recently, Wyomingites knew a lot about the people they sent to the legislature and public office, often knowing them personally to some degree.  We actually knew the Governor and the First Lady on some basis other than politics, quite frequently, and our local reps we knew pretty well.  The populist invasion defeated that to some degree, and in some cases, a great deal.  The question is whether this is permanent, or temporary.  It wasn't until the last election that people looked at Gray's background at all, and they still have very little.  People haven't really grasped until just now that many of the Freedom Caucus are imports, not natives.  We don't know much about some of them or their families, and chances are an average Wyomingite, or at least a long term native, would regard them as odd on some occasions.  Chuck Gray just ran an op ed that was titled something like Only Wyomingites Should Vote In Wyoming's Elections.  Most long term and native born Wyomingites feel that strongly, and wouldn't actually regard a lot of our current office holders as being Wyomingites.

There's evidence that the populist fad is passing. We'll see. This and the 2026 election will be a test of it.  2026 is a long ways off.  For that matter, it's sufficiently long enough for these candidates to evolve if they need to. Some are probably capable of doing that.  Others, undoubtedly not.  The question will be if they need to.

May 11, 2024

It's very clear, to those paying any attention, that Wyoming elected executive branch officials really dislike Chuck Gray, including those who are very conservative.  This became evident again when Superintendant of Education Degenfelder indicated Wyoming would join a Title IX lawsuit in opposition to the Federal Government's new rules on "transgender" atheletes.  Degenfelder indicated that she'd been working behind the scenes with Gov. Gordon on this matter.  In doing so she blasted Gray who earlier made comments wondering where the state's officials were on this matter, even though his office has less than 0 responsiblity in this department.  Degenfelder stated in regard to Gray, "I would encourage Secretary Gray to join those of us actually making plays on the field rather than just heckling from the sidelines".  Gray, who is a Californian who has lived very little of his life in Wyoming save for summers here while growing up, declared in response he was on "Team Wyoming".

FWIW, Wyoming really doesn't need to particpate in lawsuits maintained by other parties, as they're already maintained.

July 8, 2024

Now here's an interesting development. . . 

I may have mentioned on this blog before that I feel Gov. Gordon should consider running, text of the Wyoming Constitution aside, for a third term.  In doing so, if I did (I know that I've discussed with people) I've noted that the Constitutional prohibition on him doing so violates the Wyoming Constitution.

Turns out that I'm not the only one speculating on that.

Chuck Gray Says He Won’t Certify Candidacy If Gordon Seeks 3rd Term

And it turns out that Chuck Gray doesn't like the idea at all.

Footnotes

1. There are numerous examples of this, but a really good one is Gordon's effort to buy the UP checkerboard, which the legislature defeated.  It would have been a real boon for the state, but fiscal conservatives just couldn't see it that way.

Recently, Gordon hasn't been shy about vetoing highly unadvised bills that have come out of the legislature, or shutting down bad regulations that come out of the Secretary of State's office.

2.  And not just Gray, Harriet Hageman does as well.

3. Homeschooling, for whatever reason a person does it, can be developmentally limiting.  I don't know about Gray's case, but its notable that some on the far right have done it, as they believe that schools are left wing organs and there are things they don't want their children exposed to them.  The problem this presents is that children who are homeschooled grow up in a very narrow environment, whereas, at least here, those who go to public, and for that matter religious schools, do not.

4. There used to be a school interview of him from the University of Pennsylvania, in which he expressed a desire to become a lawyer.  He's clearly not going to do that now, unless of course his political career ended, which is perfectly possible.

5.  As noted here in prior posts, lying is regarded as a potentially serious sin in Catholicism, and lying about something like who won the 2020 election would be, in some circumstances, a mortal sin if you were a political figure.  

6.  Ward is from Illinois and openly calls herself a political refugee. At the time of moving here, she posted something about her children not having to wear masks in our public schools, adopting the far right wing view that trying to protect others in this fashion is somehow an intrusion on liberty.  I suppose it is, but not relieving yourself in public is as well.  Anyhow, at some point, presuming those children remain in public school, she'll be in for a shock as Casper's schools truly have a really wide demographic and are not exactly made up of an Evangelical populist sample of the population.

Boy Scouts no more.

 

The Boy Scouts of America is changing its name to Scouting America

Boy Scouts of America has announced it will rebrand as Scouting America, which, if media impressions are any measure, is a very big deal. Within days of the announcement, the collective online impressions of the news surpassed 14 million, according to the organization — a staggering figure that underscores the institution’s widespread influence.

Article in the Tribune. 

Does it really suggest the "institution's widespread influence", or its tragic decline from what had been that influence?

I teed this up quite a while back and since that time the Southern Rockies Nature Blog, which is linked in here, has a really nice and personal blog entries on this item, entitled Bye Bye Boy Scouts.  I can't really say goodbye to the Scouts that way, as I never was much of a Scout.

Usually I say I was never a Boy Scout, but that's not true.  I was briefly.  Probably around when I was in 6th Grade, or at whatever point it is when a person goes from Cub Scout to Boy Scout, when there were Boy Scouts.  I didn't really last long in it, and it's hard to say exactly why.  Part of it was, I think, as they group I was in, while they did do things, was slow to get around to doing them.  The several merit badges I earned while I was in, I just picked out and did by myself.  That "by myself" thing probably had a lot to do with it also, as by this time my lifelong introvert nature was firmly set in, and unless compelled by external forces or acclimated by long exposure to a group, you'll feel uncomfortable in a group.  Usually I say that I'm "not much of a joiner", with this being, I think, part of it.

Another part may simply be that I'm highly rural and was then.

We don't tend to think of it this way, but Scouting was an urban movement.¹   Aware of the inadequacy of young British men in the Boer War, Lord Baden-Powell, who after the war became the British Army's Chief of Cavalry, founded the Boy Scouts.  The idea was twofold, those being 1) British boys had become a bunch of anemic unskilled wimps who needed some manning up from nature, and 2) British boys had become a bunch of anemic unskilled reprobates who needed some Muscular Christianity.

The original organization had no place for girls.  Girls wanted to participate in things, and soon had their own organizations.  The two didn't mix.

And frankly it didn't mix for good reason There are such things as manly, and womanly virtues.  Much of what the original Boy Scouts sought to address was spot on in its observations, and Scouting did a really good job of addressing them.  Often affiliated with churches, Scouting groups were successful in teaching boys a lot of valuable outdoor skills that often stuck with them for life, and they were benefitted in that goal by the absence of girls, who at a bare minimum are extremely distracting to boys and young men.  Given their natures, young women are usually, although not always, much less distracted by young men.

There's been a lot written on the decline of the Boy Scouts, and there are various theories about it.  One of the blogs linked in here, The Southern Rockies Nature Blog, has an article about it that's worth checking out.  Whatever it was that brought it to its current state, it was still a pretty strong organization in the 1970s, when I had my brief association with it. At that time, even in the rural West, a lot of boys were part of it, and for that matter quite a few of their fathers had a strong association with it.  Being in the Boy Scouts (which my father never was), was part of a multi generational thing.

Signs of decline were there even then.  Of my good friends, only one was a Boy Scout, which his father had been.  Another had a father who had a strong history of Scouting, but my friend wasn't in it.  I was in a youth organization in my early teens, but it was the Civil Air Patrol, which with its martial aviation theme was a completely different type of organization.  Rural kids, of whom I knew a lot, tended to be in the FFA, which had direct practical application to them.

I wish I could pinpoint what was going on, but I really can't.  I've tried to do so here before, and probably haven't been successful.  Looking at the topics addressed in this thread, however, I think part of it may have been that in the post World War Two era that went into the 1970s, the retained gaze upon the rural really faded.  Even television reflected that as programming went from the rural focused on the 1960s, such as The Andy Griffith Show, The Beverley Hillbillies, and Green Acres, the last two of which anticipated the change, to urban centric dramas such as Newhart, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, WKRP In Cincinnati, etc.  Americans had been moving into the cities for a long time, but suddenly they quit looking outside of them.  Even a gritty urban environment depicted in something like The French Connection was celebrated in a way.  It's notable that a figure like Clint Eastwood, who had come up in westerns, started appearing as Dirty Harry in urban California at the same time, and Dirty Harry, like Popeye Doyle, wasn't portrayed as any sort of Boy Scout.

The atmosphere of the late 60s also brought in destructive forces that we're still dealing with.  The resolute male admired and celebrated from the era of The Strenuous Life on to the Ballad of the Green Berets suddenly, in the Strauss Howe fashion, yielded to the feminized and marginalized male, at least in the dominant WASP culture.  It's never really recovered, and we can see some of the reactions to that playing out in society now.

In that atmosphere, Scouting attempted to adapt, but that's part of the problem.  The campaign hat went out, and the red beret came in.² Out with the old, and in with the new.  The institution already had, however, its close association with Christianity and a sort of "goody two shoes" reputation.  It probably should have just doubled down on that and its rural focus, but it tried to adapt instead.

Like other institutions that were heavily male and which had become somewhat soft, it also began to be plagued, apparenlty, with male on male sexual conduct.

People hate to discuss this part, so the realities of this should be noted.  One of the byproducts of keeping boys and girls separate in Scouting is that it not only allowed boys to focus, but it kept boys and girls out of close proximity to each other. Scouting involves teenagers.  No matter how focused or watched, when male and female teenagers are together, some of them will misbehave in ways that create life changing byproducts.  A person only has to look at the expansion of the role of women in the military in order to appreciate this.³ 

We already know that the largest group of abusers of teenagers in this fashion are teachers.  The decline in personal morality brought about by the Sexual Revolution helped unleash this, and I'd wager that a person could easily find a story of a teacher engaging in this conduct with a teenaged charge nearly every month.  I ran across one just last week, in which the assailant was a female teacher and the victim something like a mere 13 years old.  If this happens in an institution in which being discovered will result in the end of a career and jail time, and in which getting caught is highly likely, it's going to happen in situations in which this is much less discoverable.

Put bluntly, as the Muscular Christianity focus waned, the Sexual Revolution came on, and an overall feminization of society advanced, predatory homosexuality in the Boy Scouts became inevitable to some degree, and it had probably always been there at least to some extent.  It's customary at this point to note that not all homosexuals are predatory, and that only a minority are, which is absolutely true, but it happened.  That some people would let their behavior go in an all male setting shouldn't be any more surprising than those instances of male coaches preying on young teenage female athletes.  It's reprehensible, but without additional external controls, it was going to occur.

This helped cause Scouting's popularity to drop off massively, and not surprisingly. Parents quit encouraging their children to be Scouts.  Not really knowing what to do about it in the context of the culture, Scouting opened its doors to girls. This predictably hasn't helped, and it won't.  Scouting will, I'd guess, be largely taken over by girls, but it won't be an organization that Boy Scouts prior to the 1970s would recognize.

There's something to all male bonds between conventionally oriented males that is unalterably different from ones with women.  Probably our biology has a lot to do with it.  The mateship that exists in military units, for example, which are all male, is completely different from an organization that has even one female in it.

The larger tragedy is that the very thing that Scouting was created to address in the first place, in large measure, is probably need as much now as it was then.  The source of the problem is large the same, the urbanization of the country and the corrupting influence of urban life, combined with the absence of male roles, something that existed in the very early 20th Century and something that exists now, albeit for different reasons.  Scouting, by having gone first soft, and then semi feminized, is no longer the organization that it was, that addressed that.

Footnotes:

1. Recently I read Doug Crowe's book A Growing Season, which is extremely off color, but extremely interesting.  The back of the book, where the short review is, terms it a novel, but it isn't.  The figures in it are all real, I either know of them or actually knew some of them.

It occured to me in posting this that part of the reason that the Boy Scouts lost its appeal to me here is that in a highly rural setting the first purpose of scouting, to introduce the outdoors, will be taken up by those who have a strong affinity towards it, which most young men do, all on their own.  Going to Scouting events actually retards a person's ability to go outdoors and do what you want, with your young male associates, once somebody is of driving age, or at least it did then. As soon as somebody was 16, we were pretty much loose in the world.

As noted, not surprisingly, our companions in these forays were all male.  I can't recall going on an outdoor adventure of any kind with a female of my own age until I was at the University of Wyoming.  Nature segregates us in that fashion, even if society doesn't want us to.  As A Growing Season demonstrates, that certainly gives rise to opportunities to engage in vice, although did not in any serious fashion, and the few of my fellows who really fell into it did so, notably, in town.

2.  Only if troops adopted it, however.

3.  Without putting too fine a point on it, two women I know of who were justifiably very proud of their military service, and neither of which might be regarded as libertine, had early discharges from the service for this very reason, followed by the birth of their oldest child not long after.  The service with the biggest problem, seemingly, is the Navy, where close proxmity on ships has caused an alaraming pregnancy rate in some instances.

Related threads:

Youth organizations. Their Rise and (near) Fall, or is that a myth? And, did you join?

No place for boys. . .

Exit the Boy Scouts Stage Left. Boys, Men, the "Masculinity Crisis" and the "BSA" as an example of it.

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist Part 7. One more won't hurt me. . .

Today In Wyoming's History: May 8. The LDS severs ties with the BSA.

Blog Mirror: What Scouting Has Lost

Friday, May 27, 1774. Heading towards revolution.

The Royal Governor of Virginia, Lord Dunmore, dismissed Virginia's House of Burgesses due to a resolution, prepared by Thomas Jefferson, calling for a Day of Fasting and Prayer being passed.  The cause for Virginia's concern over British reaction to the Boston Tea Party, and it came on the same day that the British Navy planned to blockade Boston's harbor in punishment for the same.

The heavy-handed British reaction was propelling things in the very direction that the British did not want it to go.

The members of the House did not go right home, but instead convened as an Association, at the Raleigh Tavern, where they called for a Continental Congress.

Juan Bautista de Anza completed his overland expedition from Tubac, Mexico to San Gabriel Mission, in modern Los Angeles, California.

The Reverend Robert Newburgh was accused by a private British soldier of the 18th Regiment of Foot, stationed in the Colonies, of beggary.  He would be acquitted in a trial in June. The story was bizarre as he had invited the charge in the first instance, and coached the private on how to make it, seemingly in an effort to overall clear his name as he became increasingly unpopular.  He'd seen three soldiers tried for gossiping.

The plan would fail, and he'd ultimately be arrested after his acquittal for being disruptive, although his being accused of an "unnatural crime", the one he'd been just acquitted of, was mentioned at the time.

To the extent that this story is illustrative of anything, it's partially illustrative of the harsh discipline in the British Army of the period, as well as the somewhat junior high atmosphere that existed in 18th and 19th Century armies.  Additionally, however, it's interesting as neither the terms "heterosexual" or "homosexual" existed at the time, those being modern constructs, the latter of which did not originally apply to those who might commit beggary.

Last prior edition:

Saturday, April 5, 1774. A growing rift.

Labels: 1770s, 1774, American Revolution, Benjamin Franklin, Colonial North America, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Thomas Gage

Wyoming's Bishop Steven Biegler on Fiducia Supplicans.

Chances are, if you took a poll, most Catholics in the pews here on Sunday couldn't tell you who the Bishop for the Diocese of Cheyenne is.

And that is as it should be.

By and large, if things are going relatively well, there's no real reason for you to know who the Bishop is.  An observant Catholic no doubt knows who the parish priest(s) is/are, who the deacon is, if there is one, and probably knows who the priests are in the across town parishes.  And they may have kept track of a favorite priest once he was reassigned.  But the Bishop?  Well, for the most part, they don't really interact with him.

Now, having said that, there's always observant who do know who the Bishop is, and of course he's prayed for, along with the Pope, every Mass.  So, yes, I know who the Bishop is, and I've known who the Bishops were going back into my teenage years.

Having an opinion on how well a Bishop is doing is another matter.

The first time that I can recall a Bishop was from when I was a kid.  We were going fishing and as my father, in our 1965 Chevrolet pickup, entered The Narrows, a car was beside the road and a couple of men standing by it.  "That's the Bishop", my father stated, and we pulled off.  Their car had broken down.  The Bishop and a priest got in, and we took them back to town, which mean we had four adults and one child in the cab of a pickup.

At that time, that wasn't abnormal.

"How's the fishing?" is what I recalled him saying.

That would have been Bishop Newell, who stepped down in 1978, and who passed away in 1987.  He was a Coloradan.  He would have been nearly the same age as my father's father and mother.  He'd been the Bishop since 1951, although in later hears there was a co-Bishop (not the right word).  He was well liked.

He was the Bishop at my Confirmation, and actually picked my Confirmation Name, as in the mushy days of the 1970s, I'd somehow failed to pick one and nobody had required me to.  He picked "John".

The next Bishop was Bishop Hart.

We didn't react much to Bishop Hart, although I can recall that my father was not a fan of the Bishop's Appeal, which we still have.  He didn't approve of some of the things it was used for, and probably still wouldn't.

Bishop Hart was later accused of improper conduct with a few boys in his prior diocese and at least one here.  He was thoroughly investigated by the police and DA's office twice, and both times they chose not to prosecute, feeling the accusations unwarranted.  Under the current, and maybe prior, Bishop there was an ecclesiastical followup on this, with the same going all the way to the Vatican, with the Vatican also feeling there wasn't enough there to sanction him.  Nonetheless, the current Bishop has been of the view, basically, that he was guilty and taken that position officially.  He really focused on it for a long time.

That's been one of the reasons that I've been somewhat critical of the current Bishop.  

Americans claim to believe that you are innocent until proven guilty, but we don't.  We should at least pretend that we do officially, however, if the process is to mean anything.  And to have had two DA's and a Vatican process all say that there wasn't enough there should mean that we at least cease to have a focus on an accusation.

This is moreover all the more the case in a diocese in which the population is highly transient, and most Catholics here weren't here when Bishop Hart was the bishop.  Indeed, the current bishop has had a quiet focus on Hispanic immigrants, which also were, ironically, a focus of Bishop Hart, and most of the Hispanics in Wyoming, if they were even alive when he was Bishop, were probably living in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chihuahua.

And no, I'm not joking in that observation.

We've had a series of Bishops in recent years, and at least in my observation, there's some quiet discontent on this one in general, at least in some quarters.

Bishop David Ricken, who was originally from Dodge City, Kansas, was really popular, and a genuinely nice guy.  He was later made the Bishop of Green Bay. After him, we had Bishop Etienne, who was quite popular in no small part because he was a farmer and a hunter, and seemed like one of us. That may be why Pope Benedict picked him.  He later went on to be assigned to the Archdiocese of Anchorage, and is now in the Archdiocese of Seattle.

Bishop Biegler is from South Dakota and should be regarded as one of us, but it's been my observation that he's never been popular with a selection of Catholics here. The more conservative a Catholic is, the least likely he is to be a fan of Bishop Biegler.  That may simply be because he was appointed by Pope Francis, whom conservative Catholics here aren't huge fans of, which is true of a selection of conservative Catholics across the U.S.  As noted, he's really focused on the Priest Abuse scandals, and oddly enough that may be part of the reason he's not been hugely popular.  We're a minority religion here and Wyoming did not have a huge problem. There were some priests implicated, but it was quite limited in general.  Focusing on it tends to put Catholics in disdain by non-Catholics, a problem in a population where you are already regarded as odd for being Catholic.  Indeed, just the other day a Baptist minister made a joke at my expense for being a Catholic, apparently unaware that protestant denominations have had just as big, if not bigger, problem, but that it largely goes unnoticed as the press really doesn't follow Protestantism very much.

Teachers, as we've noted, have the largest rate of icky transgressions.

Anyhow, the whisperers tend to suggest that Bishop Biegler is one of Francis' bishops, by which they mean that they believe that Francis is a liberal who is pushing the Church into accommodation with homosexuality.  That likely misjudges Francis.  What it doesn't misjudge is that the US has had a selection of disappointing Bishops, while it also had a selection of outstanding one.  A lot of the noteworthy, outstanding ones are very conservative and orthodox.  Pope Francis has, at the same time, criticized the American Church for being in essence conservative and not on board with a lot of what he's trying to do, although it's quite difficult to tell what Pope Francis is trying to do.

He's trying to do something with Fiducia Supplicans.

Fiducia Supplicans was hugely upsetting to a lot of orthodox and conservative Catholics.

I've discussed it elsewhere, but one of the things that I noted is that I sort of think I see the failure to recognize a trend at work here.  The Western World, following World War Two, used its fast wealth to expand its wealth to the point where most of the problems that predated 1945 didn't really impact us the way they used to.  We've always wondered what we'd do if had a lot of time and money on our hands, and it turns out that we think only of ourselves, and then we begin to think a lot about our genitals.  It probably makes sense on an evolutionary biological level, but it's resulted in a lot of disorder and falsity.  

And because it's been misunderstood, throughout the West, people have convinced themselves that the whole world is discovering that "homosexuality" and "transgenderism" have been deeply hidden wide spared human traits when, in fact, there's no good evidence f that at all, and the former characterization is actually scientifically suspect, and the latter one doesn't even exist.  The Church in the West, urged on by those who believe that if only this was understood, or in some liberal quarters accommodated, has a significant element working on this topic in the belief that only if some accommodation could be reached, all those with these sexual attributes would come back to Mass.

In the wider world, however, the West is declining and the Church in other regions rising.  People in Africa and Asia look at this and think the West has gone nuts, and in fact most people in most regions of the globe do not view this as conduct that's normal, but the opposite.  And scientifically, they're likely right. So the global trend is Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular is towards orthodoxy.  Indeed, the young everywhere are turning towards conservatism and orthodoxy.  It's hard for leadership of major institutions to realize this, however, as they're focused on the West, where while this has probably jumped the shark it's not obvious, and they remain lead by the Baby Boom generation which is focused on the trends of its own era.

Fiducia Supplicans caused quite a reaction based on a person's position and region. The Church in Africa pretty much said it wasn't going there, blessing wise.  Pope Francis made a later statement which upset some people by excepting the African attitude as cultural, which again is something I feel that wasn't accurately assessed.  Fiducia Supplicans, changes no doctrine at all, of course, but its the focus on it that caused ire in conservative quarters, as it seems to be focused on homosexuality, and it was misunderstood at first as to its application.  

In the US a few Bishops in written statements, and some individual priests publically, have taken the Pope's direction to reflect on how to apply it locally and determined not to apply it.  The Vatican in January indicated that Bishops should not stop priests from applying it.  In Wyoming, not much was said of any official nature at all.  

Now Bishop Biegler has, in the Wyoming Catholic Register.  While it is a copyrighted article, as we're commenting on it, we're going to set the entire article out below.

Questions have arisen about the blessing that may be given to couples in same-sex unions or in heterosexual unions lived outside of a Church marriage, as stated in Fiducia Supplicans (FS). So, I would like to address the major concerns. First, Pope Francis did not change the doctrine of marriage. He stated clearly, “Since the Church has always considered only those sexual relations that are lived out within marriage to be morally licit, the Church does not have the power to confer its liturgical blessing when that would somehow offer a form of moral legitimacy to a union that presumes to be a marriage or to an extra-marital sexual practice” (11, FS).

A Gesture of Pastoral Closeness

Thus, a liturgical blessing is not to be given, but a pastoral blessing may be given. As explained by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), “non-ritualized blessings are not a consecration of the person nor of the couple who receives them, they are not a justification of all their actions, and they are not an endorsement of the life that they lead.” Instead a pastoral blessing is a “simple gesture of pastoral closeness.” It expresses the all-encompassing love of God for his children in every circumstance of their lives.

Knowing that they cannot receive Communion, people come forward in the procession seeking a blessing. They want to feel God’s closeness. The priest or deacon asks no questions about the person’s moral life, but simply offers a prayer or blessing. After Mass, often people ask for a blessing over their family, which is given without any inquiry about their marital status. These pastoral blessings express God’s closeness. Pope Francis said, “When a couple spontaneously comes and asks [a priest] for this [blessing], it is not the union that is blessed but simply the persons who together have asked for the blessing.” He explained that “the intention of the pastoral and spontaneous blessings is to show concretely the closeness of the Lord and of the church to all those who, finding themselves in different situations, ask help to continue—sometimes to begin—a journey of faith.”

Some Catholics have expressed concern that people could misinterpret the meaning of a pastoral blessing given to couples who are in a union not officially recognized by the Church. Thus, it is essential to differentiate between a liturgical blessing and a pastoral blessing. The DDF stated, “The real novelty of this Declaration … is not the possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations. It is the invitation to distinguish between two different forms of blessings: ‘liturgical or ritualized’ and ‘spontaneous or pastoral.’”

Confidence in Christ’s Blessing

Yet, there is another significant teaching in Fiducia Supplicans that merits our attention. How strongly it expresses God’s merciful love! This is one reason why many are distraught by FS. Since the beginning of his papacy, Pope Francis’ proclamation of mercy has been embraced by the multitude but rejected by a vociferous minority. FS, once again, firmly proclaims that God’s mercy must be extended to every single person.

The opposition of FS focuses overwhelmingly on blessing those in same-sex relationships rather than those many more men and women who are in heterosexual relationships not deemed valid

by the Church. There is a unique prejudice against people in same-sex unions. They are seen with contempt, like the way Jews looked upon tax collectors.

As a tax collector, Saint Matthew proclaims mercy poignantly. He portrays Christ challenging us to imitate the Father’s mercy. One of my favorite passages is, “Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust” (Matthew 5:44-45). Do we really believe that our heavenly Father bestows mercy on the just and unjust? Are we seeking to be children of our heavenly Father by extending his love to everyone, the bad and the good alike?

Fiducia Supplicans begins with a quote from Pope Francis who reminds us: “The great blessing of God is Jesus Christ … He is a blessing for all humanity, a blessing that has saved us all. He is the Eternal Word, with whom the Father blessed us ‘while we were still sinners’ (Romans 5:8), as Saint Paul says. He is the Word made flesh, offered for us on the cross.” Are we confident in the blessing that Christ freely offered to sinners? As Saint Thérèse of the Child Jesus teaches us, this confidence “is the sole path that leads us to the Love that grants everything.

With confidence, the wellspring of grace overflows into our lives … It is most fitting, then, that we should place heartfelt trust not in ourselves but in the infinite mercy of a God who loves us unconditionally … The sin of the world is great but not infinite, whereas the merciful love of the Redeemer is indeed infinite” (22, FS).

Surprised by Mercy

Micah Kiel wrote: “Mercy is the surprise that people don’t want because it means they have no way of predicting what God will do and to whom God will do it” (America, John Martens, Jan. 5, 2024). For some, this is unnerving, and they react with fear. They see Pope Francis as causing confusion in the Church. Yet, he is actually calling us to internalize Christ’s mercy and boldly proclaim it to the world.

Some protest saying that we need both mercy and truth. Fiducia begins by affirming the truth of Church teaching on marriage, and it proclaims the truth of God’s unconditional blessing for all. Francis challenges us with the truth of mercy. In Amoris Laetitia, he reminded us of the primacy of mercy as we proclaim the truth of the Gospel.

He wrote, “… although it is quite true that concern must be shown for the integrity of the Church’s moral teaching, special care should always be shown to emphasize and encourage the highest and most central values of the Gospel, particularly the primacy of charity as a response to the completely gratuitous offer of God’s love. At times we find it hard to make room for God’s unconditional love in our pastoral activity. We put so many conditions on mercy that we empty it of its concrete meaning … 

That is the worst way of watering down the Gospel … mercy is the fullness of justice and the most radiant manifestation of God’s truth. For this reason, we should always consider ‘inadequate any theological conception which in the end puts in doubt the omnipotence of God and, especially, his mercy’” (Amoris Laetitia, 311).

As we ponder God’s indiscriminate mercy, I will end with a challenge by James Alison, who wrote, “learn to perceive people you might have despised as ‘blessable’ rather than ‘contemptible,’ and then let God’s subtle grace sort out the efficacy of blessing in their – our – lives” (The Tablet, Jan. 4, 2024).

Now Wyoming's Catholics have the Bishop's official view. 

Nothing that he has said is theologically shocking in any fashion.  I'ts all correct.  So people ought to lay off, right?

Well, I doubt they will, if for no other reason than that he didn't 1) say he didn't like it, and 2) seems to support it.

Well, he clearly supports it.

That reason is what will make him unpopular right there.

As noted, this article is in fact very orthodox.  And Bishop Biegler deserves credit for being the first person I've seen to clearly explain the difference between the two categories of blessing the document addresses.  I really hadn't followed that before.

Still, a couple of things.

One thing is a stylistic matter. Bishop Biegler, like the Pope, likes to use "!".

The exclamation mark ought to be eschewed in any serious writing.  It just doesn't work, and it tends to cause most educated readers to be a bit disdainful of whatever was just accented through its use.  

The other is, however, that Bishop Biegler is being mildly disdainful of those who are concerned about Fiducia Supplicans, suggesting that they don't appreciate the inclusiveness of Christianity or that they are dismissive of God's mercy.  And indeed, some of the critics can rightfully be criticized for that.

But some cannot.  Some are concerned that the blessings will in fact be focused exclusively on homosexual couples, and they are at least corrected to that extent, and that this will give the illusion that it approved of, and lead to more.

In fact, the argument, noted here, that the text doesn't really address homosexuality specifically and would also apply to other people with irregular sexual unions, while noted elsewhere, sort of begs a set of questions.

A major part of those conventional sexual unions is that they are conventionally oriented and a lot of them are capable of being directly addressed without undue complication, for one thing.  Couples that are having sex and aren't married, can get married, assuming there's no impediment to that.  If they can't get married, there are things that can be followed up upon there, not all of which are easy to address, of course.  The most complicated one is couples that have married outside the Church where there is an impediment to marriage, such as one party being previously married and incapable of obtaining an annulment, but that's really the most difficult one.  Probably the last example is the only one in which people might routinely present themselves for a blessing, feeling themselves outside of things but wanting in.  I'm sure that does occur.  But that this has occured for a long time is well known.

And indeed, it is once again particularly European, oddly enough.  Divorce and remarriage are not unknown in the US, and there's been a lot of focus in the US Church for decades, I'd argue too much attention in fact, as it's given the illusion that it's a problem, but more or less just that.  It's more than that. But ecumenical practices in Europe have so blurred the lines that it's hard for couples in some regions, particularly in Northern Europe where the Lutheran and Catholic Churches are both common, to appreciate that these things matter.

At any rate, blessings of individuals occurring were already occurring, and therefore the development of this topic probably wasn't necessary.  The presumption that this was focused on homosexuality and licensing it, to a degree, was inevitable and unnecessary, even if the latter isn't the aim.

Indeed, on that, at least one Bishop in the US issued a letter that his parishioners would inevitably see it that way, so the blessing should not occur.  I guess the Vatican's statement in January overrides this.

Well, what about here?

I don't think it'll happen much.  I hope that people in these situations apply the entire topic correctly, and all are to be sympathized with, including the Priests that find themselves in the midst of it.

And there's one more thing.

The Bishop seems to indicate that those concerned about, and I'm saying concerned about not opposed, to, Fiducia Supplicans are acting with a sort of contempt, and based upon the reading of it, sort of a contempt either for this focus in the Latin Rite of the Church, or upon people who identify as homosexuals or transgendered.  Some people are, but some people are acting out of concern for the normalization of something that may very well reflect a cultural trend, rather than an organic existential reality.

And this gets back to this.  It's the Western World that's fascinated with homosexuality and which thinks transgenderism is a thing.  Homosexuality is not regarded in the same fashion as the West views it in most of the world, and indeed, as we've posted here before, in large sections of Asia it's regarded as a Western cultural thing, and there are a couple of aboriginal groups in African in which it's wholly unknown.  We don't know the origin of either category, but the categories themselves are fairly new.  Homosexuality, as we know to conceive of it, came about as a Western cultural category only within the last 150 years, and transgenderism only much more recently.  Given that most of the world's population isn't European, there's reason to doubt that recognizing these categories as bonafide ingrained traits is anything more than a passing trend, much like the European dominance of global culture itself.

And even in Europe, as opposed to the United States (which has a European culture) real doubt is now being cast on transgenderism.  The US is very behind the curve on this.

Given this, this focus may do something that isn't helpful, which is to focus.  While it is inaccurate, there's already a concept in much of non-Catholic American culture that the ranks of the Catholic religious are filled with homosexuals and even some Catholics remain convinced that there are pools of underground homosexuals in the same ranks, something that might actually have been somewhat true, but not nearly to the extent imagined, in the 70s and 80s.  Convincing orthodox Christians that the Catholic Church, which is generally a bastion of orthodoxy, isn't being influenced in this direction isn't helped by this focus.

And it will retard progress towards a reunion with the Orthodox, something that needs to happen but which we never quite get to. Already one Eastern European Orthodox Bishop who was getting very friendly with the Catholic Church as stated that Fiducia Supplicans will prevent a reunion.

Again, Bishop Biegler has not stated anything that isn't squarely orthodox in his letter.  But his focus on Bishop Hart demonstrated a looking back on an era which for most Wyoming Catholics didn't have much relevance to their current lives.  Fiducia Supplicans, while not saying anything revolutionary about doctrine either, can't help but focus on a topic which, in a greater sense, may not be relevant to much of the Universal Church, and which may actually reflect a passing concern of a passing culture to a degree.

Related threads:

What if the Western World is the "special case"?