This Will Be A Real Test

NOW — Transportation Sec. Sean Duffy:

“Whether it was air traffic control, whether it was military aircraft, helicopters or the American flight, everything was standard in the lead up to the crash … Something happened here.” pic.twitter.com/ojRVAf34ZO

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) January 30, 2025

A YouTube commentator that I trust on aviation matters, Juan Browne on the blancolirio channel, a working airline pilot with both military and civilian experience, has a good video with graphics. At 0:50, he says,

. . . the [Regional Jet] flies the approach to this Runway, 1, the long runway, and then sidesteps around here to a left dogleg entry to Runway 33, the relatively short runway at about 5200 feet long here at Washington DC, a very demanding approach. This crew is focused on this approach. This midair collision occurred just below 400 feet above the ground. The National Guard helicopter, believed to be eithet as UH60 or VH60, was presumably operating out of Joint Base Bolling. . . . They have this procedure where they can dart across the Potomac River right across the final approach for these airlines, this is an approved procedure.

He then narrates over the video of the collision, in which the helicopter approaches the regional jet from its left and crashes into its right side. He continues,

Now let's review the ATC data. Let'sf first check this out from ADSB Exchange, where the two aircraft came together. So here you can see the regional jet doing the sidestep maneuver to Runway 33, so kind of a left dogleg base entry, this is all done visually to Runway 33, and the helicopter coming out of Bolling and crossing right into its path. . . . The tower at DCA sayhs, "Pat 25 [the helicopter], do you have the RJ in sight?" Now I believe the helicopters are operating on a separate frequency from the CRJ, so I don't believe the CRJ hears the helicopters, but all this is being controlled by the tower there at DCA, so the tower says, "Pat 25 [the helicopter], do you have the CRJ in sight?" Pat 25 responds, "Have the CRJ in sight, request visual separation," standard procedure, and then the tower clears Pat 25 to pass behind the CRJ. For whatever reason, the helicopter did not see and avoid the CRJ and ran right into him.

. . . Looking at the track log, the CRJ was on a perfectly stabilized approach. In other words, the CRJ was exactly where he was supposed to be, doing exactly what he was supposed to be doing.

WUSA9 has an intefrview with Doug Feith, a retired NTSB investigator and a regular on the Air Disasters program on the Smithsonian Channel. At 6:20, he says

The question that I would ask as an investigator, of the military, is, "What are your procedures, especially in an environment where we have high density traffic flow? You're mixing civilian and military operations in this corridor." I grew up here, in Maryland, so I'm very familiar with the area, I've lived there for most of my life, I've seen these operations, I've flown down the Potomac River. It is busy, and you're constantly listening for other aircraft on frequency to see where they are and where they're going, just because it's all about this term that we use in aviation called "situational awareness". I want to know who's in my environment. The question is, was there that kind of communication, interaction bdetween military and civilian, and then of course, where were the controllers?

What we're starting to hear from experienced observers is that there was a procedure that the military helicopter, on a training mission, was supposed to follow, and it had instructions from the tower controller to avoid and pass behind the regional jet, which it didn't follow.

Air accident investigations of the type Mr Feith led typically take years. He decries a culture of instant gratification in the interview, but the new Trump administration is setting expectations for a culture of accountability. In the military, situations like this develop in an environment, and the chain of command is held responsible for the environment. A reasonable conclusion from the circumstances we've learned so far is that there was a trainee pilot on the helicopter who apparently shouldn't have been there, and 64 civilians were killed as a result.

Secretary Hegseths initial message to the Department of Defense said, in the context of rebuilding the military,

All of this will be done with a focus on lethality, meritocracy, accountability, standards, and readiness.

We're going to have to see how this plays out, and fairly soon. Among other things, dereliction of duty is a crime in the military. Somebody allowed this situation to develop.

Greenland? Manifest Destiny!

I ran across this video by a UK YouTuber that gives an entertaining perspective on Trump;s current effort to buy Greenland. The key takeaway is that acquiring Greenland has been a US strategic objective since 1867, when Secretary of State William H Seward attempted to purchase it from Denmark along with his purchase of Alaska from Russia. (He also wanted to buy Canada from the UK.) According to Wikipedia,

Since the 19th century, the United States has considered, and made, several attempts to purchase the island of Greenland from Denmark, as it did with the Danish West Indies in 1917. Internal discussions within the United States government about acquiring Greenland notably occurred in 1867, 1910, 1946, 1955, 2019 and 2025 and acquisition has been advocated by American secretaries of state William H. Seward and James F. Byrnes, privately by vice president Nelson Rockefeller, and publicly by president Donald Trump, among others. After World War II, the United States secretly offered to buy Greenland; public discussion of purchasing the island occurred during Trump's first term in 2019 and again after Trump's 2024 reelection as part of his Greater United States policy.

This largely unrecognized history tends to undermine the current accepted view that "Manifest Destiny" was a doctrine limited to the 19th and early 20th century and controversial at that. For instance, at Britannica:

Manifest Destiny, in U.S. history, the supposed inevitability of the continued territorial expansion of the boundaries of the United States westward to the Pacific and beyond. Before the American Civil War (1861–65), the idea of Manifest Destiny was used to validate continental acquisitions in the Oregon Country, Texas, New Mexico, and California. The purchase of Alaska after the Civil War briefly revived the concept of Manifest Destiny, but it most evidently became a renewed force in U.S. foreign policy in the 1890s, when the country went to war with Spain, annexed Hawaii, and laid plans for an isthmian canal across Central America.

. . . Some found the opinion intriguing, but others were simply irritated. The Whig Party sought to discredit Manifest Destiny as belligerent as well as pompous, beginning with Massachusetts Rep. Robert Winthrop’s using the term to mock Pres. James K. Polk’s policy toward Oregon.

Britannica then argues that the runup to the Civil War and its aftermath led to the end of a first phase of Manifest Destiny, which resumed only as the influence of Alfred Thayer Mahan's theory of sea power refocused US interests on the Pacific, which led to the annexation of Hawaii as a US Territory in 1898, as well as the acquisitions of the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico as territories after the Spanish-American War. But Britannica concludes that it's a phenomenon that came and went:

Those who promoted it might have done so from venal or virtuous motives, and those who opposed it were seemingly vindicated by the Civil War in their grim warnings about the steep costs of a spreading imperium, but the events of American expansionism were a tale more than twice-told in the course of history.

William H Seward, as noted above, bought Alaska from Russia in 1867 and was nearly able to acquire both Greenland and much of the Danish West Indies from Denmark soon afterward:

Finding Denmark considerably more amenable to selling than the current president, Seward was wheeling and dealing with his counterparts in Copenhagen. He came to terms very similar to the Alaskan bottom line (the enormous, erstwhile Russian colony had cost the U.S. $7.2 million): $7.5 million for much of the Danish West Indies, only to have Congress scuttle the treaty.

It was around this time that Seward also began to openly covet Greenland. As with their Caribbean holdings, the Danes appeared primed to sell their northern island possessions, as well. Seward put the power of the State Department to work at once, commissioning scientists and political partisans to produce a report on the virtues of Greenland.

. . . Congress refused to consider buying Denmark’s West Indies (later purchased and renamed the U.S. Virgin Islands), let alone take seriously Seward’s pitch for Greenland.

According to History.com, the US continued to be interested in the Virgin Islands:

Negotiations started up again in the 1890s but fizzled with the onset of the Spanish-American War in 1898.

. . . The U.S. was a larger imperial power now, with a greater interest in expanding. It had also set its sights on building the Panama Canal, and this made it even more interested in purchasing St. Thomas, St. John and St. Croix in order to secure the future canal’s route. Again, another secretary of state (this time John Hay) negotiated a treaty with Denmark. The Senate ratified the treaty in 1902, but this time, the Danish parliament rejected it.

In 1915, the fear of German takeover motivated the U.S. to make another try for the islands. Especially after the sinking of the Lusitania, President Woodrow Wilson and Secretary of State Robert Lansing feared that Germany might annex Denmark and launch more attacks from the Danish West Indies. Danish leaders resisted ceding the islands and their majority-black inhabitants to the racially-segregated United States.

Angry at this, Lansing insinuated that if Denmark didn’t sell the U.S. the islands, it just might go and seize them to prevent Germany for getting to them. It was a bullying tactic, and it worked.

Eager to prevent a U.S. military attack (Denmark was currently a neutral party in World War I), Denmark negotiated a treaty with the U.S. that President Wilson signed on January 16, 1917. On March 31, 1917, Denmark formally transferred governance over the islands to the U.S., and the U.S. reciprocated by paying Denmark $25 million in gold coin.

The US has in fact continued with expansionist spurts via initiatives from presidents of both parties, from a variety of motives, and often concluding the deals with actual military action, as in the Mexican and Spanish-American Wars, or the threat of it, as with Denmark. The idea of acquiring Greenland is nothing new, but it looks as though Trump is now determined to follow through.

US Bishops Respond To Vance's Criticism

Catholic Charities shocking video instructing Illegals on how to avoid ICE.

You tax dollars fund this sh*t. They receive millions in Government grants. pic.twitter.com/LtG0OLGYwr

— Juanita Broaddrick (@atensnut) January 27, 2025

Via Catholic News Agency:

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) on Sunday argued that its long-standing refugee program is a “work of mercy” after Vice President JD Vance criticized the bishops’ positions on immigration issues.'

. . . The USCCB on Sunday argued that its own work with refugees is part of a “long history” of Catholic advocacy for vulnerable migrants.

“In 1980, the bishops of the United States began partnering with the federal government to carry out this service when Congress created the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP),” the bishops said in the statement, which did not mention Vance.

“Every person resettled through USRAP is vetted and approved for the program by the federal government while outside of the United States,” they said.

“In our agreements with the government, the USCCB receives funds to do this work; however, these funds are not sufficient to cover the entire cost of these programs.”

“Nonetheless, this remains a work of mercy and ministry of the Church,” the bishops said.

The USCCB statement didn't directly mention Vance. However, in his exchange with Margaret Brennan, Vance said, in reference to USRAP, via the link,

“In fact, we know that there are cases of people who allegedly were properly vetted and then were literally planning terrorist attacks in our country,” Vance argued. “So clearly, not all of these foreign nationals have been properly vetted.”

In part, this may come down to which program is which and who's paying for what. There continue to be questions about whether programs that come through Catholic Charities are consistent with federal policies if the money going to Catholic Charities for the particular programs is federal, a problem that I raised in yesterday's post with regard to Springfield, OH. But today I saw an equivalent problem in Milwaukee:

Catholic Charities Milwaukee is outrageously advising illegal aliens on refusing to comply with ICE, demanding rights they do not have, lying about U.S. laws, requesting help from foreign officials in undermining immigration law enforcement, and more.

The infamous video in question begins with a woman, Barb Graham, introducing herself as “an attorney at Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee in the Refugee and Immigration Services Program.” She claims to be helping illegal aliens to understand their “rights” if ICE comes to arrest them. “All people living in the United States, including people who are undocumented, have certain rights under the United States Constitution,” she asserts.

This is simply false. Illegal aliens do not have constitutional rights, because they are not citizens. . . . Foreign nationals who violate our laws to be in the United States do not have constitutional rights. And illegal aliens who are dangerous criminals certainly do not have constitutional rights that prevent them from being deported.

. . . Again, foreign nationals who have committed crimes — and, as Homan has emphasized, every illegal has committed a crime by being here in America — do not have constitutional rights, and ICE can indeed arrest illegal aliens without judicial warrants. The Trump administration needs to investigate Catholic Charities Milwaukee for its illegal and outrageous actions. After all, obstructing an ICE arrest is a federal crime.

Again, a key technical factor here is whether the federal money going to Catholic Charities is being spent according to the federal guidelines. Encouraging people to violate the law is probably not within the guidelines, and misinforming people about their rights under the law is probably not, either.

I notice just this morning that the Trump administration has temporarily suspended all federal grants and loans pendiong review:

This strategic pause, orchestrated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), is designed to facilitate a comprehensive review of federal financial assistance programs, ensuring that taxpayer dollars are utilized efficiently and in accordance with the administration’s objectives.

. . . While the suspension is comprehensive, it does not affect Social Security, Medicare, or other programs that provide direct assistance to individuals.

Federal agencies have been instructed to identify and review all financial assistance programs and report back to the OMB by February 10, detailing any programs subject to the pause and identifying any legally mandated actions or deadlines.

The federal money that goes to the Catholic Church, which amounts to a little over $100 million a year, may be small enough that it escapes initial scrutiny, especially since the primary target of the pause is grants connected with DEI, gender ideology, and the Green New Deal. But there's an additional problem of programs that simply give the Church a bad look.

After a raid on Tren de Aragua apartments in San Antonio, Catholic Charities had to clarify its role:

We first broke the story this weekend with an exclusive pre-dawn video when almost 300 apartments were hit near the San Antonio International Airport.

Catholic Charities officials in San Antonio clarified their role in assisting migrants today.

Antonio Fernandez explained that Catholic Charities has a contract with the Office of Refugee Resettlement or ORR to manage the funds they have for migrants specifically from warn-torn countries. Catholic Charities then helps those in the ORR program with basic needs.“We provide housing for refugees from Ukraine, Afghanistan, and other nations,” he said. “However, those who arrive through the southern border without proper legal status do not qualify for our housing assistance.”

The Milwaukee video has also brought unwanted attention to Catholic Charities from politicians besides Vance:

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) called for Catholic Charities USA to be defunded in a post on X in which he flagged DOGE, President Trump’s newly minted Department of Government Efficiency.

In a follow-up statement to The Post, Burchett took aim at the charitable group for playing politics on the immigrant crisis.

“These nongovernmental organizations and Catholic charities have pushed a mind-blowing number of illegals into our country over the past four years. It’s happening on both sides of the border. They’re using your tax dollars, and they’re not doing anybody any favors,” he said.

He added: “Our priority should be finding the 300,000-plus kids these NGOs and Catholic charities lost, not giving legal advice to people who broke the law and are inside the US illegally.”

I keep harping on crisis management here. The US bishops need to recognize that they're facing a potential crisis that could reach the level of the child sexual abuse crisis of the early 2000s that brought the careers of several US cardinals to an ignominious end. If there's a public perception that the bishops aren't with the program of restricting illegal immigration -- a public duty entirely consistent with the Catechism and other teachings of the Church -- the bishops will be responsible for another serious blow to their prestige.

For now, it looks like at least some spokespeople for Catholic Charities are following the right course, as in San Antonio, of transparancy in explaining the actual programs, showing that they're in conformance with the law, and doing anything possible to eliminate the impression that they're sheltering or assisting lawbreakers.

Vice President Vance, a good Catholic, has taken what looks like a productive approach in urging the bishops to be "good partners" in this effort. They'll help themselves most by consistently explaining how their assistance programs conform to the law and further the overall social goals expressed in the Church's teachings -- especially when they honestly explain what those goals entail.

“I Think The U.S. Conference Of Catholic Bishops Has, Frankly, Not Been A Good Partner . . ."

I found a surprisingly even-handed story on Vice President Vance's exchange with Margaret Brennan on yesterday's Face the Nation that covered, in part, the USCCB's condemnation of Trump's immigration-related executive orders, at America magazine. The full interview is embedded above. The America piece reports,

In Vance’s first interview since becoming vice president, host Margaret Brennan noted that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops “condemned” Trump’s immigration-related executive orders, and asked Vance, “Do you personally support the idea of conducting a raid or enforcement action in a church service, at a school?”

“Of course, if you have a person who is convicted of a violent crime, whether they’re an illegal immigrant or a non-illegal immigrant, you have to go and get that person to protect the public safety. That’s not unique to immigration,” he said.

“But let me just address this particular issue,” he continued. “Because as a practicing Catholic, I was actually heartbroken by that statement. And I think that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops needs to actually look in the mirror a little bit and recognize that when they receive over $100 million to help resettle illegal immigrants, are they worried about humanitarian concerns? Or are they actually worried about their bottom line? We’re going to enforce immigration law. We’re going to protect the American people.”

the America piece then clarifies the Catholic Church's role in administering immigration aid, or at least its legally circumscribed role:

The USCCB is one of 10 national resettlement agencies that receive federal funding and partner with local organizations to assist refugee populations that qualify for federal assistance. Those populations include people resettled via the U.S. refugee admissions program, certain groups of vulnerable noncitizen children, and certain other groups such as victims of human trafficking and torture.

. . . Brennan asked Vance whether he thought the USCCB is “actively hiding criminals from law enforcement?” Vance did not answer the question directly, but said the USCCB has “not been a good partner in commonsense immigration enforcement that the American people voted for.”

OSV News reached out to the USCCB for comment and is awaiting a response.

The USCCB is going to have to be very careful here, because Vance doesn't open his mouth unless he has receipts, and there are at least some bishops who must understand this. The America piece goes on,

While the funds the USCCB receives are limited to assistance for qualifying refugee populations, and therefore immigrants in the U.S. lawfully, Vance’s accusation that the funds are used to “resettle illegal immigrants” appears to mirror previous rhetoric he used. While campaigning, Vance indicated that he does not recognize the legal status of certain immigrant groups the Biden administration deemed eligible to receive temporary protected status, or TPS.

However, TPS recipients are not eligible for the federal funding received by the USCCB for refugee resettlement. Other immigrant populations not eligible for federal assistance received by the USCCB include migrants seeking asylum, humanitarian parolees, employment-based immigrants, family-based immigrants, DACA recipients, and people who are stateless.

But much of the controversy over the Haitian immigrants in Springfield, OH, who are in the country on TPS, centers on the assistance they're given by Catholic Charities:

A new Springfield facility that will provide services including help with immigration status applications, legal advocacy and case management, will open this year.

Located at 448 E. High St., it will be operated by Catholic Charities of Southwest Ohio, which has been providing aid in Springfield for about a year and a half, CEO Tony Stieritz said during a Haitian Coalition meeting Wednesday. He said he is expecting to be able to begin providing services within a month.

It might be possible for the USCCB to argue that the federal funding to Catholic Charities is carefully separated from the services to Springfield Haitians who aren't eligible, but even there, money is fungible, and legitimate aid to Program A, non-TPS, frees up extra money that can be spent on Program B, TPS, not eligible for aid. Beyond that, there are two additional problems.

One is that the Haitians, even if they aren't committing violent crimes, are driving with0out licenses, ignoring traffic laws, and driving without insurance, a problem that's generally acknowledged is hurting the community at large. The second section of CCC 2241 says,

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

Where is the Catholic Church in counseling these people to learn to drive, obtain licenses, and get insurance?

The other problem is that by in effect subsidizing the incomes of the Haitian immigrants, Catholic Charities enables the sweatshop employers who've brought them in to pay the Haitrians the lowest possible wages. In effect, the Catholic Church is complicit in exploiting sweatshop conditions.

Finally, the Haitians are causing additional problems by being slow to assimilate or learn English, which puts additional burdens on the local schools and other services. One accusation from Springfield citizens has been that Catholic Charities has been part of this problem.

This all leaves aside the issue Vance raises, that the bishops seem to be ignoring the widepread exploitation of vulnerable immigrants who can be trafficked in the current chaotic environment.

I suspect that Vance's use of the phrase "good partner" here is deliberate and carefully selected, and it could well come out in further dialogue. The bishops will need to be very careful moving forward.

A Different Kind Of Republican

The most succinct comment on Trump's first week was from Greg Gutfeld, who said Trump shows the difference between a "real president and a cardboard prop". Yesterday I called him a Republican president with industrialist, federalist, reconstructionist, even partly Catholic leanings, thinking in particular of Lincoln, Grant, McKinley, and Roosevelt. Although comparisons of Trump with Theodore Roosevelt are easy, before this past week, I thought more of Grant. Via Wikipedia,

In 1885, impoverished and dying of throat cancer, Grant wrote his memoirs, covering his life through the Civil War, which were posthumously published and became a major critical and financial success. At his death, Grant was the most popular American and was memorialized as a symbol of national unity. Due to the pseudohistorical and negationist mythology of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy spread by Confederate sympathizers around the turn of the 20th century, historical assessments and rankings of Grant's presidency suffered considerably before they began recovering in the 21st century. Grant's critics take a negative view of his economic mismanagement and the corruption within his administration, while his admirers emphasize his policy towards Native Americans, vigorous enforcement of civil and voting rights for African Americans, and securing North and South as a single nation within the Union.

I'm also interested in Trump's expansionism, reflected in his interest in acquiring Greenland and restoring control over the Panama Canal. McKinley and Roosevelt figure here. Again, Wikipedia:

The American annexation of Hawaii in 1898 was stimulated in part by fear that Japan would dominate or seize the Hawaiian Republic. Similarly, Germany was the alternative to American takeover of the Philippines in 1900, and Tokyo strongly preferred the U.S. to take over. As the U.S. became a naval world power, it needed to find a way to avoid a military confrontation in the Pacific with Japan.

In the 1890s, Roosevelt had been an ardent imperialist and vigorously defended the permanent acquisition of the Philippines in the 1900 campaign. After the local insurrection ended in 1902, Roosevelt wished to have a strong U.S. presence in the region as a symbol of democratic values, but he did not envision any new acquisitions.

. . . The Great White Fleet of American battleships visited Japan in 1908. Roosevelt intended to emphasize the superiority of the American fleet over the smaller Japanese navy, but instead of resentment, the visitors arrived to a joyous welcome. This goodwill facilitated the Root–Takahira Agreement of November 1908 which reaffirmed the status quo of Japanese control of Korea and American control of the Philippines

We're only starting to get a glimpse of what Trump 2.0 is going to be like. Ferdinand Lundberg, by the way, discounts Roosevelt's "malefactors of great wealth" remarks:

Presidents McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover and Eisenhower were deep in the confidence of the finpols and, despite harsh words at times purely for public consumption, got along very well with them. Theodore Roosevelt demagogically referred to them as "malefactors of great wealth." But the finpols, always, despite harsh public language, managed to get their way, sooner or later. Corporate concentration for example, continues apace despite the hullabaloo of antitrust.

This is pretty clearly what's going on in the current rapprochement between Trump and the tech billionaires. Beyond that, there's not much else to say for now, other than it's easy to understand why the Bushes hate the guy.

Black Stoles? No, Tippets!

As I had hoped, a visitor set me straight on the question of the Anglican vestments at the National Cathedral post-inaugural prayer service:

I'm not sure that they are "black stoles" but, rather, "scarves." The stole as a liturgical vestment was discarded in the Church of England at the Reformation and did not return until the Oxford Movement, and that unofficially and indeed, arguably, illegally. Nor were the traditional Catholic liturgical colors for vestments preserved after the English Reformation; they, too, came back with the Oxford Movement. The same was the case in the Episcopal Church, although their restoration to use in some circles in PECUSA met with less violent and less prolonged opposition in the former, than it did in the Church of England (among Evangelicals especially). In both the CofE and PECUSA the wearing of such post-Reformation style of vestments tended to hang on in cathedrals and especially big public services of a political and ceremonious sort, and this seems to me what was happening at this event.

However, the common pre Oxford Movement liturgical dress of clergy who wished to follow the rules punctiliously were surplice, black scarf, and academic hood (if the clergyman had a degree), while bishops wore rochets (instead of surplices), chimeres, and also scarves. I expect that "the scarf" may have some historical relationship to "the stole," just as "the rochet" did to "the surplice," but I'm just speculating here.

This also clarifies the vestments worn by Bp Budde, the most visible being the red chimere with a black bishop's scarf:

Bp Budde also did not wear the post-Oxford Movement bishop's mitre in the Catholic style. My visitor continues,

The use of mitres by Anglican bishops is another example.  For more then two centuries after 1559 no Anglican bishop ever wore a mitre on his head.  Samuel Seabury of Connecticut (bishop 1784-1796) was the first one to do so, having his best beaver hat refashioned into a mitre when he returned to Connectucut from his episcopal consecration in Scotland in 1784, and no other american bishop followed his example until almost a century later. 

But this raises what I think is an incongruity. The National Cathedral in Washington is a creature of the Gothic Revival movement in architecture. Via Wikipedia,

The Gothic Revival movement's roots are intertwined with philosophical movements associated with Catholicism and a re-awakening of high church or Anglo-Catholic belief concerned by the growth of religious nonconformism. The "Anglo-Catholic" tradition of religious belief and style became known for its intrinsic appeal in the third quarter of the 19th century.

The Oxford Movement was an ecclesiastical expression of this tendency. It was highly controversial in the UK, especially since the Church of England was and is a government institution. Interestingly, it became popular much more quickly in the US as the families of the late 19th century robber barons were quick to endow Gothic Revival churches and university buildings even if, like the Rockefellers, they weren't Episcopalian. The Wikipedia entry continues,

The rise of evangelicalism in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries saw in England a reaction in the high church movement which sought to emphasise the continuity between the established church and the pre-Reformation Catholic church. Architecture, in the form of the Gothic Revival, became one of the main weapons in the high church's armoury. The Gothic Revival was also paralleled and supported by "medievalism", which had its roots in antiquarian concerns with survivals and curiosities. As "industrialisation" progressed, a reaction against machine production and the appearance of factories also grew. Proponents of the picturesque such as Thomas Carlyle and Augustus Pugin took a critical view of industrial society and portrayed pre-industrial medieval society as a golden age. To Pugin, Gothic architecture was infused with the Christian values that had been supplanted by classicism and were being destroyed by industrialisation.

But especially in the US, the Gothic Revival was an expression of new, industrialized wealth. That it should be so enthusiastically adopted by the families grown rich from railroads, steel, mining, petroleum, and automobiles suggests a wish to distance themselves from such influences and associate more closely with medieval aristocracy -- nevertheless, the cornerstone of the National Cathedral was laid by Theodore Roosevelt, who represented a peak of aggressive Republican, reconstructionist, expansionist, industrialist federal power.

I'm told that the National Cathedral, in contrast, has always been low church in its alignment, that is, reflecting the post-Reformation, Protestant, Evangelical aspect of Anglicanism, even with its Gothic Revival architectural trappings -- and with an endowment funded by Northern industrialist families who otherwise favor the medievalist, Anglo-Catholic style.

It's hard to avoid thinking that in this case, Bp Budde is continuing a liturgical style that is trying to stand athwart history yelling "stop!" as Trump, a Republican president with industrialist, federalist, reconstructionist, even partly Catholic leanings, resumes office.

Black Stoles?

In Wednesday's post, I noted that the clergy presiding over the post-inaugural prayer service for Trump's second inauguration wore black stoles. This puzzled me, because I was an Episcopalian for over 30 years, and I've been a Roman Catholic for a dozen, and the liturgical colors for The Episcopal Church follow those of the Catholic Church. The current Catholic liturgical season is "Ordinary Time", for which the color is green. The Episcopal Church regards this season as an extended "Epiphany" that lasts until Ash Wednesday, but its liturgical color is also green.

Thus a priest or deacon presiding over a normal eucharist or prayer service at this time of the year would wear a green stole, not a black one, and black isn't normally listed as a liturgical color -- just red, white, purple, rose, or green.

According to Wikipedia, in Roman Catholic practice, which Episcopalians have followed since the Oxford Movement,

For the celebration of the Mass, the principal celebrant as well as concelebrants wear the stole over the alb but under the chasuble. Likewise, the deacon wears the stole over the alb but under the dalmatic. The stole is also worn over the surplice or alb for the distribution and reception of Holy Communion.

The priest or deacon who presides in paraliturgical celebrations, such as the Stations of the Cross, usually wears the stole over the surplice (or alb), and always under the cope.

As far as I understand this, backed up by a fast-forward review of the service on YouTube, this was an Episcopalian Morning Prayer service that did not include a eucharist. Thus the priests who presided over it were wearing surplices, not chasubles, with stoles worn over the surplice. But as we see in the photo above, the stoles were black, not green, as would be appropriate for the liturgical season. I was a little surprised that there was even such a thing as a black stole, but I found at stoles.com:

Mourning is symbolized by the color black. Contrary to popular opinion, black or purple uniforms may be dressed at funeral Masses.

Except that this wasn't a funeral mass; liturgically it was Morning Prayer. I briefly thought the clergy might have been displaying some sort of mourning over the inauguration of Trump, but then I looked for photos of prior post-inaugural services and found this one above left of the 2009 service for Obama (click on the image for a larger copy). Yup, black stoles, even for a liberal Democrat. However, the clergy representing other faiths on the dais are wearing either red stoles or no stoles.

I found this at a commercial vestment site:

The Importance of Black Vestments: Black is one of the most powerful, yet underrated, colors in Christian tradition. It’s not just about mourning—it’s about reflecting on the deeper mysteries of life, death, and redemption.

. . . Black makes a statement without needing to shout. It’s timeless, solemn, and speaks to the gravity of the moments it’s worn. It serves as a visual reminder of Christ’s sacrifice, the reality of our mortality, and the hope we find in resurrection.

. . . Fun fact: Did you know that during the Reformation, black became widely used as a liturgical color in some Protestant denominations? Reformers like John Calvin favored black vestments to emphasize simplicity, humility, and repentance, stripping away the more elaborate colors and fabrics of the Catholic Church.

So all I can tentatively conclude is that the black stoles here are an area where the Episcopalians are asserting their Protestantism despite otherwise affecting Catholic liturgical forms, and the black is intended to emphasize the solemnity of the occasion. It isn't meant to disrespect Trump, even though the context of Bp Budde's homily may have led some to believe it might have been.

I'll greatly appreciate corrections and clarifications via e-mail or in the comments -- this was a strange rabbit hole. I'll post any corrections or clarifications here.