Sacramental Present Truths

Farewell

2024-04-05T07:37:00.000-07:00

In January 2010, I started Sacramental Present Truths as a platform for my own reflections and teachings on Biblical and theological issues, with a bit of conservative political discourse thrown in. This was an evolution from an earlier venture I had called Present Truth Trumpet, which was a print magazine I created from roughly mid-2002 to the beginning of 2004. The problem with the Trumpet was cost - it had to be professionally printed and assembled at a Kinko's then, and that ran into about $100 for 10 copies, which was outrageous. I unfortunately had to shelve the Trumpet after just over a year due to its cost, and also the fact it had very low circulation then - I had very few subscribers, and it wasn't worth the expense to just print up a few at an enormous cost. For a short time, I kept the Trumpet online and just printed it on-demand for people who wanted it. However, it wasn't meant to be, so I had to put it to rest at the beginning of 2004.

I always had a need to express my thoughts, so over the next six or so years I hand-wrote content in notebooks with the anticipation of publishing it at some point. My break came finally at the beginning of 2010, when I discovered the art of the blog, and Sacramental Present Truths was born. The good thing about SPT was that I could publicize it better, and it actually reached a wider audience. However, at times the theological and Biblical content could be a bit heavy, so I wanted to also have a platform to share other interests, and that is where David's Mountain Memories was born. I also wanted to have a separate page for my other passion - cooking - so in 2011 I launched David's Kitchen, later David's Culinary Page. The DMM blog was actually more stimulating, and it appealed to a lot of people who shared common interests such as music, genealogy, and other things. The culinary page also was a good success, and in time I had people very interested in my recipes and restaurant reviews, and I have even been asked about making a cookbook (yes, that is in the works too!). However, beginning in 2020, a lot of circumstances necessitated my attention and I was not able to write as often as I used to, so at the end of 2023 I began contemplating how I could streamline my blogging to accommodate a changing schedule. The best solution was to reduce the number of sites I managed, and in deliberation over that decision, I was taking into account which of these three platforms had the least traffic, the least new activity, etc. The one that demonstrated a reduction in activity was this one, SPT. Therefore, as of this week, SPT will be officially retired. I will still leave content up for people to read on it that has been published, but any new material will now be published at DMM instead.

After a 14-year run on here, I wanted to say that I appreciate those of you who have been regular visitors, and also appreciate some letters and emails I have received over the years from people who have been impacted in some way by the insights I present. I am grateful for you all, and please continue to follow me on DMM if you would like to do so. At some point in time, I may actually take SPT down completely as I am also exploring other blog sites besides Blogspot to publish on, and if that happens, all of the content here will be moved to and consolidated with the new site. That is still being deliberated though, so it will be a while before that happens.

Given I have published several series on here, I plan on making those available in book form for those who may be interested. Given I am in the process of completing a Ph.D. now, I will more than likely be making books of the Genesis series I wrote and a few other things available as print books, and I will keep you posted on that as well.

Speaking of some of those series, I wanted to make SPT originally a forum where I could transcribe classes I taught for church in a Sunday School I had years back for a wider audience, and the Genesis study was the largest one of those. I may do more serials like this later on my other platform as I am able, and these studies are a sort of testing ground for potential books. Genesis needs to be made into a Bible study book, and as I get ready to edit and format that for publication, I will be expanding it as I also have a lot of new material to incorporate into it that I have obtained since initially teaching this years back. I will probably also publish a book of my original sermons that I preached in churches when I was younger too - I published them all here about 10-11 years ago, but they should be in their own book as well. On my other platform (DMM), I will keep everyone posted about this also.

Again, thank you for your diligent following of my content on SPT, and even though it is officially retired now, I plan on still writing a lot, so come on over to DMM to continue following my content. God bless each of you, and will see you soon at the new place!

Scandal in The Vatican - Cardinal "Toucho" and Sex Talk

2024-01-09T09:16:00.000-08:00

In all honesty, not much surprises me anymore about the crazy stuff that the sitting pope, Francis Bergoglio, promotes. Whether it is the Pachamama idols, suppressing traditionalists who differ with him, or the recent document allowing for informal "blessings" of same-sex couples, Francis has become a magnet for controversy. I am frankly very disappointed in the Pope right now, and as I am a convert to the Church, I am sure like other converts have done, I have started to second-guess my decision for reverting back to the Catholic Church. However, I am also reminded that Francis is not the Church, and as Pope he is also a fallible human being and that we are not obligated to take anything he says as gospel. That being said, I want to say something up-front just for clarification, as it will preface the entire discussion.

I am not a sedevacantist by any means, and despite my own misgivings about Francis, he is a validly-appointed Pontiff. That being said, he has failed in the duties of his office, and perhaps it is time for him to step aside because he is creating more discord than he is providing spiritual guidance, and this cannot go on forever. This discussion is not so much a commentary on Francis as it is on one of his henchmen who has recently garnered some attention for a series of writings, and that person is Victor Cardinal "Tucho" Fernandez.

Victor Fernandez (born 1962) is an Argentine-born Cardinal and theologian who currently heads the Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith, which effectively places him as a sort of second-in-command to the Pope. This is a serious situation given Fernandez's office, and it makes things even more complicated. Unfortunately, unlike Francis who is an octogenarian, Fernandez is also still relatively young (at 61, he is 7 years older than me right now). In the event of Francis either abdicating the Chair of St. Peter, or his passing, this guy would be the front-runner for the next Pope. However, the problem with Fernandez is that essentially he is somewhat weird - he is essentially Alfred Kinsey in a cassock, in all honesty. I don't think since probably the emergence of Pierre Tielhard de Chardin has there been a more dangerous prelate in such a position of power, and the reason for this is his radical ideas on human sexuality. He was the one, after all, who drafted Fiducia Supplecans, the controversial document that was released last month which allows now for the "blessing" of same-sex relationships in an informal setting. Compared with some of his earlier stuff though, Fiducia is benign at least in its language! That is what we want to delve into now, as recently one of his earlier books was disclosed and it is, well, graphic - Hugh Hefner would be using it to train his Playboy girls at his mansion, I will just put it that way. So, let us get into that, shall we?

Cardinal Victor "Tucho" Fernandez

The book that stirred so much controversy recently was a book Fernandez wrote in 1998 with the translated title Mystical Passion. The really problematic part of this book focuses on three chapters, 7 through 9, and is perhaps the most graphic in language. It talks about masturbation, gay sex, orgasms, and it also seems to have a fixation with the word "clitoris." The text of those chapters is so graphic as a matter of fact that many podcasters who are reporting about it refuse to directly quote anything from it in fear endangering their own souls with mortal sin - that is pretty bad, in all honesty! This book preceded Mystical Passion by three years and was titled Heal Me With Your Mouth: The Art of Kissing, which was published initially in 1995 and many are speculating that it was somewhat autobiographical in the way he described his experiences. Any way you look at it, stuff like this has definitely caused some commotion, and rightly so. So, what are the problems with the books that Fernandez penned? Let us first clarify a few issues.

Sex is in reality a beautiful gift of God, and it belongs solely within the context of a loving, monogamous, heterosexual (one man and one woman) union of holy matrimony. A man and woman who are in a loving marital union should fully enjoy being with each other, and the gift of sexuality is something beautiful in that context. However, because it is a special bond meant for only one particular type of relationship, Satan has found ways to exploit, cheapen, and abuse sex in many ways to corrupt and confuse humanity. This corruption takes several forms - solo masturbation, sex outside of marriage, adultery within a marriage, homosexual relationships, polygamous and other "group sex" arrangements, pornography, child sexual abuse, prostitution, bestiality, rape, fetishism, and lewd language that cheapens sex to a joke and makes sexuality a comedic act. And, while in proper context there are good Christian books out there on sex and marriage (Tim LaHaye's The Act of Marriage and Ed Wheat's Intended for Pleasure are two excellent ones) that can discuss the topic with candor, these books by Cardinal Fernandez do not do that. On the contrary, they seem to glorify the wrong ideas on sexuality, and they are perhaps a little too graphic to be used for religious instruction. And, that is the core issue. Oddly, I have seen Cardinal Fernandez's ideas in print before, and what they seem to echo is even more sinister. Let me talk about that now.

The original Spanish edition of "Mystical Passion," Cardinal Fernandez's quasi-pornographic sex book he published in 1998

The other more-nuanced graphic book of Fernandez, "Heal Me With Your Mouth," published in 1998

As many who are reading this know, I am currently working on my Ph.D. dissertation, and the topic I am actually addressing is the ideological influences upon the Nazis and what the Nazis evolved from. Of those four areas that I touch on in my research, two of them - the occultic worldview of the predecessors of the Nazis and the open acceptance (and later implementation) of Darwinian eugenics by many influential precursors to the Nazis - intersect and deal with sexual deviance in a very positive light. The one person who has figured prominently in my research is the former (defrocked) Cistercian priest and occultist Jorg Lanz von Liebenfels (1874-1954). In 1905, Liebenfels authored and published a very odd text entitled Theozoology, and in it he justifies things such as polygamy and even homosexual acts in the name of "racial superiority," and he uses graphic (indeed, almost pornographic) language in doing so. Since part of his whole ideology was viewing different races of humanity as different species, he used the Biblical training he had as a former priest to radically redefine terms such as "sodomy." Essentially, what Liebenfels did was say that homosexual acts between two people of the same sex, as long as they were the same species, was good (this echoes Karl Heinrich Ulrichs' idea of the "evolving third sex" theory in regard to homosexuals, which was later appropriated by Magnus Hirschfeld and also to a degree incorporated by individuals such as Simone de Beauvoir - the modern transgender ideology more or less possesses a version of this thinking), but he defined "sodomy" as the male of one species having relations with another male of a different species (here he means race). Therefore, while bestiality would be discouraged by Liebenfels, he radically altered the perception to say that a relationship between two people of different races was a form of bestiality. However, sexual relations between any two individuals of the same species was fine, and he even encouraged promiscuity as a way to propagate and multiply the "master race." This was an idea which was codified into policy by Himmler for his SS men, who were encouraged to father as many "pure Aryan children" as possible. The thing to note here is that Liebenfels couched all this in Biblical language, and he even attributed a sacramental dimension to such behavior. Eerily, this is exactly the same thing I saw Fernandez doing in the more controversial chapters of Mystical Passion, and it is that very thing that makes this more disturbing. I know people will probably read it and on first glance say nothing is wrong with Fernandez's work, but when he talks about French-kissing witches of all things in his books and also comparing erotic sexual intercourse to the Eucharist, that raises some questions. And, this is why things are so controversial with anything this prelate writes.

When I watched Dr. Taylor Marshall's podcast addressing this earlier, he made a very important observation that bears serious consideration. Marshall said that heresy, schism, and sexual immorality feed upon each other, and one will inevitably lead to the others. If you want an example of that, just look at the Mormon Fundamentalists in the west like Warren Jeffs and the Kingstons - they used a schism of a schism (Fundamentalist Mormons are a branch of the official Mormon Church, which in turn was a heretical sect that arose out of Campbellite Restorationism in the early 19th century) to quickly justify child sexual molestation and trafficking in the name of "plural marriage." Jeffs molested his own daughter as a matter of fact, and he is serving a very long prison sentence due to the perversity he embraced and forced on others. Fernandez unfortunately is probably closer to Warren Jeffs in his views than he is to great Catholic leaders like Pope St. Leo XIII, and with his open endorsement of perverts such as "Father" Rupnik and "Teddy" McCarrick, Fernandez is himself only a step away from being the leader of a sex cult that would be in schism from the true Catholic Church. And, in using many of the same Scripture-twisting eisogetical hermeneutical tricks as Liebenfels, Fernandez is treading on very dangerous soil right now. The impact of that on his own soul is serious enough, but what is tragic is who he will take down with him. Just like "Father" James Martin, the "Rainbow Jesuit" who prances around at pride parades like a drunk ballerina, Fernandez is scandalizing the Church. When the Protestant Fundamentalists read Fiducia Supplicans for instance, it will be a "gotcha" moment for them as it justifies all of their allegations against the Catholic faith, and therefore Martin, Fernandez, and even Francis himself are doing great damage to the Church's evangelization efforts. So, what is a faithful Catholic to do?

If many of the great saints and visionaries are accurate in what they saw coming over the centuries, I am fairly certain that a schism in the Church is coming, and at this rate it could be really soon. The confusion caused by a misreading and misinterpretation of Vatican II, followed by the recent sex scandals of the past 20 or so years that rocked the Church, and now all this crazy garbage Francis is serving up - first, he denied essential Catholic dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception by saying Mary was "born in sin," then he attacked Biblical creationism and instead opted for the Tiehardian view of theistic evolution. And, if that was not enough, there were the Pachamama idols in the church in Rome, followed then a couple of years later by Traditiones Custodis, which restricted the Traditional Latin Mass. Then, there were his vindictive actions against Fr. Frank Pavone, Bishop Strickland, and Cardinal Burke. And, finally, we have Fiducia Supplecans, thanks to his henchman Fernandez, which further muddied already turbulent waters. I know I will probably incur the wrath of sincere but ignorant Catholics who have a misplaced loyalty in Francis, but let's please be honest - Francis is a failure as a Pope, and he seems to be proud of that, even bragging about "dividing the Church" at the beginning of his pontificate. Thankfully though, the true Church still is there, and it belongs to Christ, and nothing Francis, Fernandez, or any other wayward hierarch does will change that. If a schism does happen, it will be they who are the schismatics, not us - I will always be on the side of the true and orthodox expression of our faith personally, as should you as a faithful Catholic. This is the silver lining - we know the end of the story - God wins! Therefore, instead of a mass exodus of faithful Catholics to the ranks of sedevecantism or the more conservative/traditionalist episcopi vagantes of the Old Catholic movement, let us dig in and wait this out, and remain faithful to the true faith. If we do that, then it will all work out. Fortunately for me, I belong to a very solid, orthodox parish with a wonderful priest who loves God and also loves the faith, so I am blessed with that. It is my hope that many of my readers here will be as fortunate. Thank you, and God bless.

A Few Random Thoughts

2023-01-20T09:17:00.001-08:00

The new year of 2023 got off to a bit of a chaotic start for me - some challenges to overcome as the year began. But, I have also been pondering several things too, and I felt it was time to give a little bit of perspective on relationships and related issues.

I am going to deal with two specific things in this talk today, one being appearance, and the other being relationships for Christians. There is a lot of very bad information out there on both of these areas, and a common-sense approach is needed. So, let's talk about appearances.

In recent years, there has been a discussion about something called "fat-shaming," and I think it is time to really say something about that as there are some extremes on both sides of that issue. For one, the liberal/leftist "progressives" want to insert more plus-sized models into advertising. However, some who are conservatives think this is bad, as they have a fixation with Uma Thurman-type stick-models who look perfect. Both of these exclusively are very wrong attitudes to have. From the leftist/liberal side, it is wrong because it promotes oftentimes the ugliest of things, as ugliness seems to be a major thing the postmodern leftist likes. For the conservatives, it is wrong because it promotes an unrealistic image of what a woman is, and I think that is about as damaging as postmodern ugliness is. In the real world, supermodels don't naturally exist - they are manufactured. Most women have imperfections of some sort (and most men as well, including me) and the whole supermodel thing sets up an unrealistic expectation of what the "ideal woman" is supposed to be. On the other hand, the postmodern iconoclasm that seeks to destroy everything that is true, good, and beautiful is also detrimental, and it likewise creates unrealistic expectations. And, if a man has to look to a woman on a magazine cover as his "ideal," he will miss out on what God may have for him as a soulmate. So, here is my perspective on that.

When a man and woman fall in love, and if they are meant to be, there is something that takes place called chemistry. This chemistry is something exclusive to that relationship, and what it means is that the couple see in each other something that attracts them. They may not look like much on the outset - one or both may be slightly overweight, there may even be a skin blemish or something else, but for a couple in love those things don't matter. To a man, the woman he loves is the most beautiful woman in the universe, and in his eyes she is perfect. And to him, she is - she is the perfect soulmate for him. It works the same way with her too - in her eyes, her man is the perfect man. That is true love, and it transcends so many things - it transcends race, ethnicity, size, past baggage, etc. It is, believe it or not, the same type of love Jesus Christ has for us - the Church is His Bride, and let's face it, she is not perfect! Yet, He loves his Bride anyway. The only difference in that relationship is that Jesus is the perfect Groom - He is God, so He is perfect in every way. A man and woman in love do not share that same perfection with Him, but in the eyes of each of them the other is perfection. So, OK, the match is made and the man and woman are in love, so a relationship ensues. What about that? As Christians, there are lots of theories and things that bandy about, and to be honest, one has to be careful what they listen to. Let's get into that briefly.

Many years ago, there was this guy named Bill Gothard who started an organization called Institute in Basic Life Principles. I want to talk about this a little bit, because there are many aspects to this which bear discussion. Gothard was an Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christian speaker who wanted to find a way to apply Biblical principles to everyday life, and he got quite wealthy holding seminars and classes at mostly Fundamentalist Baptist churches across the US. Although around 2014 or so he was forced to abdicate his position in disgrace, Gothard had a very detailed system in place for his model. In all honesty, the idea he had was not bad - I am a bit of an ideologue myself, and even models I disagree with can be inspiring because they can provide some impetus for organization. It was designed to give a structure to the family that in turn would have the objective of transforming society, so there was a classic evangelical dimension to his method too. However, it had some problems. One of the first and biggest problems was Gothard's own belief in Sola Scriptura, which in all honesty is a belief that cannot be carried out honestly, as ultimately it is the interpretation of Scripture by the proponent of this position that has the real authority, and so it was with Gothard. Others have similar models they implemented, notably Denny Keniston of Charity Christian Fellowship in Ephrata, PA, who had a similar series called "The Godly Home" that shared a lot of Gothard's ideas but was more Anabaptist in focus than it was Fundamentalist. When people take these positions, especially from a hard-line Sola Scriptura framework, some pretty bizarre things result from it. Nowhere is this more evident in Gothard's model than the courtship/dating aspect of male/female relationships. According to Gothard's model, dating (if allowed at all) is to be strictly regulated - no touching, no kissing, and always with a group or chaperone. Along with strict dress codes and a prohibition on things such as certain music or even other entertainment, it meant the "date" between a boy and a girl looked more like a formal business dinner than it did a courtship, and to be honest it is not either realistic nor is it even Biblical. It leads to soulless marriages devoid of passion and romance, and it also causes other problems too, as we saw with Gothard himself as well as one of his most dedicated disciples, Josh Duggar, a few years back. Even in dating and courtship, there has got to be a little spark and some romance - it doesn't mean that the couple jumps into bed and has sex at every opportunity either, but a simple kiss or a cuddle will not lead to fornication - it is crazy to even think that honestly. Therefore, this led me to my own idea of how courtship and dating goes.

I am in reality a self-professed and self-admitting prude - I have always been very conservative in how I present myself, and to be honest the first date I ever had I ended up married to later, and that marriage lasted 29 years. I am not into things like casual sex - sex for me, which I would agree with Gothard on, is strictly for marriage. I am also not into a lot of openly public displays of affection either - even husbands and wives need to keep some of their romantic expression private honestly. But, I would not go to the extremes that Gothard goes to either. For instance, I do not have a problem with sharing a romantic kiss, nor do I have an issue with cuddling with one's sweetheart to watch a movie or something - kick your shoes off and be comfortable with each other. And, if the couple does have strong faith convictions, they will know how to control themselves, especially if they are adults who are dating. And, you do not need to date in gaggles like a flock of geese either. It is perfectly fine to take your beau to a romantic candlelit restaurant and just enjoy each other's company holding hands, sneaking a kiss, and gazing lovingly into each other's eyes. That is romance and it is integral to the relationship. I may be conservative, but I want to show the woman I love how I feel too. That is called being a normal man. That type of romance was the subject of many wonderful songs from around the 1920s into the early 1960s - it was innocent and beautiful love, and it has been a part of our experience from time immemorial. I would argue that when a Fundamentalist (and there are some Catholic trads who are equally as strict) tries to suppress that, they are in essence trying to deny the nature God gave us, and thus it makes temptation even more intense. Look at what happened to those Duggars for instance - I remember watching their show about 15 years ago when their oldest son Josh got engaged. All they allowed that poor boy to do was shake hands with his girl! Are you serious??? Then the truth came out a few years later - Josh was hooked on porn from an early age and he also molested his own sisters, and he is now I believe in jail serving time for that. And, you see that over, and over, and over among Fundamentalist Protestants who have these puritanical mindsets. What is worse in those traditions is that when a couple does marry, it is almost as if the woman becomes a baby factory and she loses her dignity of personhood - her sole objective in life is to be a maidservant to her husband and pop out as many kids as possible. Sex, then, is diminished to merely being procreative and not a beautiful expression of love to be shared between a husband and wife. Do not get me wrong - procreation is good, and if one is blessed with children that is a gift of life. But, God designed our bodies to be more than just manufacturers of life - he made the sex act desirable and pleasurable for a reason. However, the other extreme is equally as wrong, so let's talk about that.

The secularization of society has meant several things. For one, it is a diminishing of truth, beauty, and goodness. Also, it is a breakdown of God's intended plan for mankind, including the relationship of a man and a woman. Secularism exalts self above all else, and in doing so, it does not share any compassion, empathy, or anything else of value with anyone - the self is one's own god in that mindset, and therefore serving the self is the highest virtue of the secularist, which is why the great Russian Orthodox theologian, Fr. Alexander Schmemann, defined secularism as "the absence of man as a worshipping being." Sexual ethics are perhaps one of the greatest casualties of the secular mindset and it has resulted in many bizarre and even unnatural things - the evils of abortion and euthanasia, the rise in STDs to almost pandemic levels, the blurring of sexual identity, high divorce rates, radical feminism, the whole LBGT (and everything in between) mess, and so much else. People in the US now base their sexuality on two things - either appearances by watching shows like America's Top Model or The Bachelor, or by the glorification of the bizarre and ugly (androgenous couples, "furries," and other freakish junk). True romance is all but dead in today's society, and it is not uncommon now for sex to be reduced as a recreational sport just to make one or more of the partners feel good without regarding the consequences. But, in a lot of ways, the Gothard prudishness and this secular antinomian attitude are both equally responsible for what has happened. Therefore, I propose that both of these be rejected soundly for something more common-sense.

My model for a romantic relationship is realistic, simple, and yet also within suitable boundaries. If you are going to have a relationship, first of all it needs to be with someone of the opposite sex - I do not believe "same-sex love" is true love at all, and I will probably be targeted for saying it. The true conjugal union is one man with one woman, and that is it. Anything else is counterfeit and a perversion. Secondly, the sex act is a privilege of marriage, and not a right of anyone to just have because they want to get their rocks off. The sexual union is a very special one, and it is meant to bring into union a man and a woman as something new - each completes the other. Anything that does not seek that goal is wrong. But, a relationship has to be cultivated to lead to the matrimonial state to have that conjugal union - so that is where romance comes in. Not everything romantic is sexual - for instance, as a dating couple you should spend time together getting to know each other, establishing a bond of trust, and letting love in the relationship blossom. You cannot do that with the platonic, sterile nonsense that the Gothard/Duggar model proposes. While courting and during the engagement, get to know each other - talk together, share that passionate kiss, and kick off your shoes and cuddle on the couch watching a movie with each other - it's OK. Go to the candlelit bistro and have a romantic dinner in a private booth in the back of the restaurant, and share a kiss, a glass of wine, and lovingly gaze into each other's eyes - that is OK too. Dating is not a group sport, in other words, and especially if you are adults you don't need chaperones to micromanage your evening. Proper romance during courtship and engagement will kindle a fire between you that will burn bright when you say "I do" and put rings on each other's fingers later. That is just a normal relationship, a loving relationship. And, every couple needs that too. However, the greatest thing a couple can do for each other is to put God at the center of their relationship - this too has been misunderstood as well. What it means exactly is you can pray with each other, and you can express your faith. And, it also means that if God is at the center, it will help create boundaries to not go for home plate when God wants you at second base. You will have the conviction to know each other's boundaries and to respect the integrity of each other. Now, what is not putting God at the center of one's relationship? Fundamentalists of the Gothard brand think you should essentially say grace every time you kiss your wife or husband, and even bow in prayer before having sex as a married couple. That is frankly absurd - having God first does not mean you have to turn every date into a Bible study or prayer meeting. I mean, what guy, before kissing his girl, actually says "Thanks be to God for this kiss I am about to receive..." They would lock that dude up in a funny farm, not to mention that any relationship he hoped to have with that gal is now history. What it really means by putting God at the center of the relationship is this - when one of you is upset or is facing something, pray together. Also, a couple's Bible study or Rosary, or something else devotional, is not a bad idea either, and a regimen can be set up for that too. And, attend church together - it is important that both partners be of one faith: maybe not the same denomination of church, but at least worshipping the same God. Little things like that are putting God at the center of the relationship. Also, in one's private prayers, always pray for your significant other - if you have a morning or nightly devotional regimen, pray for your beloved by name; pray for their health, their happiness, their protection, as well as asking for God's guidance in your relationship. You cannot go wrong doing that. That is just some practical dating advice I would give to a young man or lady who was in a serious relationship. Now that we talked about that, let us now turn back to the first subject.

About "fat-shaming," I want to address this. Both sides of this issue are wrong, and we said why. But, what does that mean exactly? Well, for one thing, it is important to try to keep oneself as healthy as possible, and if one feels the conviction to lose a couple of pounds, that is perfectly fine. But, they should not be bullied for being overweight either. Not everyone who is a little rotund is that way because they are lazy, gluttonous, or some other stereotype of the "fat person." In many cases, the older one gets, the more likely a "spare tire" will develop. I know it has with me, as I went from being rail-thin in my early twenties to being rotund now, and to be honest I eat less now than I did then too. As a 20-year-old, I could polish off a whole 16-inch cheese pizza by myself. Today, if I only eat two pieces of a 12-inch pie, I am full (and that is even with my favorite thin-crust pizza I love!). So, eating habits cannot explain why I have a spare tire at 53 I didn't have at 23. That all being said, to be honest, there are some very beautiful women out there who may be a little on the heavy side (that model Stephanie jmedia comes to mind on social media), and they are as attractive as the skinniest Victoria's Secret model. As a matter of fact, many men like their woman a little more filled out, as to be honest the "Twiggy" persona looks rather sickly. I am not sure why the skinny model is considered by so many to be a 'sex symbol," as there is something just so plastic about them many times - yes, they are beautiful, and in many contexts they do look good, but there is an insincerity about that image that just never really appealed to me. Therefore, if a company or magazine wants to use a beautiful full-figured gal as a model, go for it! But, don't do it to make a statement - if you are modeling her because she is a little heavy and nothing more, then that is virtue signaling and doesn't serve any purpose. But, if such a girl is being modeled because of her beauty and her talents, then by all means she should have the opportunity. It is time we get back to Martin Luther King's ideal of judging according to character and not just appearances.

And, that leads me into another discussion about this. Over the years, interracial dating has really gotten more popular, and there is even at least one dating website totally dedicated to that. I think this is a wonderful thing, as love is not judged by race or ethnicity, but rather again chemistry between said man and woman. If a Black woman falls in love with a White man (or vise versa), God bless them and give them a great relationship - as long as it is mutual attraction, true love, and strong chemistry, it is a beautiful thing. True romantic love transcends externals - if a man and woman fall in love, then they are not going to care about what each other looks like or what even their past histories are. It will not matter. Nor should it matter either - as long as it is a man and a woman, that is what counts. There are some in religious circles though - again these Fundamentalist and even legalistic Pentecostal types - who actually say that "race-mixing" is prohibited in the Bible. Is it though? In my reading of Scripture, I see two things:

1. All humans are created in the image of God

2. All human beings have a common pair of ancestors (Adam and Eve)

For those who would say that interracial romance is wrong, they often try to cite passages such as Genesis 6 - referencing the "sons of Seth" and "daughters of Cain" - to justify their positions. However, context means everything, and as I taught in my Genesis study earlier in this blog that passage has nothing to do with race-mixing - it has to do with "sons of God" (fallen angels) rather than "sons of Seth" having unnatural relations with human women, and the correct wording of that is not "daughters of Cain," but rather "daughters of men." For many Church Fathers and others, those incidents led to the creation of Nephilim, and the departed souls of those became demons. So, it has absolutely nothing to do with relationships between fellow human beings. Much of the hoo-hah surrounding this in relation to interracial marriages stems back to Darwin rather than historic Church doctrine, and this is an instance where Darwinian racism even entered the most traditional/conservative of Christian beliefs, although many holding such views would deny it. The reason I say that is that it was Darwinian evolution that proposed that different races and ethnicities were "different species," something that Darwin's disciple in Germany, Ernst Haeckel, took to the degree that it was gobbled up by Theosophic occultists in Germany and Austria who were the genesis of Hitler and the Nazis, and we know that story. More racist Fundamentalists later took this, and by theological applications relating to procreation within the same kinds of creatures, they labeled Black/White marriages as "sinful" and even as "bestiality." The Mormons even took it to a greater degree by calling Blacks the "sons of Cain" and saying Black people were cursed and that no White person should marry a Black person. It is rooted in racism, and both Blacks and Whites have been guilty of espousing these views for the same reasons. Other than that very weak premise though, I do not see any evidence in Scripture that prohibits a Black woman and a White man (or vice versa) from marrying and loving each other. The people who hold to that erroneous view of Scripture need to repent, because it is not divine revelation they have, but rather social Darwinism masquerading as a Sola Scriptura belief. I would even go as far as to call it a form of heresy that should be condemned, because it goes against every other contextual application of Scripture. My own step-grandmother espouses this crazy interpretation of Genesis 6, and one thing she always prefaces this with when she starts to enunciate her views is "Now, I am not prejudiced, but..." If someone has to do that prefacial disclamor to what they are going to say, it is probably going to be a racist rant of some sort. As my step-grandmother is in her 90s now, she would do well to rethink her life and repent of that nonsense too (she has issues too from her past, but that is not a warranted discussion here). Any rate, I say now that interracial relationships are not a problem, and they can even be beautiful. Racism against anyone is a demonic sin and should be rightly denounced as such. And that especially is true in the sacred love between a man and a woman, regardless of race or ethnicity.

I think I have pontificated enough today, but sufficive to say, we need to get past externals. This is especially true when it comes to love and romance between a man and a woman. If we can do that, I feel a restoration to Biblical order will happen in our society, for as love starts at the basic level of human relationships, so it will spread to the greater society. Thank you for allowing me to share today.

Cancel Culture and Deficiencies in Church Hierarchy - Some Thoughts

2022-12-30T08:25:00.001-08:00

As we reach the end of the year, a lot has been on my mind regarding the state of our Church. One major incident that caught my attention and motivated me to write this was the laicizing of a very prominent Catholic priest, Fr. Frank Pavone. Fr. Pavone is the key leader in the Priests for Life organization, and he has perhaps done more for the sanctity of life than anyone I know. Also, during the whole COVID mess and the subsequent weeks I was unable to attend Mass regularly due to lack of transportation (I have things to say about that too later, believe me!) Fr. Frank was a lifesaver - I watched his Masses on YouTube and he was a tremendous blessing to me. He had very sound and inspiring homilies, and there was a comfort I got just watching him celebrate Mass. However, there are recent events that robbed many of us - including Fr. Frank - of that, and I will give a brief synopsis of that now followed by some commentary.

Fr. Frank Pavone

At the end of November, the Vatican laicized (let's be honest - they defrocked him!) Fr. Frank due to a couple of issues. First, it entailed a comment on social media, where Fr. Frank replied in anger to someone supporting our inept President, Joe Biden, by saying "G** d**** Biden" or something to that effect. The second had to do with him displaying an aborted baby on a table in his study to make a point about how damaging abortion is, and he was accused of putting a dead baby on an altar. Fr. Frank soundly responded to these by noting that although he did take the Lord's name in vain, he confessed and repented of it and acknowledged he had a moment of weakness. As for the aborted baby, it was not on an altar, but rather a sort of utility table in his office, and he also did provide the child with a proper burial and thus nothing technically was desecrated. Those are the facts that led to the decision to laicize him due to a charge of "blasphemy" and also something to do with defiance of his Ordinary Bishop. There are problems with this though, and I want to address those now.

I want to take first the issue of Fr. Frank's use of the "GD" phrase. Was it blasphemy? I don't think so honestly. Was it wrong? Yes, it was, but Fr. Frank also acknowledged that and took the appropriate steps to rectify it. Also, Fr. Frank has not been opaque with what he did - he was very open and up-front about the whole thing, and that should be appreciated. However, here's the rub on that. Who in this world hasn't on occasion said or done something wrong?? Romans 3:23 reminds us that all of us have sinned and fallen short, and a guy with a collar is no exception - he is still a human being who, like the rest of us, relies on supernatural grace to elevate, heal, and perfect his concupiscent nature, which by the way we all have - read Genesis 3 again. And, in all honesty, I have myself uttered some very volatile words in a moment of anger too - I have dropped an F-bomb or two on occasion, and I tend to beat the living crap out of my computer when it malfunctions, and I would not honestly repeat some of the names that I call it in my head! And, like Fr. Frank, I have to also repent of that, and I do so in the proper way. Bottom line is, while it in no way justifies the action, I believe that Fr. Frank handled himself properly and well, and therefore if Jesus forgives him, so should we. In accusing him as they did, the bishops who sanctioned him over it forgot a very integral part of sacramental theology - once something is confessed and forgiven, grace has been imparted and the Blood of Christ covers the sin. If the bishops (and I am speaking in particular of Bishop Zurek in Amarillo, who was Fr. Pavone's Ordinary and had a vendetta against him) cannot acknowledge the grace afforded by their own office, then that means they are bringing damnation upon themselves - remember, Bishop Zurek, the words of Jesus - He told us that if we are unable to forgive, He will not forgive us. So, Bishop, perhaps Dante's prophetic words in The Inferno apply to you - one day, your skull will pave the path to hell unless you repent of your unforgiveness. I have a feeling that Dante knew what he was talking about, considering how many bureaucrats and political hacks there are right now in the hierarchy of our Church - it is a scandal. Not to mention the sex perverts that they let run rampant in parishes and seminaries. It is sick, and it is a reason so many people are leaving the Church for either Evangelical Protestant groups or more traditionalist movements like the SSPX. Thank you, Bishops, for doing Satan's job for him. A special shout-out to some of our more notorious bishops and Cardinals that enable evil - you know the ones: Cupich, Gregory, Zurek, and so many others. These guys are the ones who should be laicized, along with their wingmen such as "Father" James Martin and that priest who molested 9 nuns as well as that other pervert in a collar in Louisiana who desecrated an altar with strippers. Yet, for some reason, those guys get to run amok while faithful priests like Fr. Frank and Fr. James Altman get cancelled by the hierarchy. In looking at what is going on, I am reminded of some prophetic things I read from some saints and visionaries in regard to the Church, so let me share those now.

I want to recommend a book to you that is vital to read, especially in these days - it is Desmond Birch, Trial, Tribulation, and Triumph: Before, During, and After Antichrist (Santa Barbara: Queenship Publishing, 1996). I know Dr. Birch personally, and he has done a magnificent job in presenting Catholic eschatology in a comprehensive light. The book is huge (636 pages including the index) and it also is not something you want to do as leisure reading, but rather it provides a ready reference to different things. In looking up some information about the Great Apostasy, I came across this on page 434 - a sample list of traditional teachings of the Church regarding eschatology. The second thing on that list was this - a great apostasy or religious defection. If you pair this with the fourth item on the list - the conversion of the Jews after the "fulness of the Gentiles" - here is the scenario. Quoting Scripture from II Thessalonians 2:3-5, these are events that precede the Tribulation and the emergence of the Antichrist (Birch, 446). It also follows an Age of Peace, which in Catholic tradition is called the reign of a great Catholic Monarch, but Protestant Dispensationalists flip it on its ear in calling it the Millenium and place it after the Tribulation. Now, here is where we have a dilemma. First the Gospel has not yet been preached to all the world, a prerequisite of the Age of Peace. Second, the Age of Peace has not arrived yet, so what is going on now?? I would have to do more research on this, but I would wager that there are two Great Apostasies, and if that be the case, we are facing one of those now. Never in the history of the Church has there been so many proverbial tares in the wheatfield, and the tares seem to be overcoming the wheat at this point (see my previous articles on that topic). In the highest echelons of the Church hierarchy, there are weeds - nasty, evil weeds. And those weeds are not happy with the wheat that is trying to grow, and thus they want to suck the life out of it and take over the whole field. This is a huge reason why Fr. Frank gets punished harshly for something that he should not be punished for, while openly heretical "priests" like James Martin, the "Rainbow Jesuit," can go prancing around at "gay pride" parades like a drunk ballerina and he gets rewarded. It is also why exposing the evils of abortion in a very graphic way as Fr. Frank did is a greater sin to the hierarchs than a pervert like "Uncle Teddy" McCarrick having a Grinder account is. It is a scandal in the truest sense. A lot more background could be given on this, but I would recommend two other books for that which can be read at your leisure. The first is Taylor Marshall, Infiltration (Manchester, NH: Crisis Publications, 2019), and the second is Michael Rose, Goodbye Good Men (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2002). Both of these books shed light on some of the scandalous behavior of the hierarchy in the Church, ranging from promoting "wokeness" to denying the priesthood to more worthy candidates in preference to degenerates who abuse others sexually. Therefore, while it is tragic what happened to Fr. Frank (and the fact they did this to him just before Christmas, and now his father passed away - please keep him in your prayers), it also should not be surprising. This is a fruit of apostasy, and not the root - that runs much deeper.

The second thing addresses Fr. Frank's placing an aborted baby on the table in his video. As I understand it, the table he used for this was just a utility table in his office and not a sanctified altar, and although he has celebrated Masses on it, the table is in this case just that - a table. And, while more "sensitive" people may have found this extreme, I must remind those same individuals that sometimes-extreme actions are necessary due to the gravity of the situation being addressed. And, if people are offended by what Fr. Frank did, I would challenge them to read some of the lives of the saints, in particular a class of saints in the Eastern Christian tradition called the Yurodivi ("Holy Fools"). The antics of some of these types of saints could easily be dismissed as mental illness - they did some pretty crazy things! Yet. God used them. One of them I recall reading about actually slaughtered a goat or something and went to the Russian Czar and threw it on the table in front of him. This particular czar was not a nice guy and had been massacring people even during the season of Lent. So, the saint's message to the Czar was simply this - if you are unrepentant about killing innocent people, then go ahead and eat meat during Lent because you are basically going to hell anyway! The lesson was that unless Lenten fasts were taken in the right attitude - contrition and repentance - they were of little use in the larger picture of the salvation of one's soul. It took an extreme action to get the lesson across. Fr. Frank was not near as extreme as that, or even as some of the Doctors of the Church - remember when St. Athanasius basically smacked the heretic Arius upside the head, and I believe even the beloved St. Nicholas threw some punches at heretics too (which means the character of Santa Claus in the 1988 film Ernest Saves Christmas was probably more authentic than many because one scene has him popping a movie director in the nose for making a movie terrorizing kids). And, in a culture like ours that has become more jaded and secularized, perhaps a little extremity is necessary because no one listens to reason much anymore. If you try to reason with the opposition, they will cancel you and ruin you, so more aggressive measures may be warranted. So, in essence, I do not believe that Fr. Frank did anything wrong with the aborted baby, especially since he also took the effort to provide the little one with a proper burial. Some have even argued that because the relics of the martyrs are often found in altars, it may have perhaps been justified to have a modern martyr - an aborted child - on display in a holy place too. I mean, it is a hell of a lot better than occultists do with their human sacrifices - you know, like the ancient Aztecs who ripped beating hearts out of people and then danced around in their flayed skin until it rotted off, but oh, that is OK because it is "cultural appreciation." The devaluing of human life is an abomination, and Fr. Frank was making people aware of that. The fact that people were more concerned about a baby on an altar (which was not actually an altar) than they are with the fact that an abortionist murdered that baby speaks volumes too. And what is worse is that our bishops are either too stupid or too desensitized themselves to get the message. I think it is time for new bishops.

To learn more about Fr. Frank's situation, it is best that you learn it from him yourself, so I encourage you to visit his site, www.frfrankpavone.com, and there you will find documentation and other items that will make you more aware of his position. In the meantime, too, pray for him and other cancelled priests, because they need our support right now. Thank you for allowing me to share.

Navigating Rough Waters

2022-12-27T07:57:00.001-08:00

For many of us, 2022 was a rough year, a sort of climax of the previous two years with the pandemic and everything. What often accompanies that is a feeling of uncertainty about the future, and it is only natural to feel that way. Keeping this in mind, I wanted to do an end-of-year devotional reflection on that to help others if possible.

The Bible, as far as I have seen, does not really address an allegory of rapids, but it does talk a lot about stormy seas, and the same idea is conveyed. Isaiah 43:2, for instance, says "When you face stormy seas I will be there with you with endurance and calm; you will not be engulfed in raging rivers." A raging river and a turbulent sea represent the same allegory - the storms we face in life. In the case of a raging river though, there may not be a storm, but rather some treacherous rapids and waterfalls to navigate, and that requires a lot of quick thinking. Using this verse, I want to talk a little about that.

The above picture is of Blackwater Falls, which is about 14 miles northeast of my hometown in West Virginia. It is a local tourist attraction, and it is beautiful to look at from a distance. But, trying to take a boat over those falls would be an act of suicidal stupidity, in that the rocks in that river would break every bone in someone's body if they fell - the likelihood of surviving such an accident would be very low. As water approaches a waterfall like Blackwater Falls, it creates eddies and rapids that can cause a navigator to lose control of a small boat easily, and thus one is at the mercy of the falls. However, if one is skilled enough to do it, there is a way to circumvent the danger, and that is by navigating to a nearby riverbank or looking for a channel to navigate in before approaching dangerous currents that would sweep a boat right over those falls. A channel could be a small creek that flows into the river and would be possibly a detour around the more turbulent waters of the falls, and although the boat may not fit into such a small stream, it would provide a way to descend the elevation the falls flow off of and it would save lives. It would take somewhat more effort obviously, but it could be done. There is a very rich lesson in this for us if we know how to see it, especially when we are going through turbulent circumstances in our own lives.

One important aspect of being able to navigate turbulent waters is to have an experienced person who knows how to find the safe channels and steer out of the currents so we don't get swept over the falls. As noted in Isaiah 43:2 as shown above, we have that as faithful followers of Christ - we have Christ Himself to guide us. As a matter of fact, guidance is one of three promises of favor that God gives us in Scripture, and those are as listed:

1. Provision (Philippians 4:19)

2. Protection (Ephesians 6, James 4:7, Psalm 91:4-5)

3. Guidance (Psalm 119:105, Proverbs 3:5-6, James 1:5-6)

All of these are interconnected, and they are not promises directly related to the Atonement (there are only two of those I am aware of, salvation and healing) but they are promises given to those who walk in God's grace. And, although not to be taken to the extremes that some "Word of Faith" TV preachers do for the wrong reasons, they are still promises regardless and we can stand on those. More than provision and protection though, guidance is the one that should be sought the most, as the others tend to fall in place once we have proper direction. That can be hard, and I want to address a couple of things about that which I relate to personally.

One huge problem is time - God transcends time and space, but we are confined to it. So, when a bill comes due and money is short, we don't have the luxury of time to pay when we feel like it. And, if you tell your creditors that you are "waiting on the Lord" to give you the money, they will probably recommend you for the loony bin! That is an example of turbulent waters, and at that point is when we really need God to navigate us so we don't go over the waterfall. And, that can be scary! God has the tendency of waiting until the last minute sometimes to give us breakthroughs, and that can be emotionally taxing. But, as he said in Romans 8:28, God works all things together for good, and that warrants trust in his judgment. In reality, that is easier said than done, but I have learned there are two important lessons in this we need to apply in order to make it easier:

1. Stay focused on what your current responsibilities are.

2. As God has brought you this far, it is only fitting to trust him in this too.

A second issue I have faced is trying to actually hear God's voice. In times of adversity and challenges, a lot is going on in our heads, and clarity is important to navigate properly. But, the dilemma is this - God is often a "still small voice," (I Kings 19:11) but he is also not the author of confusion (I Corinthians 14:33). The challenge I have faced in my own experience is trying to reconcile those two things, and that can be tough! In many situations, there is no room for error or bad judgment, so you face the dilemma of which "voice" is the voice of God, and how do you get him to turn up the volume so you don't miss it? In that, we then start to ask for certain things, such as some sign God is hearing us or that he is giving us clearer direction. This takes a number of forms, such as the example of Gideon with the fleece, or seeing some proof that God is in the situation, much like St. Thomas needed at the Lord's resurrection. I cannot say whether doing that is right or wrong, because I have done my own seeking like that too, but sometimes it is what we have to work with, and therefore I think God will understand that we are trying to do the right thing. And, in many cases, he has actually answered me with the direction I needed in that way. And, there are other times where you will get angry and impatient with God - I can testify for a fact that I have had more than one heated exchange with our Lord over things when I just got to the end of my proverbial rope. Of course, you do feel bad about it later and if you are consistent in your faith, you will repent of that and I believe God is big enough to handle that - he knows human limitations too and I do not believe he faults us for those even if we can end up being really nasty with him (and I am not too proud to say I have been there too!). The good thing is that we are not alone - remember Jacob in Genesis 32:22-32? Jacob had to wrestle with God to get the blessing he needed, and some of us have been there too. The thing that actually sets the Bible apart from other religious texts is its divine authorship, and the fact that part of that is that often the heroes are shown as pure human beings with normal emotions and limitations - there are no "super-beings" in Scripture outside of Jesus Christ, and Scripture is written in that way to show us that we are not alone. So, the ultimate gift of guidance is the Scriptures themselves, but sometimes we just need a little more personal guidance that relates specifically to our own circumstances, and God knows that too.

Navigating rough water requires God's guidance - we need to look to him as our Navigator to steer us into a safe channel to avoid the waterfall, and if we do so, he will be faithful to take care of us and our needs. Guidance is the foremost need we all truly possess, and in the lesson of the boat on the rough river approaching a waterfall, we learn we have no choice but to rely on God's guidance. May we always see God as our Navigator, and also listen for clarity of his voice. Thank you, and have a blessed holiday season.

The Reality of Spiritual Abuse

2022-11-11T11:26:00.001-08:00

This week, I had a rather tense confrontation with someone I used to consider a friend. The whole thing was a HUGE misunderstanding on the person's part, and I am still sort of wondering what on earth brought it on. Essentially, this person had posted on social media that they were selling tickets for some sort of event at a Ukrainian Catholic parish in Florida that I had actually visited a couple of times, and in response to their post I said, "Well, that is neat. Is that such-and-such church on such-and-such street?" An innocent question, and under normal circumstances a normal person would be like "Why, yes it is!" and maybe engage in some small talk about the parish or something and the mutual experience we shared with visiting there. However, nothing about this conversation would be normal, as within about 5 minutes after my response on this person's post, I get this nasty, angry email accusing me of putting the parish in danger, etc., etc., etc. But, it got even worse. Due to some bad experience this person had some years ago, they got into a more mystical/quasi-charismatic form of Catholicism that stressed spiritual warfare, prophecy, and all this other stuff, and the mindset of this person often colors their judgment. So, when this individual did not feel I "apologized" enough, they went on the attack and all of a sudden they claimed the Holy Spirit was showing them that I had some "sex sin" or something, and they went off on the craziest tangent about that. I finally had to block the person for harassment on social media, and after that little exchange, I had this eerie feeling because I was there before, years ago. Many already know that story, but for those who don't, let me give you the "Reader's Digest" version.

When I was in my early 20s, I attended a Pentecostal church of the Foursquare denomination in Midland City, AL. However, a couple of years into going there, things got bizarre, as the pastor and a number of the laypeople got themselves entangled in "deliverance ministry" and they were reading these bizarre books such as Rebecca Brown's He Came to Set the Captives Free as well as Frank and Ida Hammond's book Pigs in the Parlor. For those of you who know these books, you are aware that they are written by crackpots who look for demons under their coffee tables and also get off on "personal prophecy" to justify some of the crazy conclusions they reach. This Foursquare church was into all that, and even would have those iconic bonfires to burn things they thought were "possessed;" one lady would even hold up a T-shirt and say "Look at that - the demon is glaring at me!" and then rebuke it ("in the name of Jesus" of course) and burn it. After a while, because I didn't conform to their image, I was targeted by this stuff, and it led me to eventually leave that abomination of a church and would aid in my own conversion to the Catholic faith some years later. In time, that "church" was served justice - they suffered a split, after which the church closed for good, and the pastor retired and later ended up dying of Alzheimer's (which he also claimed was a demon in that church - talk about irony!), and in time the church building was sold to a Hindu community and is now a temple to Shiva or something. It took many years of recovery for me from that sort of spiritual abuse, and when this person who attacked me yesterday did what they did, it drug up some unpleasant memories. That is why I wanted to address that here.

First, let's give some Biblical background of this whole thing. People who engage in this type of behavior often appeal to certain Scripture passages to affirm their calling, notably Ephesians 4:7 and I Corinthians 12:10. Often, people who subscribe to a more extreme charismatic understanding will point out that the "office of prophet" and the "gift of prophecy" are two different things. While there are some merits to this, and throughout the history of the Church people have possessed these gifts, in the last couple of hundred years a variety of movements, cults, and denominations have made them central in that "anyone can have the gift of prophecy" whether they do or not, and the potential for abuse is quite high. I don't know if my former friend claimed to be a prophet or not, but they often bragged about a "gift of discernment" and to be honest, in the time I have known this person I have been a little wary of that, especially since this person also claims to be devoutly Catholic. And, that leads to some further observations.

The purpose of one of these gifts, if one truly possesses them, is for the edification of the Church as well as evangelistic in some circumstances. And it goes back to this whole notion of "charismatic," which in Greek is a word that comes from charis, meaning literally "gift." However, in the context of where that gift comes from, it is also historically understood that these are gifts of grace, meaning we do not do anything to earn them and they really are not to be promoted as a status symbol. And, the root Greek word charis also related to another Latin word, caritas, and both of these convey that the gift is also given in love (caritas is also the root of the English word charity). Therefore, the etymology alone of the word charismatic suggests that these gifts are conveyed by God's grace to witness Christ's love. Prophecy is one of these gifts, and it is something that although not as prevalent as a genuine gift is nonetheless to reflect supernatural grace and divine love. However, like anything, this is something that can be misused, and sadly it often is, and it has caused damage to the Church on a major scale. Heretical sects, and sincere but misguided individuals like my former friend, not to mention a wide array of opportunistic hucksters, have been the greatest culprits in the abuse of these important gifts, and it is an epidemic in the Church that needs to have attention devoted to it to correct.

Human beings are limited - a concupiscent nature was given to us at the Fall in the Garden of Eden, and it takes supernatural grace to elevate, heal, and perfect our nature in order to restore us to how God intended. The problem is that Christians are not yet totally exempt from concupiscence, and oftentimes we even mess up within the context of the Church, and when spiritual gifts are involved it can get downright dangerous. In my former friend's case, she used her "prophecy gift" or "discernment gift" (still not sure which she claims to have) as a weapon against someone (me) that she was angry with. When that happens, it means that the person exercising the supposed gift is being irresponsible and disobedient with its practice, and may even be seduced by a lying spirit. The enemy loves to corrupt and manipulate things like this in order to cause others to stumble, and it is really sad when it happens within the Church. Outside of the Church though, it creates a counterfeit which is known as witchcraft or the occult, but within the Church it has another name - Charismatic witchcraft. Trying to use a supposed spiritual gift to manipulate others to impose one's will - especially when it is falsehoods that are being said - is a classic definition of magic, and is not the operation of the Holy Spirit. The person committing this atrocity may actually think they are hearing God, and may have the best of intentions, but they are no better than a witch in all honesty. And, especially when using a gift of grace as a weapon or in anger - that can be very harmful. The person I had the encounter with did just that, and it was a little unsettling for me as I got creepy feelings from this person that were reminiscent of that Foursquare church in Alabama I experienced in my younger years. I am older and wiser now and of course I know better, but it is still unsettling when people behave like that. Now that we established the groundwork, I want to now briefly talk about spiritual abuse and what it entails.

In my days of experience in that Foursquare church in Alabama, I came across a very good book that was a huge help for me, and it is Ronald Enroth, Churches that Abuse (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992). On page 29, Enroth gives essentially a definition of what spiritual abuse is when he says it entails psychological and spiritual damage inflicted upon people by those who are considered authorities, such as ministers and other leaders. They use their position to abuse the authority they are given, and the results can be catastrophic - a violation of trust, a falling away from faith, broken families, and spiritual confusion. When people are subjected to this, it causes emotional and spiritual scarring that often makes it a struggle to readjust to normal life, and in extreme cases it has even caused death through either direct/indirect action by the abuser or tragically, suicides. Enroth, who as a sociologist has researched this sort of thing in great detail, notes that there are some major aspects of the abuse that are to be identified:

1. Authority and Power

2. Manipulation and Control

3. Elitism and Persecution

4. Lifestyle and Experience

5. Dissent and Discipline

Using the acronym AMELD, these characteristics may or may not all be present in every group, but they are traits that do show up. In my former friend's case, there are three of them - 1,3, and 5 on the list. My former friend claims authority by saying she has the "gift of discernment," then uses manipulation and control to try to impose her "insights" on others, and finally if you resist what she says you are somehow some sort of pariah and hellbound. The Alabama church had all five of these actually. Now, here is where we have problems though if one acts like this. Let me get into that.

If a person has a true spiritual gift, they are not typically going to flaunt it because they know they did not merit it but that God chose them to have it. So, a legitimate gift is exercised in humility. Also, if said gift is given, it is for the encouragement and uplifting of others in the Church, and is never to be used as a bludgeoning club against someone you may not like. Finally, the encouragement or guidance offered by said gift is respective of the free will of the person receiving the manifestation of it - it is given as guidance or encouragement only, and is not something that is punitive or coercive. God will not strike someone dead who maybe rejects a prophetic word or something, and the Holy Spirit is gentle and not like that at all. On that note, especially when I personally seek God's guidance, I wish the Holy Spirit's voice was louder, but often it is not. Another aspect of this too is that the person who possesses such a gift cannot "pull rank" and exalt themselves - if they do, it detracts from the focus of the gift, which is God. A person who has a spiritual gift or vocation is only a vessel, and they cannot in any way claim status for having a gift or vocation; God has his own reward for his faithful stewards. Finally, exercising the gift in the right spirit is integral. A spiritual gift is not a weapon against a fellow human being, and should not be used as such. So, if you possess a gift like discernment or prophecy, check your attitude when claiming to exercise it. My former friend failed miserably on that last point, and as a result a friendship was sacrificed, and it made them look like a deranged psychopath rather than as a true instrument of God. On that note, I have a couple of concluding thoughts.

For Catholics, this whole matter takes on a whole new dimension of accountability than it does with our Protestant brethren. Any spiritual work, just like any doctrine, must be in conformity with both Sacred Scripture and the Magisterial teaching of the Church. If it fails in that, it is to be rejected outright as being not in line with the Church. Likewise, while we can appreciate our own accomplishments in some areas, when it comes to spiritual gifts, we cannot assume that we are holier than the Communion of Saints (the Church Expectant in Magisterial teaching). Their holiness was recognized by others often long after their death, and only when the Church recognizes their charism enough to warrant canonization or beatification, then and only then is the gift considered authentic and valid. Even the Popes rarely speak ex cathedra about matters (I think that has only happened a few times in the whole history of the Church) so why do these people claiming gifts of this and that think they are so special?? If that were the case, many people the Church recognized as saints over the centuries would be disqualified, as people who claim to have discernment, etc., are actually saying they are holier than the saints, but are they though?? I am not proud enough to admit I sure ain't!! I have had some supernatural experiences, but here's the thing about those - often those were for myself to give me guidance, and on the rare occasion when they were for someone else, often they were encouraging and were speaking to something that person was experiencing at that moment - timing is crucial too. However, I never claimed to act as "God's instrument," and if the recipient of my insight was Catholic, I would always encourage them to check out what I said in line with the Magisterium and Scripture, and if something was not right, they could throw it out. A responsible channel of God's grace should always have the humility to do that. My friend will eventually learn that I hope, and I hope they do so before it is too late and more damage is done.

Thank you for allowing me to share a lesson on this, and if you are the victim of spiritual abuse, there are a couple of things to remember. First, you are not alone - many of us have been there before. Second, if you are a fellow Catholic, this is something you can address in the confessional too, as it will aid in the healing process to just talk to someone about it. We must remember, the confessional is not just a place to confess sins - it is also a place of healing, and nine chances out of ten many confessions are probably opportunities for the priest to counsel someone who struggles. And, we should utilize that, as it does wonders for one's mind and heart. Of course, if you come from a spiritually abusive background, the confessional will be a tough challenge - you have had your trust betrayed before, and are understandably somewhat skittish about this, but it is OK. In that case, just talk to someone you feel you can trust - a spouse, a close friend, or even the priest in a less formal setting like the parish office or something. If you talk to the priest in particular, you can tell him about your apprehension about the confessional, and he will counsel you on that too. As we learned in RCIA and as we read in the Catechism, the priest represents Christ as sort of an ambassador, and when you talk to the priest it is as if you are talking to Christ directly, hence the role of sacramental grace. That may take some time for you too coming to that realization, so don't worry too much if you have issues at first, as any good priest will understand that too. Of course, the hardest part often is forgiveness. Let me address that really quick and then I will wrap it up.

That church I told you about I attended in Alabama when I was younger was very abusive, and in all honesty they were indirectly responsible for the breakup of my first marriage. My ex-wife and I are actually still good friends today because we both understand what happened, and both of us were victims of the same thing in different ways. I have days I feel really resentful against that bunch of nuts honestly, and it is something I am still working through. But, I have learned to embrace forgiveness of these people, as in a poetic sort of way they got what they deserved anyway and God took care of that for me. But, it is not healthy to hold onto resentment, and in all honesty I am a little stung by my former friend who attempted to be spiritually abusive to me, but at the same time I pray for their soul and hope they will one day mature in their faith enough to repent of what they have done and maybe get some much-needed help for themselves, as this individual has their own spirituality colored by a negative experience. The individual in question is a female, and she needs healing and restoration too, as she has done this to other male friends she has had before too and there is a bigger problem under the surface, and she uses her "spiritual gift" as a way to project her own resentment onto others if she is triggered. I feel sorry for people like her honestly, as their whole religious experience is built upon fear and paranoia and they lack having the joy dimension of their faith. Until she finds that joy, she will never be complete either. So, pray for her, and I will as well.

Thank you again for allowing me to share my thoughts, and hopefully this will be an encouragement to someone else. Blessings until next time.

Student Loans and Forgiveness

2022-10-13T07:31:00.000-07:00

There is an issue I have wanted to tackle for a while, and it is an issue that has a very personal interest to me. In the past couple of months, the Biden Administration enacted a student loan forgiveness plan that essentially reduces a maximum of $20,000 from a person's total education debt. Naturally, this has stirred up a little controversy on both sides of the political spectrum. The Left complains that it hasn't gone far enough, while the Right is complaining that they will be saddled with student debt of others. However, are either of these a valid concern? I want to now examine that in some detail and then I have a solution of my own to propose.

With Biden in office and Democrats having the majorities in both chambers of Congress now, in all honesty the news is not good. Biden's stupid energy policies as well as the crazy out-of-control spending has placed our nation on the edge of a recession it hasn't seen since Jimmy Carter was in office (Funny how one party causes a lot of financial chaos, isn't it?) . And, this Ukraine conflict now has caused more issues with our economy. Add to that the past two years of draconian COVID nonsense, and it is causing a bit of a predicament for most normal Americans. So, in many ways, perhaps a little relief of student debt isn't such a bad idea. But, as Republicans point out, eventually this is going to cost somebody, so that means more taxes if the Democrats have anything to say about it. America is at a boiling point. At a future point I am going to talk a little about the Ukraine conflict, but for now I want to focus on the student loan relief.

For many of us, student loans are a fact of life - I have been in school over 30 years now myself off and on, and in the pursuit of three degrees (I am in the process of finishing up a Ph.D. now, my terminal degree), and in that time I have amassed a student loan bill of over $200,000. So, in all honesty, I welcome a little relief! There are factors involved though which would probably put me at variance with those on both sides of the issue. So, let me just talk a bit about that.

There are two foregone conclusions that need to be stated to begin any discussion:

1. No one willingly chooses student loans - often they are an only option

2. College education has been ridiculously priced for decades.

And, that leads to a third conclusion:

3. The standards and bars are set high for people to have qualifications for jobs, but too many of us don't even get considered by companies.

Here is the thing. For decades, college education was encouraged - parents encouraged it, the business community encouraged it, and of course aggressive recruiters at colleges encouraged it. Many young people, fresh out of high school, were promised the moon on a silver platter if they got a college degree, but once they walk the aisle and can put a BA or BS after their name, often they end up unemployed for years after, and the career counselors at many of these colleges are frankly useless. So, then Corporate America ups the qualifications - good-paying jobs now require Master's degrees, so that means the poor candidate has to do more school and take out more loans to meet that criterion. So, they walk the aisle again and receive an MA or MS, but the employers still don't call. Instead, the poor candidate for a job is told they need training in this, or in that, and a professional certificate in this, that, or the other, and that is more money. At this point, the hopeful college graduate has degrees, but also has amassed a hefty education debt of hundreds of thousands of dollars, but there are crickets when expecting responses from potential employers. So, without income, the college debt becomes a burden to that person, who also has to eat and keep a roof over their heads and needs to do so often by accepting jobs they are over-qualified for. Some very well-educated people even end up on the street too, which is tragic. This scenario is where now I want to address my fellow conservatives who think student loan liability is the fault of the borrower.

While I am definitely a conservative politically, and am very unapologetic about that, but that does not mean I accept everything conservatives stand for, and this student loan issue is one I have big differences with my fellow conservatives on. To begin with, some conservatives blame the borrowers, as if they should be punished for going to school and trying to learn something useful. Yet, the problem with that mentality is this - many people do not have student loan debt by choice, but often that is their only option to get ahead in life. Many who work hard and excel in obtaining their degrees often do so with little or no support from extended family. You don't see their families helping them to go to college, nor do you see even any moral support from family members a lot of times. That makes things more challenging for a student at a university. They were pushed all their lives to do their best, and they do, but then they get no support and often even outright opposition from family members just because they are trying to better themselves. This is unfortunate, and unfortunately more so those holding "conservative" values are often the worst offenders. Here is what they need to hear then - if you didn't invest any encouragement or support into helping someone achieve their dreams, then you need to keep your mouth shut about their student loans and other issues. If you were not there for that student, you have no right to judge that student, simple as that. Maybe if you had been, they would not have needed the student loans. That is something that even some of you reading this now really need to understand and digest a bit.

Now, let me move onto the employers. Jobs often have high bars set for potential candidates, and while I understand that the company has a stake in investing in top talent to insure its own success, there is a serious problem. In setting sometimes unrealistic goals for hiring, many companies screw themselves by looking past talented individuals who could be assets to them. People who really want these jobs are working hard to get them - that is why they do all the degrees, certifications, and everything else asked of them. But, after all that work and investment, the poor candidate never hears a word back from an employer, and that can really be crushing for someone. So, to employers I say this - perhaps instead of treating people as commodities and mere means unto your greedy ends, maybe you should really get to know your candidates to truly assess their talents, and maybe it is the employer who needs to restructure what they do in order to allow talent to blossom and flourish. If you as an employer set these high educational bars for your candidates, at least have the decency to not disrespect their efforts by throwing their resumes into a trash bin. And, that being said, let me give one of my proposals for student loan forgiveness. Big corporations in particular get a lot of tax incentives, so I believe it is time to take some of those away and maybe start charging the corporations penalties for lack of interest in qualified candidates, and these penalties can then be applied toward a better student loan forgiveness program. Yes, I know - it sounds like a Democrat "tax the rich" scheme, but there is a clarification. Only the biggest and richest corporations would be subject to such a penalty, and not the small mom-and-pop business endeavors - many of the latter are actually more likely to hire decent people than are the big corporations. This proposal is not perfect, and this is more or less a draft version of it off the top of my head, but it would solve both the problems of student loan debt as well as employment statistics. Definitely worth our politicians thinking about.

I now want to address colleges and universities. The cost of tuition is the primary impetus for student loans, and the problem is that colleges and universities often inflate tuition prices to ridiculous amounts, and in many cases they are designed to be ridiculously expensive just to qualify for Federal aid. What is worse is that the students invest all this money, and then they are not even compensated for the education they worked for - employers do not hire them, and the jobs they do get are insufficient to cover the liability of their education costs. College tuition is something that needs to be more monitored and regulated honestly, as it should be considerably less than what it is.

Now that I have named the culprits, it is time to give a proposal for a solution. For one, I believe student loan debt is necessary, but it should not be universal - for those with ability and income to pay their monthly payments, they should do so. While there are things such as IBR and ISR programs that make payments more affordable and do provide eventual forgiveness, there needs to be something more. What I propose is actually very common-sense and would more or less give concessions to both sides of the debate. First, in reducing tuition costs at universities, the liability would be lessened that way. Also, imposition of penalties upon large corporations for their hiring practices would ensure that graduates would get positions they are qualified for. Third, for those graduating college, there is already a grace period in place of I believe 18 months maximum with no accumulated interest, and that is a good start. However, I think an additional benefit should be implemented - if a graduate fails to land a job in that time that is comparable to their qualifications, then there should be an amnesty in place to forgive student loan debt if they are under a certain income threshold. However, payment agreements should remain in place for those who are able, with a safety net for them as well in case an unforeseen circumstance impairs their ability to pay. We do have currently in place deferments and forbearances, and those are good for temporary relief and should be still kept in place, but a more long-term solution should be implemented to help those who are really struggling. This way then, there is not an excessive burden on the taxpayer, nor is there one on the student borrower either. While there are details to work out on all this, I believe this basic plan will be a good thing for everyone involved.

And, one final word on this. The whole universal student loan forgiveness debate, the high cost of tuition at universities, as well as some bad and very inadequate indoctrination by leftist faculty, has caused college education to be viewed very negatively now by conservatives, and that is unfortunate. I am a bit chagrined for instance at the flippant comments of some toward people who have degrees yet are not hired in jobs they trained for. Comments such as "well, go flip burgers at MacDonald's to pay your bills" are not only ignorant and stupid, but they are also unrealistic on two levels. First, do you really think that someone who has graduated with honors is going to be happy flipping burgers when they possess either a Bachelor's or a Master's? My guess is that person probably wanted to move beyond that in the first place, so why should they settle for that just to pay a stupid bill?? Second, do you think that MacDonald's is going to hire a person with a Master's in some field to dump frozen French fries into a basket and stick it into a deep fryer?? More than likely, the word "overqualified" will emerge, and the MacDonald's manager would end up hiring a high school senior or a retiree to do that job. To suggest that to a college graduate is also simplistic and unrealistic. I have even heard some prominent "Evangelical Christian" writers - one that comes to mind is a hack named Mary Hunt - say crap like this. All that being said, let me just end on this note - do not knock people who have education, and also do not be so quick to dismiss higher education. After all, the doctor that may do open-heart surgery on you one day will have a higher education, not to mention the attorney who may assist you in a legal issue, or the CPA doing your taxes, etc. While those are more practical examples, we also need dedicated and educated people to preserve our civilization - good educators, clergy, philosophers, etc., are integral to civilization. That is why we do not want to dismiss higher education in general. While it is not meant for everyone, higher education is still integral, and it must be encouraged. A way to encourage it would be to reform both the tuition system at universities and colleges as well as the whole student loan issue. Thank you for allowing me to share.

Review of Taylor Marshal, "Antichrist and Apocalypse"

2022-10-12T08:14:00.001-07:00

It has been a while since I have done a review on a book here, but I was sort of invited by the author to do so and I am mentioned in the acknowledgements of this book. The book is entitled Antichrist and Apocalypse: The 21 Prophecies of Revelation Unveiled and Described (Colleyville, TX: St. John Press, 2022). It is a well-written book overall, and I am honored to be one of the people Dr. Marshall chose to review it. There are a couple of things to discuss about it, and I will get to those momentarily, but first let me introduce Dr. Taylor Marshall to you.

Dr. Marshall, a native of Texas, is a former Anglican priest who, in the early 2000s I believe, converted to the Catholic Church and has since become a very influential voice for the more traditional type of Catholicism - he is pro-Traditional Latin Mass, he is very conservative, and to be honest I hold many of the same convictions he does on so many things. He has written several other books, most notably Infiltration, which is an update in many aspects of Michael Rose's 2002 book Goodbye Good Men. He also has a podcast on YouTube and some other platforms, and much of what he says is actually quite informative but also somewhat concerning as he exposes a lot of weird stuff going on in the Catholic hierarchy. As a traditional Catholic writer, Dr. Marshall is actually very sound, is faithful to the historic Magisterium, and he also does not pull punches when tackling serious issues of concern to the Catholic faithful. This latest book is essentially a study on the book of Revelation in Scripture, and it is sort of rare to see this type of book among traditional Catholics. There have been other great studies of both Revelation and eschatology from sound Catholic writers (two of the best, in my estimation, are Scott Hahn's The Lamb's Supper and Desmond Birch's Trial, Tribulation, and Triumph), but this particular volume may strike a chord with potential converts from Pentecostal or Fundamentalist backgrounds, as it deals with issues they are more familiar with. That being said, I want to talk at length about two areas in the book that caught my attention.

The first has to do with Dr. Marshall's identification of antichrist prototypes he notes in Scripture. This one was actually quite puzzling to me, in that beginning on page 230, Marshall identifies King Solomon as a prototype of the Antichrist! That was a new one for me, and I would respectfully disagree for reasons I will get into momentarily. First though, what reasoning does Dr. Marshall use for this? On page 231, he notes a few things that provide substantiation in his argument about Solomon:

1. Jewish and a son of King David

2. Born of fornication (product of David's affair with Bathsheba)

3. Allowing idols and false worship

4. Building the Temple

5. Extent of kingdom

6. Some rabbinic traditions call Solomon a "magician" and "sorcerer."

7. The fact his tribute was 666 talents of gold

First, while most of these facts are true about Solomon, it in no way infers he was a typology of the Antichrist. Scripture is filled with examples of otherwise holy men falling into temptation and sin - it is called human nature. The sin is not to be the focus of these examples, but rather God's plan and redemptive grace. Another point that Dr. Marshall might consider is this - Solomon is credited with writing at least three books of Scripture (Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes). Now, common sense will dictate that God is not going to use an antichrist to write his inspired Scripture! That would be counterproductive honestly in God's sovereign plan. Now, had Dr. Marshall said something like the Antichrist would imitate Solomon in some areas, that would have been different. Satan is said in Scripture to appear as an "angel of light," and he does corrupt certain things to deceive people, so I am not opposed to the idea that the Antichrist may mirror some of Solomon's actions, but it is very risky to call a traditional author of books of Scripture an "antichrist." Now, was Solomon perfect? Not at all - neither was King David, but God himself called David "a man after his own heart." Neither was Moses - a simple act of disobedience kept Moses from entering the Promised Land. And neither were the Apostles even - the disagreements between Saints Peter and Paul are well documented in Scripture, and they are there for people to read in plain language. Were King David, Moses, and Saints Peter and Paul prototypes of Antichrist? Not at all, and neither was Solomon. Therefore, I would part company with Dr. Marshall on that one. But, there is one prototype of the Antichrist in Scripture, and I noted that Dr. Marshall didn't even examine this, but I will briefly here.

If one turns to Genesis 10:8-12, there is a description of an individual who almost looks superhuman, and Tradition holds there is a reason for that - he was probably a Nephilim. He is described in the above passage as "the first on earth to be a mighty man. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord." The person we are talking about here is called Nimrod in Scripture, and all traditional accounts of this individual suggest that he was the first leader of a vast empire. The attributes given to this individual almost match those of the Antichrist in Revelation, more so than Solomon does. I dealt with this more in detail in my Genesis study I have on this site from a couple of years ago, but it bears mentioning here. I personally believe the Antichrist will be some form of the same spirit that embodied Nimrod. While he may emulate some of Solomon's achievements, he will be no Solomon. I think for those who read this section of Dr. Marshall's book, this should be kept in mind.

Another area of interest here regards how Dr. Marshall interprets Gog and Magog, which are the subject of Ezekiel 38. On page 103 of Dr. Marshall's book, he makes Gog and Magog the same as the Antichrist and his armies, based on the "red horse" passage in Revelation 6:3-4. This whole Gog and Magog discussion has been one discussed in regard to eschatology for decades honestly, and most people get it very wrong. For years, as an example, many Fundamentalist and Pentecostal dispensationalists said that this was a reference to Russia, largely due to the Soviets during the Cold War, so it was politically motivated. Some still carry on that mythos, now saying Putin is the identification of Gog and Magog. I dealt with this issue several years back in an article I wrote in a magazine I briefly published, and there are a few clarifications to make. First, "Gog" is a person, while "Magog" is a place. Second, "Gog" is not a proper name, but rather a title that corresponds to the concept of chief or king. Third, the location just does not correspond with Russia at all - as a matter of fact, it seems as if the location is east of Russia. Fourth, many scholars and commentators of all Christian traditions have traditionally understood the Gog/Magog phenomenon is distinct from the Antichrist, and even preceding Antichrist. With all that established, let me now give you my idea of what this possibly could be.

I have researched this myself for many years honestly, both as a Protestant and after my own conversion to Catholicism in 2000. I have read widely on this subject from a variety of sources, the most relevant to me being the late Greek Orthodox theologian Apostolos Makrakis, as well as medieval Armenian visionaries. In reading these, there is one thing that sticks out prominently - people started writing about this topic between the years 1200 and 1500, and that corresponds with several things - the Mongol invasions, as well as the rise of the Seljuk and later Ottoman Turks. There are countless references from these early writers that equate the "land of Magog" with the ancestral homeland of the Turks in central Asia. In all honesty, that actually makes much more sense than both the Evangelical dispensationalist fixation with Russia or even Dr. Marshall's equating Gog/Magog with the Antichrist. And, given the recent souring of relations between the current Turkish dictator Erdogan and the nation of Israel, I am starting to think I may be proven correct as that is exactly what Ezekiel 38 talks about. I am also honest enough to admit I could be wrong, and perhaps with further research I may discover something else, but in all honesty I have believed this for close to 25 years now, and no evidence has come forth to change my mind on it yet. Therefore, while I appreciate what Dr. Marshall is proposing, at the same time the facts just do not add up on that.

In all honesty, those were really the only two areas of disagreement I would have with Dr. Marshall's thesis, as for the most part I have been reading everything else he's written and it more or less does mirror my own conclusions on the issues. Also, these two areas are not really something that are cardinal mistakes - Dr. Marshall just has a different conclusion, and although I do not agree with it I respect it because it shows he is studying what he says, and there is no fault in that at all. I would strongly recommend Dr. Marshall's book, and it is definitely an important work for us as Catholics to examine at this juncture. For too many years, the market was dominated with Fundamentalist and Pentecostal Protestant volumes on this topic, and to be honest, a lot of those were proven wrong - Hal Lindsay's Late Great Planet Earth, for instance, is now sadly outdated. Even my distant cousin Perry Stone, who wrote that the Antichrist would be an Islamic Mahdi, was writing more about the political climate of the times (this was right after 9/11) than substantial Scriptural research over the centuries. This is why in many aspects, even if one disagrees with the conclusions, Dr. Marshall's book is actually refreshing. However, if you are going to embark on a study of Revelation, it would be prudent to utilize his book alongside others such as Desmond Birch's or Scott Hahn's, keeping in mind the traditional four-fold hermeneutic - read for the Literal, Allegorical, Moral, and Anagogical senses of Scripture, and understand that all four of these can be true at once. Thank you, and may you be blessed as you go about your daily business.

Melancholy and Openness

2022-05-12T09:57:00.003-07:00

As I write this today, it has been a while since I have posted much - a lot has been going on. My doctoral work, for one thing, takes up a lot of time, and I have also been dealing with personal matters. My mother, Daisy Thrower, passed away on March 28 of this year. After suffering a fall due in part to a stroke she had in December, Mom's health had been in decline for several months. This entailed several visits to the hospital as well as an extended rehab stay in a nursing facility in nearby Boonsboro. With the passing of a parent, for those of us who have experienced it you know it is inevitable, but it still creates a shock when it happens, and this did. After she passed on March 28th, I made the arrangements and had her buried with the VA's help on April 7th in a beautiful cemetery, Rocky Gap Veteran's Cemetery, just east of Cumberland. One of the reasons for writing this today is that after a couple of months it is all finally sinking in, and I am feeling it immensely today. There are a couple of insights about this I want to share as they are important to the story itself.

For those of us who were in high school during the mid-1980s, it was still a time when network TV was still the primary mode of entertainment - this was before Netflix, Hulu, and YouTube, and many people were still having to watch TV with either conventional cable or with an aerial antenna. For those of us with the latter, that meant that channels to watch were extremely limited, and usually there were 3-5 local channels to choose from. During this time, it was also the era of the epic mini-series, which was a multi-part movie based on a novel. Many of those were really good, but three that ABC aired then are of particular significance because they were my favorites. The first was the John Jakes novel North and South, which ended up being a three-part miniseries that aired between 1985 and 1994. The second were sequel series, based on Herman Wouk's two books Winds of War and War and Remembrance. These mini-series were top-notch productions, with all-star casts (Robert Mitchum had the starring role in the second, and Patrick Swayze in the first) and authentic sets - War and Remembrance in particular ended up being the most expensive film ever produced, at what amounted to $253 million in today's economy. However, the effort was excellent, and the movies are masterpieces of modern cinema - nothing has come close to them since honestly. Over the years, I have re-watched these several times, as I own them on DVD, and I always come away with how powerful those films really were. War and Remembrance in particular always leaves a powerful impression on me, and over the past week I just re-watched it again and doing so coincided with a lot of personal things I am grappling with, and I will be talking about that momentarily. First though, given that this is from a theological and philosophical perspective, I wanted to just do a short reflection based on what I am about to talk about.

In the Psalms, King David faced times when he felt overwhelmed - the feeling of loneliness, of uncertainty, and of just loss is a part of the human condition - in Psalm 38 for instance, he writes "my friends and companions stand aloof from my plague, and my nearest kin stands far off." Then there is the entire story of Job - he was in a bind himself, but never lost hope. You wonder how that can be, but having been there and even experiencing this now, the answer is simple - I have no one else to turn to but God. It is during those times, when one feels a heaviness and even is kept awake at night, that all one desires is a shoulder to cry on, or just to be embraced by someone who is just there - we often don't have that, and so we have to rely on God. If one has a pet, they also can sense that something isn't right, and surprisingly they can be a great comfort - my little tortoiseshell cat, for instance, soothes me when I feel a bit under that strange magenta haze; hearing her purr while gently petting her is comforting; it isn't the same as a close friend's or spouse's shoulder to lean on, but it helps. Now that I have described the feeling - which I am sure some can relate to - I want to now address what I call "triggers" that evoke it.

When you go through a lot of things hitting you at once, oftentimes you are just too busy to notice that it has an effect. However, at some point, the realization begins to sink in, and that is when it can be really heavy on one's spirit. For me recently, it took a trigger to evoke the uncertainty and other feelings I have had for months, and that is where War and Remembrance comes in. In re-watching that last week, there is one aspect of a movie that many overlook, as at times it is often forgettable - the soundtrack music. Soundtracks can be good, most are not-so-good, but on occasion a soundtrack to a film is so poignant that if it hits you at the right moment, it will evoke something. The soundtrack to both Winds of War and War and Remembrance consists of music composed by Emmy Award-winning composer Robert Cobert (1924-2020). Cobert was a gifted composer, and what he did with the soundtrack for these movies is nothing short of phenomenal, as they are the best film scores ever. The music itself is evocative emotionally, as it fits perfectly with the scenes in the films, and the beauty of the score is something you just don't see anymore in film soundtracks (James Horner was also another one of those excellent soundtrack composers too). The reason that this is important is that for some reason I felt compelled to re-watch both Winds of War and War and Remembrance at a time I was processing grief and uncertainty, much of which I have not shared with any living soul aside from God himself. In talking about this, there is a certain lesson entailed I want to talk about now.

Going back to Aquinas, there are three transcendental properties of being which are not only associated with having their source in God, but indeed God is seen as the fulness of all three - those are Truth, Beauty, and Goodness. The creative aspects of the arts really should bring alive those attributes, and music is no different. The eminent conservative philosopher Sir Roger Scruton talks about this at length in his book The Aesthetics of Music when he talks about the German term Einfulung, which is a type of empathy entailed with interaction by a person with a piece of art. As he notes, this entails two aspects, the first being a more "subjective" state of mind, and the second being the effect on the mental state of the observer, revealing a form of knowledge contained in each - the observer enters into, in some respects, to the subject of the piece's point of view (Sir Roger Scruton, The Aesthetics of Music {New York: Oxford University Press, 1997}: 360-364). As he further notes, the expressive and ineffable go together, and the observer enters into the recognition of expression that is a continuation of imaginative activity which aids in giving a unique understanding to how the music is interpreted. What is odd about this, however at least in my experience, is that a piece of music may evoke a different imaginative vision than the composer's, and thus take on a whole new dimension to the listener that maybe the composer never intended, which is fascinating. In other words, music is a powerful stimulus for evoking things, and the chords of a symphonic work or a film score can impact us in a way that the composer may not have anticipated, and that leads to something profound in the listener. When the life circumstance of a listener is figured into the equation, the profundity of impact is more pronounced. That leads to something else about one of the transcendental properties, Beauty.

At times, the concept of Beauty that society conveys often wrongly equates it with happiness, but in reality, beauty can be sad too, and sad beauty is an experience that will really reach into the depths of the most sphynx-like of human souls. God, as the source and embodiment of Beauty, often uses this to draw us closer to him, and at times he uses the most unlikely of things. God does not just speak through things published in hymnals as far as music is concerned, as truly great music ultimately has him as its source, and the the fact he endowed human beings with creative ability means that even the most personally debased individual is capable of producing something of profound beauty. This is why, when I was growing up, I often had a huge issue with the ultra-conservative Pentecostal mindset I had to deal with regarding my family and some churches in my younger years. They seemed to labor under the delusion that the only "acceptable" music to listen to had to either come out of hymnals or was the chart-topping Southern Gospel hit of the day just because a "Jesus" or two was thrown in. What such short-sighted individuals failed to understand, however, is that God is the source of beauty even in the natural world, and thus a humanity created in His image could produce things of beauty even when not in direct relationship with him. Growing up in adverse conditions as I did as a matter of fact, I attribute God to giving me a love for vintage big band records at an early age, when most of my peers were listening to stuff like KISS or Michael Jackson. The richness of that music helped shape me, and it kept me at a level to where I was not really subject to more destructive aspects of peer pressure. And, big bands are not Gospel music and hymns by any stretch, but God used that interest to bring me to where I am now. In other words, not all secular or non-religious music is bad. If we said it was, we would actually be slapping God in the face by saying somehow his creation is not up to our standards, which is stupid. Therefore, it is very possible to have a genuine emotional response to a piece of music such as Katchaturian's Valse Masquerade, Sibelius's Finlandia, Stravinsky's Le Sacre du Printemps, Shostakovich's Seventh Symphony, Copland's Appalachian Spring, or the phenomenal recordings of artists such as Mario Lanza. Into that group I would also include Cobert's film scores to Winds of War and War and Remembrance. This is where I want to tell the story of my experience now.

Over the past few years I have been challenged with a lot of things - a divorce, the death of both of my parents, and some financial challenges brought on due to COVID and other factors. I have been somewhat uncertain about so many things lately that it has been very hard to process things, but as I said earlier, at some point reality does start to sink in, and when it does it can be overwhelming. That happened to me last night. As I mentioned, I had just finished re-watching both Winds of War and War and Remembrance over the past week, and in doing so, again those movies made a powerful impact. Late last night, as I was pondering some things, the haunting melody sequence of those films came into my mind, and it merged with the concerns and apprehensions I have had in recent weeks. As if all at once, all of a sudden the reality of Mom's recent passing hit me like a ton of bricks, as well as a few other things that have been on my mind, and as that melody from the films was going through my mind also, something happened - a heaviness and a sadness descended upon me, and it actually caused me to have emotion during my morning prayers. The tender melancholy of the tune from the film score really hit me deep in my soul, and it brought to the surface how I was feeling. At that moment, I actually desired a shoulder to just cry on, as the reality of everything just knocked the proverbial wind out of my sails. Not knowing what else to do, I picked up my tortoiseshell cat Lily and just held her - she began purring and rubbing on me, and that was soothing. Never underestimate the therapeutic benefits of having a pet; they do become precious companions in times like that. At that point, I just decided to open up to God, and for the first time in a while I was able to just talk - no one else was in the room, and all that was there was me, my two cats, and the Lord. I believe he ordered all this for a reason, in that often he moves upon people in unexpected ways. It was no accident then that I chose to re-watch one of my all-time favorite epic movies, but who would have thought God would use the soundtrack music of that film to touch my heart and bring me to a place where I could open to him about really what was burdening me? I still feel a little of that heaviness, but to be honest, the soft beauty of that movie score has a certain comfort to it too. I still have uncertainty about what is going to happen, and I also am starting to really miss my parents' presence now, as the realization is setting in that they are gone, and it is an overwhelming feeling. But, it feels good knowing that God hears me, as do others who I know are praying for me too, and I cannot stress how thankful I am for dedicated prayer warriors who intercede for me - they do not know everything about what I am experiencing (to be honest, I cannot articulate a lot either) but their prayers do help me. That being said, I wanted to just share a couple of other thoughts.

Being both a typical guy and also a native West Virginian, at times I come across like a sphynx emotionally - I share that in common with the character Admiral Victor "Pug" Henry from Wouk's novels. I am not an emotionally expressive person, but I also do have human limitations as we all do. In order for something to grow at times, it has to be watered by torrential rains in a storm. The storms of life water the seeds of blessing, and without the tears of sadness at times, the blessing does not get watered. The seed can fall on the most fertile of soil, but if it is not properly irrigated, it will not grow. Often, when we are on the verge of a new beginning, something will happen to maybe break us so that we can shed the junk we have been holding onto through tears of sorrow, and it is at that point the gentle hand of the Lord comes and caresses us - He is our shoulder to cry on when we think we have no one else. And, He uses things that we would never expect to make the breakthrough - in my case, it was a poignantly beautiful film score. I needed to write this today for several reasons. One, I am a human being just like all of you reading this - I face sorrows, uncertainties, and adversities, and there are limits I reach at times and need to just release things to God's hands. Secondly, in writing it, I am hoping to encourage others who may read this because I know I am not the only one facing things in life - we all need that loving hand to reach out to us, and consider this mine reaching out to you. Third, never dismiss or discard unlikely sources of inspiration, as the natural world is God's creation too and he can use anything to reach out to us and let us know he is there. Finally, do not think you have to be a stone fortress of no emotion or a happy-go-lucky "Pollyanna:" you are a human being, and sadness is a part of the human experience too, and there is nothing wrong with just letting it go and even shedding some tears once in a while - we men need to understand that better. One of the most beautiful liturgies of the Church, the Armenian Divine Liturgy of Komitas Vartabed, even reflects melancholy - Komitas was an Armenian priest who was so psychologically damaged by the atrocities of the Turks during the Armenian Genocide that he ended up in an asylum in France where he spent his final days, yet this liturgy is one of the most profound in that it expresses "beauty in sadness" yet also exalts Christ. We as Christians need to understand profundity again, as well as a concept that the Russians understand as Umilenie, that being an emotional response that defies words and often is expressed by the near-shedding of tears. Tears are produced in adversity, pain, and grief, but they provide nourishment to the seeds of new beginnings most of the time. Likewise too, Jesus shed His Blood and tears to bring the greatest blessing of all - the salvation of our souls and eternal life. We receive it at conversion, and it is a grace (and an act of love) He gives us in the Sacraments too. May that be our "Easter Revelation" this year as we continue to celebrate this season of the Resurrection.

The Great Depression from an Integralist/Distributist Perspective

2021-11-24T07:47:00.001-08:00

In assessing the financial background of the causes of the Great Depression, it is important to understand that underlying political and social factors were intertwined with the economic factors which produced this phenomenon. In dealing with this, I am taking this from the point of two traditionalist Catholic positions, Integralism and Distributism, and will analyze based on many writers from those positions what created the Depression, and in many aspects how World War II aided in recovery. However, some of the writers referenced were published before the Great Depression, but their insights are what many later researchers based their conclusions upon.

In reading Ben S. Bernanke’s analysis of this, he points to two factors which were underlying components in the Great Depression happening[1]:

1. Failure of Financial Institutions

2. Widespread Insolvency of Debtors

By the first, Bernanke is talking about the failure of small local banks to handle financial complexities of a national economy, something the position of this article will differ with radically. On the contrary, the tendency of larger banks to swallow up smaller institutions, as was the case of “crony capitalism,” may have been more of a contributing factor in this. This causes, as Crean and Fimister note, a situation where the sale of the use of money (excessive interest) is in essence a form of legalized fraud in that the use of such money is distinct from its alienation and thus makes the acquisition of capital more important to the larger institution rather than its circulation into the economy[2]. As Catholic philosopher/theologian Romano Guardini notes, the problem here is one fundamentally in the exercise of power. He writes[3]:

“A more immediate danger threatens when power is at the disposal of a will that is either morally misguided or morally uncommitted. Or there may be no appealable will at all, no person answerable for power, only an anonymous organization, each department of which transfers its authority to the next, thus leaving each – seemingly – exempt from responsibility.”

Brazilian Catholic philosopher and economic commentator Plinio Correa de Oliviera notes something similar when he writes in his seminal text Revolution and Counter-Revolution the following[4]:

“Private enterprise is more and more limited. Inheritance taxes are so onerous that in certain cases the federal treasury is the principal heir. Government interference in such things as exchange, import, and export makes industry, commerce, and banking dependent on the state.”

The danger of this type of situation was noticed by Hilaire Belloc, who wrote in his seminal text The Servile State that this type of corporate capitalism (he called it “perfect capitalism”) would not be feasible in that no one outside a cabal of economic elitists the average person would be deprived of basic essentials such as food, and those who were among these economic elitists would overproduce, glut the markets, and thus initiate economic depression[5]. In view of these writers, Bernanke’s thesis about the cause being the failure of smaller banks is at variance with the views of these earlier writers, in that the larger institutions tended to grab resources for themselves, thus altering the markets and causing both consumer demand and market supply to become unbalanced, and thus causing the Depression. Many of these same thinkers would not view in a positive light the idea of “corporate capitalism” therefore, in favor of the small business instead. The lack of focus on investment in small businesses, according to these schools of thought (called Integralism and Distributism) caused many small businesses to falter, and thus adversely affected the local economy. Bankrupting the grassroots market, then, would have been the ultimate cause of the 1929 Crash that brought on the Great Depression when seen from this perspective.

Looking at it from that perspective, it could actually be easily concluded that a fundamental change in the political order also may have aided in the evolution of factors that led to the Great Depression, as well as the civil and political unrest seen for many decades of the previous century. Until 1914, there was a stable Monarchist political order – Hapsburg Austria, czarist Russia, etc. When war and revolution destabilized many of those monarchies and caused a shift in the social order, it caused some upheaval in Europe in particular. So, what does that have to do with the United States, which was never Monarchist and also where the 1929 Crash originated? Although the US is a republican government, in values and civilization it was still tied to classical Europe, and according to many Catholic thinkers in particular – Monarchists, Distributists, Integralists, etc. – the collapse of the “old order” in Europe had a catastrophic domino effect that was felt worldwide. Many scholars would even argue actually that World Wars I and II were in reality on 31-year conflict, and the Depression was located at the central chronological apex of this. If that be the case, it would mean that socio-political, as well as economic, factors are what made the Great Depression happen.

As can be seen, there is a variance in theories between Bernanke and the classic Catholic writers on economics and social theories, and that variance places the causation of the Depression on two different things – Bernanke and others like him would say that the small banks and small business was the cause, while Belloc and others would note that bigger corporate interests, allowed to grow unchecked in the new “corporatist” system, were the cause. Personally, the second view seems to have more credence, as it does appear that larger interests such as mega-banks and large corporations sought to monopolize certain sectors and accumulate their fortunes at the expense of the local businesses that built the individual local economies, that in turn made a stronger national economic stability possible. As the bigger corporations made it so they had international reach, they then could even dictate the economies of nations. It also would impact significantly local communities (case in point, the city of Gary, Indiana – the major industries who at one time provided an economic base in Gary eventually abandoned their endeavors there in order to pursue markets that were more favorable to them) even beyond the timeframe of the Great Depression. Although it sounds conspiratory, evidence suggests that a similar role is being played today by mega-corporations, especially the new “Silicon Valley” group that exercise almost a monolithic control over cybercommunications. If this is the case, it begs the question as to whether or not a second Great Depression could happen, and that is something that surely should be paid closer attention.

[1] Ben S. Bernanke, “Nonmonetary Effects of the Financial Crisis in the Propagation of the Great Depression,” American Economic Review 73, no. 3 (1983): 258-261.

[2] Thomas Crean and Alan Fimister, Integralism: A Manual of Political Philosophy (Havertown, PA: Casemate Publishers, 2020): 191.

[3] Romano Guardini, The End of the Modern World (Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1998): 124.

[4] Plinio Correa de Oliviera, Revolution and Counter-Revolution (Spring Grove, PA: American TFP, 1993): 111-112.

[5] Hilaire Belloc, The Servile State (London: T.N. Foulis, 1912): 55-56.

There's Always One!

2021-11-13T13:14:00.002-08:00

For those of you who know me over the years, I am an alumnus of Franciscan University of Steubenville, as well as a convert to the Catholic Church from the Pentecostal tradition. While at Steubenville, I had the privilege of being under the tutelage of a brilliant professor by the name of Scott Hahn. Dr. Hahn, like me, is a convert to the Church, and his story is very well-known. He also has published many phenomenal books - some in collaboration with equally-brilliant scholars such as Benjamin Wiker, John Bergsma, and Brant Pitre. He is a stellar human being as well as being a capable Biblical scholar and theologian, and his insights over the years have been a major benefit to me as well as many others. Yet, no one is loved by everyone, and of course it was only a matter of time before Dr. Hahn's detractors would come out of the woodwork, like barnacles off an old rusty ship. Some have disagreed with him before, including a former classmate of his and fellow convert (who is now a sedevacantist Catholic) but the name of Gerry Matatics, but for the most part even they have refrained from attacking his scholarship and resorting to ad hominem BS. But, there is always one of course who will stoop to that level, and recently he revealed who he was.

Sean Swain Martin, self-identified "doctoral student" who is obsessed with Scott Hahn

Sean Swain Martin is, by his own designation, a "doctoral student" now at the University of Dayton, and he wrote a book recently called American Pope: Scott Hahn and the Rise of Catholic Fundamentalism. I haven't read it, and to be honest the title of the thing tells me all I need to know. However, Eric Sammons, the editor of Crisis Magazine, did review the book, and it was worse than I would have thought it to be. Martin is, just by his attitude, more than likely a theological liberal - he doesn't like evangelization, and anything that shows the average Catholic in the pew getting enthusiastic about their faith is for him a form of "fundamentalism." This elitist snobbery (which bears a theological term for those who possess it - pompous ass) is something I have seen before. About ten years ago, a similar attitude was expressed by Lee Roy Martin, who at the time was the President of the Society for Pentecostal Socialists - oops, I mean "Studies!" - made a comment in regard to a renegade theologically liberal Assemblies of God professor who used to be Paul Alexander (he has since declared himself "transgender" and is going by the name April these days - mental illness masquerading as scholarship is ridiculous but seems to be accepted for some reason) that really raised my hackles then. When confronted with his controversial stand, Martin said this: "In fact, I would insist in the strongest terms that our scholars are more devoted to the Pentecostal faith than are Pentecostal laity and ministers in general" (Mark Tooley, "Society for Pentecostal Studies President Reacts to Paul Alexander Controversy," Juicy Ecumenism: The Institute on Religion and Democracy's Blog. April 10, 2013, at https://juicyecumenism.com/2013/04/10/society-for-pentecostal-studies-president-reacts-to-paul-alexander-controversy/ - Accessed November 13, 2021). I see a similar attitude with Sean Swain Martin in his comments in the book about Catholic laity studying Scripture. And, that leads me to a couple of observations.

First, what in blazes is the deal with these guys with the surname Martin?? This guy, Lee Roy Martin, "Father" James Martin - seriously! All of them are liberal, pompous, and they are giving that surname a bad reputation. I mean, in collecting vintage big band recordings, I am a big fan of the late Freddy Martin's orchestra, but I doubt if Freddy, if he were alive, would have much in common with those sharing the surname. And, I don't think it should be an indictment against others with that surname either - there are probably a lot of good people with the last name Martin who would actually be a little shocked at the attitudes of these jerks. That has about as much to do with the subject as the price of tea in Taiwan, but it is odd that all of the culprits of the craft of pompous assery have the same surname. Are they related? That would bear more investigation, but that goes beyond the scope of this discussion.

Sean Martin, like his distant cousin Lee Roy (if they are related) seems to have a similar disdain for Catholics who want to study Scripture, and he is really upset that Dr. Hahn has been encouraging them to do so - oh the horror! I mean, think about it - Biblically-literate lay Catholics who become more appreciative of their faith. After all, it might be a revelation to those messing with Pachamama idols or something, God forbid. Sean, do us all a favor, bro - get a real hobby and stop trying to play theologian. In his own words, here is what esteemed scholar Sean Martin thinks of you if you read your Bible daily as a lay Catholic, as Eric Sammons quotes him - "It would be difficult to expect each individual Catholic to be prepared to offer such a careful investigation of the different literary forms employed, cultural influences manifest, etc., in the Scriptures so as to easily move from familiarity to 'eminent knowability." (Eric Sammons, "Is Scott Hahn a Fundamentalist?" Crisis Magazine Website, https://www.crisismagazine.com/2021/is-scott-hahn-a-fundamentalist?fbclid=IwAR0kQYvUIHbNjI87KZOmgrUKEIIvq0vamZUViuy7nR_334jY0T1D6rP41Yw, November 11, 2021 - Accessed November 13, 2021). Oh really, Doctor Sean?? I don't think that the average lay Catholic is seeking to be a textual scholar - they read Scripture for spiritual growth, not to be a Greek scholar. And, if it does motivate some of them to study further, what in hell does it have to do with you, Sean?? Methinks Sean, like so many others, feels threatened - academics don't appreciate when people read for themselves and do as II Timothy 2:15 admonishes, "studying to show themselves approved." However, Dr. Hahn is not your typical academic - he is also an inspiration as a faithful lay Catholic himself who happens to have theological credentials and he doesn't feel threatened by people learning things; if he did, he would not be an educator to begin with, would he? Dr. Hahn is a phenomenal scholar, but he is not pompous or an elitist academic - he is a man who lives his faith, and has a passion for sharing it, and the way he does so is by discipling others to grow in theirs by knowing what Scripture says for themselves. Sean, though, is not that devout in his faith I would bet - my guess, just by reading some of his material on his blog, is that he doesn't believe the Bible is even true, so he feels threatened by others who take it seriously. Sean would be better off as an Episcopalian maybe, as a church of rich White snobs might suit him better than the culturally-diverse atmosphere of an orthodox Catholic parish. And, it is possible that Sean is being bankrolled by rich White snobs who think like he does, so he has to know how to pucker up to their posteriors. His scholarship, though, is lacking - he derides Dr. Hahn for appealing to the laity, yet his own writing style is pretentious, verbose, and also focusing on irrelevant crap that brings nothing to the discussion. Also, Dr. Hahn is a doctor - Sean is merely a doctoral student, as I am myself - perhaps he needs to wait until he can prefix his name with the letters "Dr." before he claims to know more than someone who actually has earned those credentials.

Despite how I just shredded Sean, I feel sorry for him - he is so limited (I believe Sammons used the word "small-minded") that he cannot even see what he clearly needs to. And, it has made him a professional theologian who has no real faith except academic elitism and the idolatry of status he engages in. If he doesn't have an encounter with the real Jesus of the Eucharist and doesn't get the desire to deepen his faith, he may regret it one day when the torments of hell wrack his soul. I only pray he finds out sooner than later.

The Wizard Clip Phenomenon - A Part of Local Catholic West Virginia History

2021-06-03T08:57:00.003-07:00

(Note - for regular readers of my blog page, this is part of a class assignment in my doctoral program, but it is available to all regular readers to enjoy as well)

Introduction

When one thinks of the state of West Virginia, often an association with Catholic faith is furthest from their mind. Religious expression in West Virginia - indeed in the greater Appalachian region - is often confined to stereotypes of eccentric revivalists handling rattlesnakes while being exhorted by emotional preachers shouting hellfire-and-brimstone sermons at them. In reality though, there has been a Catholic presence in the state since colonial times, and it is a subject that has not been explored as much but perhaps should be.

Although for the most part the Catholic presence in West Virginia is primarily focused on the northern half of the state and has greatly increased since the late 19th century due to an influx of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe. However, the earliest Catholic parishes in the state date back to at least the late 1700s. Many of them were established under the oversight of the Archbishop of Baltimore, and to this day the current Catholic Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston in West Virginia is still under the provincial jurisdiction of the Archdiocese of Baltimore.

The Catholic history of West Virginia does have occasional vignettes of certain events and legends that also are endemic to the folklore of the state, and one of those happened in the 1790's at a farm just southwest of Shepherdstown in a location known simultaneously over the years as Smithfield or Middleway. The incident is known popularly as the "Wizard Clip Legend," and this is what I want to focus on in this article.

Relationship to the Archdiocese of Baltimore

Before getting into the specifics of the "Wizard Clip" story, there are two important Catholic hierarchs of the time who had at least indirect involvement in the whole matter. The first was Archbishop John Carroll (1735-1815), who was the first diocesan bishop in the United States. Carroll was part of a very prestigious Catholic family that included among others the only Catholic signatory of the Declaration of Independence, Charles Carroll, who was his cousin. As part of his jurisdiction, many Catholic parishes on the "frontier" (including what is now eastern West Virginia) were under his leadership. Archbishop Carroll was also the founder of Georgetown University in Washington, DC.

The second individual of note was a hierarch in the Church who was closer to the frontier and had a more direct involvement in parish affairs in the region, Bishop Demetri Gallitzin (1770-1840). Known as "the Apostle to the Alleghenies," Gallitzin was of noble birth, being related to both the Romanovs of Russia and to Prussian von Schmettau family. While still relatively young at the time of the "Wizard Clip" occurrences, Gallitzin would have some involvement with the situation later.

These two hierarchs are important due to the importance of the episcopacy to Roman Catholic parish life, and it is integral to the story as they are the ones who facilitated a Catholic presence in the area.

Wizard Clip

The "Wizard Clip" legend centers around the personage of a farmer by the name of Adam Livingston, who was initially a Lutheran from York County, PA. A series of misfortunes led to his leaving Pennsylvania and settling in the Virginia Colony in the "frontier" (present-day Jefferson County, WV) region, where land was abundant and available. Despite the move, he still continued to have unexplained incidents that were inexplicable, and it led to many of his livestock suddenly dying off and other odd phenomena. It led to a lot of casual talk among locals about the "Wizard Clip," and local clergy - Anglican and others - had made visits there to exorcised what they believed to be a demonic manifestation but to no avail. In having a dream that he took as a vision entailing a vivid picture of a Catholic priest, Livingston then sought out the counsel of a priest at the local Catholic parish in nearby Shepherdstown, and that particular priest was the one he had seen in the dream. This led to Livingston and his family converting to the Catholic faith, and soon after he was instructed to partake of the sacrament of Confession and to fast for 40 days. The priest, as was later revealed, was Fr. Dennis Cahill who was the vicar of St. Mary Church in Hagerstown, MD. With the help of a local family named McSherry, the Livingstons were able to get Fr. Cahill (who was initially skeptical of the experience) to perform an exorcism on the farm house, and after a second visit where a Mass was celebrated, the phenomena that had plagued the farm and its family immediately ceased. At this point is where Bishop Gallitzin enters the picture.

Gallitzin at this point was still a relatively young priest, and he was sent in 1797 to investigate the "Wizard Clip" phenomenon by his superiors. Bishop Carroll had ordained Gallitzin to the priesthood two years earlier, and when he arrived he interviewed the McSherry family, with whom he remained close for many years. Gallitzin was somewhat more receptive to what had happened than had Fr. Cahill initially been, and he would be one of the major commentators on the whole event for years to come.

The exploration of the name "Wizard Clip" has been a bit elusive in research, and no explanation has been offered as to where this designation came from. However, in local symbolism, it is often designated with the symbols of a half-moon and a pair of scissors.

Conclusion

It is important to remember that although at times folklore and legend may not bear much on a "serious" study of history, the local legends of a given area are integral in reality to their history, and thus are valuable for historical documentation. This is particularly true in regard to a little-researched subject such as the antebellum history of the Catholic Church in what is now West Virginia. Also, the "Wizard Clip" mystery, from a religious perspective, is testimonial in nature and thus of significant importance to a richer understanding of Catholic life and how it relates to spirituality as well as history.

References:

Brown, Raphael. The Mystery of Wizard Clip. Fitzwilliam, NH: Loreto Publications, 2010.

Campbell, Emma Mellon. "The Apostle to the Alleghenies." Pennsylvania History 12, no. 4 (October 1945): 323-325.

Devitt, E.I. "Miscellaneous Letters to Bishop John Carroll 1784-1815 (Originals in Baltimore Archdiocesan Archives)." Records of the American Catholic Historical Society of Philadelphia 19, no. 4 (December 1908): 385-415.

Finotti, Joseph M. The Mystery of the Wizard Clip: A Monograph. Baltimore: Kelly, Piet, and Co., 1879.

Salt - A Lesson

2021-05-09T10:05:00.004-07:00

You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing anymore but to be cast out and to be trodden on by men. (Matthew 5:13)

Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? (Mark 9:50)

Let your conversation be seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone. (Colossians 4:6)

I am a regular listener to Dr. Taylor Marshall, a former Episcopal priest who converted to the Catholic Church and is now an unwavering voice for traditionalist Catholic faith. At the end of his broadcasts, he references the first of the above verses and admonishes his listeners to "go out and be salty!" He says this to emphasize that we have a mission of evangelization as Catholics, and it's actually sound advice. However, his mentioning that as well as hearing a similar sermon from late Presbyterian minister, Dr. D. James Kennedy, on the same subject got me thinking about what this allegory of "salt" in Scripture is really about? In order to explain it better, let me first delve into a fundamental chemistry lesson about salt to give some perspective.

What we call "salt" is a chemical compound called sodium chloride, and if you look it up on a periodic chart, it is designated by the symbol NaCl. However, sodium chloride is not the only salt, as the chemical definition of a "salt" is chemical compound of cations (positive ions) and anions (negative ions) which produce a electrically neutral substance. This also makes it a type of non-conducive (meaning that it cannot be a conduit for an electrical charge) mineral. Salts can be alkaline (as is sodium chloride) or acidic. Other types of common salts are MSG, the notorious additive in some Chinese takeout food, and ammonia. In the case of sodium chloride, it is composed of a cation (positive) called sodium, and an anion called chlorine, which is a gas. Both of these substances are highly toxic, as sodium is highly corrosive, and chlorine gas will cause respiratory distress that can lead to death. All of these factors lead to the study at hand now.

So, you have two toxic substances - sodium and chlorine gas - that produce something that is actually essential for the human body. And, this is the language that Jesus and the Apostles use in Scripture to describe the attitude of the believer. There is a very important lesson in this as it leads to consideration of how two toxic things can be synthesized to create something beneficial, and here is the lesson. Our human nature is by nature sinful due to the Fall in Genesis 3, and it possesses a trait endemic to the Fall called concupiscence. As natural sodium in its pure state is highly corrosive and toxic, our human nature is likewise corrupted and can corrode our being. Likewise, the law, while it has a good premise, can also be strangling, much in the same way as chlorine is in its pure state - the pure form of chlorine in liquid form we are all familiar with around our homes is something called bleach. If you are around bleach for too long, it can be very rough on the respiratory system, but also there is another problem - chlorine bleach, if mixed with another alkaline substance such as ammonia, can be highly toxic and will kill you, as it gives off noxious fumes - I learned that the hard way many years back when trying to clean a cat litter box with bleach; big mistake there! It took me several hours to recover from exposure to those fumes, which when they reacted actually produced a vapor cloud that was so toxic that one had to leave the area. The Law is like that as well - while it restrains evil, trying to live up to its standards by yourself can be a fatal thing, much like chlorine gas. So, there you have it - a substance that can actually erode flesh, like pure sodium, and a gas that can suffocate a person, like chlorine gas, can be deadly by themselves and are not fit for human consumption in their pure states. But, when a reaction causes them to combine, they produce a substance (sodium chloride, or table salt) that is essential to the human body and its functions. Likewise, something needs to reconcile the Law and our fallen nature, as they cannot be reconciled on their own, and that is why a third element is needed, and that element is supernatural grace, only given through the Person of Christ and His atonement. This is where we are going.

The Incarnation reconciled two things - it perfected human nature and reconciled the Law, and it did so through the impartation of supernatural grace. Christ is the personification of supernatural grace, and He is also the product of reconciliation between divine law and human nature. When we receive Christ as Savior both by confession and via the sacramental life of the Church, He becomes part of us, and we then also become a "salt" that shares that grace through evangelization to others. This is why Dr. Marshall actually is right in admonishing us to "stay salty," and now we will examine briefly the benefits of that "saltiness."

Salt has a number of beneficial uses, and here are a few of them:

1. Preservation - salt prevents decay and spoilage, and food treated with it lasts much longer.

2. Cleansing - Salt is the original disinfectant, as it is used to clean everything from contact lenses (which would be called saline solution) to even use in dishwashing processes - the granular action of salt makes it naturally abrasive, and the chlorine component actually sterilizes.

3. Healing - Salt has therapeutic qualities that are related to both its preservation and cleansing. To "rub salt in a wound" is an aphorism that is based on this principle. Salt will heal a wound naturally, which is why many people soak parts of their body in salt water to disinfect and cleanse cuts, blisters, and other such things and it also comes in handy for gargling in case of upper respiratory infections.

4. Flavor - Salt is used as a seasoning to add and/or enhance the flavor of something. In many cases, salt brings out a flavor that would not otherwise be detected, and thus it aids in the culinary process of the human anatomy. Due to its alkaline properties, salt also makes highly acidic food, such as grapefruit, more palatable too.

5. Hydration - related to healing properties, salt is integral to maintaining water content in our bodies, as its thirst-generating aspect encourages more liquid consumption. This is why people suffering heat stroke will often drink something containing salt-based electrolytes, such as commercial drinks like Gatorade, or (and this one is personally nauseating to me, but it works) the drinking of pickle juice (yecccchhhh!! Give me Gatorade any day!). It aids in rehydration of the body when fluids are at a critical level.

There are other uses for salt too, but as you can see, salt is beneficial in many cases. So, why are we allegorically admonished by Our Lord Himself to be "salt?" It is simple. For one, when society is in a state of moral decay, it needs something to salvage what it can of it and preserve it - our "saltiness" does that. Also, the wounds of societal decay need cleansing and healing, and that is where we also come in as a "salt" allegory. Finally, in an utterly depraved and tasteless world where moral and civil decline make public discourse unpalatable, it is up to us to add the flavor of the Gospel to make it more tolerable to exist in. And, as salt is not always pleasant - it really stings when applied to a wound, and it can also be hard to swallow if you gargle with it - neither is our presence at times. When we deal with a volatile culture at times, we have to sting a little and maybe even our message may be hard for many to swallow, but it is the medicine our fallen world needs. And, we cannot back away from administering it either. As Dr. Kennedy said in the message of his I listened to earlier today, God did not call us to be "sugar to the world," as sugar can mess up a system more than it helps it, and although it tastes better, in the long run over-consumption of it causes health problems; diabetes, tooth decay, obesity, and other ailments. Also, we are not called to be vinegar, meaning we are too dogmatic to the extreme of risking being spit out due to the nastiness and bad will created. Sugar tastes good, and in the moral and spiritual sense, it always sounds good, but in the end it has little benefit if it is consumed heavily. Likewise, vinegar is stinky, nasty, and also putrid - it represents in the spiritual sense the forms of excessive legalism and judgementalism some Christians engage in, and it accomplishes little either. Over-consumption of both vinegar or sugar often has the same result - it will upset the stomach and induce vomiting. Salt, on the other hand, tempers the appetite and provides both balance and enhancement. And, that is who Christ is - the perfect balance, as well as the enhancement of life. Christ is the source of supernatural grace, which as Aquinas defines it is given to perfect, heal, and elevate us in our nature, bringing us closer to what God originally created us to be. Salt both is palatable but it also can sting - try, for instance, eating a salty Utz potato chip when you have a sore tongue or mouth, and you will feel it! But, the sting in this case is good - it means healing is taking place and wounds are also being cleansed. That is what the Gospel does; it seasons us. As living conduits of the Gospel in our lives, we also should provide both flavor and cleansing to our world, and sometimes it can sting those around us as it penetrates the wounds of our society. We should see that as a good thing, as it testifies to the effectiveness of the message.

A lot more can be said on this subject, but simply, we must be more "salty" than "sweet" in our approach to this world. We also must be more "salty" than "sour" too. Therefore, as many of us hear at the end of Mass, we are to go out to provide antiseptic and flavor to a sick world that desperately needs it. And, the times we live in, this is more real than ever. God bless until next time.

Catching Up

2021-04-25T09:48:00.002-07:00

It has been a while since writing, and there is good reason for it that I will discuss momentarily. Although not the level of 2020, this year so far has been interesting - we have a bunch of godless Democrats running the government now, and we also have weird things going on in our churches that almost looks prophetic (in the case of our Catholic Church, we are being warned by godly leaders such as Archbishop Vigano about this, but that is a theological issue). But, it is also been fairly stable for me financially this year so far, and I hope to keep it that way. But, many factors - sans COVID-19, which has relatively little to do with my personal affairs honestly - have precluded me from writing a lot, so I wanted to just talk a bit about those things. Without further elaboration, let us get into that now.

The first factor that has been contributing to a more busy life is my schooling - I am about to wrap up my second semester in my Ph.D. program and it tends to be intense. While many of the classes are interesting, I also have the challenge of having some professors who honestly seem to confuse an 8-week class with a doctoral dissertation. One of those in my Atlantic World course I am finishing up in a couple of weeks is a young lady who facilitates the course - she is a nice lady as a person, but she is a bit over-ambitious as an instructor, which leads me to believe this may be one of the first courses she has taught. It is my hope that in due course of time her teaching methods will settle and mature, and she can make the class flow with a more reasonable level of work. Doctoral-level courses are a bit more intensive honestly than either Master's or undergraduate-level, and they require a lot of reading, a lot of writing, and a lot of time. So, therefore, that would explain why I haven't done as much blogging in recent months. This will be more intense next academic year, as the second phase of my program - the reading comprehension courses - will take up even more time. At the rate my doctoral program is going, if I maintain my good GPA (which at present is 3.73) I will complete the program by the end of December 2023. At that point, it also will mean that I will be finished with school for good, as I will be 54 then and it will be time to move on. Therefore, expect to see less blog activity for a while.

I am also in the process of reconfiguring my blogwork and maybe consolidating all three of my blogs into one, as at times some of the material does overlap. Also, given that Blogspot is a product of Google, which is increasingly hostile to the views of people like myself, I may have no choice in the near future but to consider an alternative venue for writing. This is still in development, and there is much to plan and think about concerning that, so updates will happen as needed on that.

The second factor that has been occupying much of my time is of an even more serious nature. I mentioned at the end of last year that as of June 24, 2020, Barbara and I have decided to separate and end our marriage. The factors entailed in that are complex and are not things that need to be discussed here, but our parting has been amicable and we are still close friends. We filed the final divorce papers on April 22 of this year, and we are now awaiting the final judgment and/or hearing. This alone has more or less compelled me to reorder my life, as I am more or less getting back to where I was before I was married. There have been adjustments, but they have been met and both Barbara's and my outlook is generally good, as this ultimately was the best decision. For those reading this who are my friends, please do not bear any ill-will toward Barbara - she and I are in a good place now, and I only pray and wish the best for her as she begins a new life as well. Also, this is not something I have widely talked about, so at this point I would ask that the readers would refrain from any speculation or gossip about it - for one thing, it is our business and no one else's, and also it protects Barbara's privacy as well in all of this. Thank you for your understanding, and as we step into this new chapter of life, I ask for your prayers for both Barbara and myself, as we are at peace with the decision yet will face challenges with the adjustments it brings.

That pretty much wraps up what I wanted to talk about today, and as I am able I will be back with more good insights in the near future. God be with and bless all who read this.

Cancel Culture and Identity Politics - Some Thoughts

2021-02-12T11:06:00.001-08:00

Due to my doctoral studies and some other factors, I have been unable to write on some things like I would desire to. However, I do believe that there needs to be some updating to a lot that has been going on recently, and I feel some things need be said.

What really sparked this is the recent firing of an actress, Gina Carano, who was fired for a meme she posted on her personal social media comparing the "cancel culture" to the way Jews were harassed in Nazi Germany. It was labeled as "hate speech" (a term which really has no meaning nowadays honestly) and she was fired from the cast of The Mandalorian. I have not watched this show, although I am actually an avid Star Wars fan and have seen every episode of similar series (notably Rebels and Clone Wars, two excellent animated series that were on air a few years back - I own the complete series of both on DVD now), but up until it became "woke" (more like doped) I had heard good things. I may go back and watch some of those episodes just to check them out for myself. Bottom line, Carano was actually making a valid point - the "divide and conquer" strategy that Fauci and other leftist goons have launched in response to this whole COVID mess has much in common with the way Hitler and his Nazis operated things in the Third Reich and the territories it conquered. For instance, when Ukraine, Poland, and Belarus, as well as the Baltic States, were invaded and occupied between the years 1939 and 1941, the Nazi strategy via the Einsatzgruppen SS murder squads that followed the Wehrmacht troops was to prey on local attitudes against Jews, Gypsies, and others, and then foment pogroms based on that stir-up of old prejudices. The tragic fact of that however is that those who would participate in such pogroms - Ukrainians, Poles, Lithuanians, and others - would later be targeted themselves once they served their usefulness. This is not discussed anymore as "woke" leftists seem to despise history, and many schools don't even teach history anymore because it is a product of some non-existent phantom vice called "White privilege" (which still has yet to be defined, as now even non-Whites such as Candace Owens are accused of it). So, what does this Nazi-inspired "divide and conquer" strategy have to do with Gina Carano and why she was canned? Let us discuss that now.

Back during the Thanksgiving and Christmas seasons, there were mayors and governors (notably Gavin Newsome in California, Lori "Uncle Fester" Lightfoot in Chicago, Gretchen "Ubersturmfuhrer" Whitmer in Michigan, Ralph "Blackface" Northam in Virginia, and both Andy "Big Fredo" Cuomo and Bill DeBlasio in New York) as well as the "medical expert" Dr. Anthony Fauci (a sad, strange little man with a Napoleon complex honestly) encouraging people to report Thanksgiving family gatherings, maskless people in stores, etc., in order to "fight COVID." Oddly, this even led to arrests of innocent people whose only fault was wanting to enjoy the holiday with their families. In watching a movie called Swing Kids about German youth who liked good music in Nazi Germany and were penalized for it, I recall a scene where Christian Bale's character was encouraged by his Nazi teacher to report and turn in his own father for just voicing an opinion that disagreed with Hitler's war policy. The Gestapo showed up at the man's door and took him into custody, and as history has documented, many people who experienced this were never seen by their families again. The modern Left, which claims to be "anti-fascist" and against "hate speech," seems intent to employ Nazi-like tactics against those it disagrees with - disagreement for the Leftist today has become the new unpardonable sin (I can hear the whiney hiss of Greta Thunberg now - "how dare you!"). The new Goebbels of this revised Nazi rubric is not one person but several - some of their names include Jack Dorsey (CEO of Twitter), Mark Zuckerberg (CEO of Facebook), Bill Gates, and other multi-billionaire elites who have self-appointed themselves the arbiters of truth and censors of what they dislike. They are as nefarious and ridiculous as Joseph Goebbels was, and wield a lot of unmerited power they otherwise would not have if free speech were truly valued. So, Gina Carano is right, and by "cancelling" her via firing, they have proven her point. That now leads to a couple of other points I wanted to address in relation to this.

First, what was once considered "radical" is now considered "normal," and I want to cite a specific example I came across recently that illustrates the point. A couple of years ago, I worked at a company as a contractor, and one of my co-workers was a sweet and talented girl in her early 20's that for security reasons we'll call Marie (not her real name). Marie is a gifted photographer, and actually was a beautiful but artsy young lady who at that time was shy and had very little involvement in political issues (on her social media then, she listed her political views as "nobody's perfect," which I can respect). I had a great admiration for this young lady, and followed her work on social media. However, in the past few months, something radically happened to her that really defaced the person I really believe she truly is, and it was ugly. To begin, she actually shaved her head and made herself just ugly - her hair was actually beautiful the way it was. Then, her rhetoric became very offensive and caustic - she began to use the "mf" word a lot, and a lot of her pictures ended up bordering on the obscene in her posts. This later was reflected in her political rhetoric - she made the usual nonsensical claims that she "hated America" and one of her other friends actually said on a post during the 4th of July to "f... your Independence Day!" Not only America though, but she expressed particular vitriol against Christianity - she accused Christianity of "destroying civilization" and "enslaving indigenous peoples" as well as other garbage, and said how "grateful" she was at not being part of a church anymore. That deluded diatribe - which has the impressions of Howard Zinn and Saul Alinsky all over it - showed how truly ignorant this young 22-year-old kid was of true history. She failed to understand that without Christianity, there would be no hospitals, universities, or even civil rights. She also failed to understand that rather than destroy civilization, Christianity actually enhanced it by preserving the best of the cultures it evangelized - I doubt if many people would know about Plato if it wasn't for dedicated Christian monks preserving his writings. You see, the evangelistic mission of the Church is not just for the conversion of the individual, but for the positive transformation of society. As Aquinas and Bonaventure taught, it was the impartation of supernatural grace into a culture that elevates it, heals it, and perfects it. Pre-Christian cultures possessed many good things, but only when the light of Christ shown into them were those things developed to their full potential. Another aspect of Christianity's impact on culture is the respect of life and individual dignity - true feminism, which recognizes a woman as a human being worthy of the dignity and value she has as a human being, is a cardinal virtue of Christianity. Also, Christianity made life worth living for so many people - thanks to things such as better education and the ability to use one's talents to better one's life, even the poorest of people can have the opportunity to rise above their circumstance. Although I disagree with him theologically, the televangelist Mark Chironna once said something that sums up this well - "your present position does not determine your future potential." Why? Because the Gospel does have transformative power! The transformative power is a fruit of supernatural grace too, as that is exactly what supernatural grace does. Marie and her friends are even recipients of that to a degree, although they tend to bite the very hand that stretched to give it to them. Let me rephrase that and say it again - even the non-Christians (and in this case, even anti-Christians) benefit from the fruit of Western Civilization that has its roots in supernatural grace due to the exercise of Christian virtue. Therefore, far from being detrimental to civilization, Christianity actually enhances civilization. So, my advice to Marie and her friends (as well as many more like them) is to re-read history, appreciate it, and perhaps they may understand that if it wasn't for the transformative power of the Gospel on a societal scale, they would be a whole lot worse off.

A second thing I wanted to address in relation to this is what "racism" is, in particular what is now touted as "systemic racism." Rather, I would like to make the point that this word, which is bandied about by so many "woke" jackasses as a weapon to shut down those they disagree with, has lost much of its meaning. Is there such a thing as "systemic racism?" Historically, yes - the "Jim Crow" laws of the past were a form of systemic racism, as was the very things that created atrocities like the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust. But, the real question is does it exist in American society today? My answer to that is complex - no, but not yet. The reason I say "no" is because for the most part, Blacks and other minorities are entitled to pretty much the same rights and privileges that everyone else possesses - a Black man can ride in the same bus as a White man, eat in the same restaurants, use the same bathrooms, etc. If this phantom called "systemic racism" does exist, it poses a difficult question for those who like to holler so much about it. By "systemic" for instance, it means the apparati that are in place which govern the society - things such as the academy (universities), entertainment (sports, Hollywood, pop music etc.), the media, the government, and the scientific community. If someone makes the charge of "systemic racism," then it begs a question as to who is in charge of the systems themselves then, right? For the most part, all of these "systems" are controlled by the political Left, so if we make that charge, then it means that the Leftists who tout the systems and control them are the racists then, right? On this, I would defer to people who have dealt with that idea specifically, such as conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, who originally (and astutely) brought that point up, as well as author/documentarian Dinesh D'Souza, who actually did the footwork on researching the true origins of the Democratic Party (as a teaser, what he discovered does not look good for them). Read and watch what they have learned, and it will be enlightening. That leads to my second affirmation that "systemic racism" does not exist yet. What that means is that the new arbiters of truth - the ones controlling the systems themselves - are growing increasingly more racist on two levels. On one, there is now a demonization of people they consider "White" just based on skin color, but now "Whiteness" is no longer even about that - Black conservatives such as Candace Owens and Ben Carson have been accused of having "White privilege" (again, whatever that is supposed to be) although they are clearly not White. This weird and insane classification makes no real sense, and it is clearly baseless. So, in a sense, the ones who decry "White privilege" may themselves be the true racists, although God forbid you say that to them! On the other side of that, this mentality is racist against Blacks and other ethnicities in general in that it basically wants to reinforce what is negative in their communities at the expense of the positive - the radical organization Black Lives Matter has even come out and said as much. And, that leads me to a couple of final thoughts on this before I wrap it up.

First, let me be very clear in saying that racism is real - no one denies that - and any form of it is unacceptable. Whether it is directed against Blacks, Whites, or anyone else, racism is racism, and it is evil and should be rejected. The reason is simple, and again is rooted in a basic Christian principle. God created mankind in his image, and in reality there is only one race - humanity. There are a diverse number of ethnicities (and Blacks are one of them - an ethnicity, not a race) within the human race, but despite shades and tones on the outside, each is still indisputably human. We therefore have no right, and there is no merit to be found in, condemning someone over a shade of skin. Those who commit that evil - be they the Ku Klux Klan or Black Lives Matter - are violating a basic tenet of human dignity. And, that leads to a second point.

Secondly, people are evaluated on individual merits rather than physical appearance or shade of skin. A person is accountable based on their own actions and decisions, and not on some fictional predetermined genetic traits that have not even been proven to exist. A person who commits a bad action, regardless of what they look like, is judged by that action and not by their blood or skin color. And, there are good and bad individuals within all ethnicities. Likewise, a person's potential, intelligence, and individuality should not be limited by the color of their skin - every human being of every shade and color has the potential of learning, growing, and action upon their own decisions, and that is called merit - while it is true that some groups are more successful at some things than others, it does not mean the whole group is stereotyped based on the actions of individual members of it. Although Blacks are often painted as criminal risks, there are as many Whites who have done stupid and evil things as there have been Blacks. Likewise, there are substantial numbers of successful people in all ethnicities - it all depends on how they used their own gifts and talents to get that success, and has nothing to do with their skin tone or genetics. That is why this affirmative action and "political correctness'" crap needs to stop now. Again, it is time we observe the merits of the individual rather than either relying on stereotypes or stupid notions of identity politics.

I could say a lot more on all this, and probably will in due time, but you get the idea. "Cancel culture" simply needs to be cancelled, and we need to stop using racial identity politics as a standard for life in this nation. This means that we must unilaterally reject both the Ku Klux Klan as well as Black Lives Matter, as they are both two racist sides of the same coin of bigotry. Honestly too, there is little distinction between the rhetoric of Adolf Hitler and Louis Farrakhan - one is as much a racist and a fascist as the other, and both need to be rejected. But, that rejection should never be in the form of a "cancel culture" mentality - people can have opinions, even when they are wrong, and no one can "cancel" a person's opinion. So, let the Kluckers and BLM thugs rage, but also let's not give them unwarranted attention - ignore both groups of bigots, and in time they will see they have no relevance for the majority of normal, decent human beings who just want to go about their business and live their lives in peace. Thanks for letting me share today.

The Fuss Over the Election

2020-11-14T10:40:00.001-08:00

I wanted to give some perspective as I see it on the election last week. As we all know, there has not technically been a winner declared, despite the media trying to "project" the Democratic candidate, Joe Biden, as the new President. Fact is, there is a lot of controversy surrounding these election proceedings, and President Trump and the Republicans may have reason to cry "foul" in this one, as there seems to be some questionable ballot counts in many states. This election is at center stage of national attention right now as there are a lot of things at stake, perhaps more so now than in any previous Presidential election. So, what does that mean for us? That is the reason I wanted to share some thoughts today.

When Trump was elected in 2016, I didn't vote for him - honestly, at the time I like many thought this was more of a joke than anything, but at the same time when he was elected I gave a big sigh of relief as it meant the chaos of the Obama era was effectively over. However, as Trump took his place as leader of the most powerful nation in the free world, I must admit he pleasantly surprised me. The reason is, unlike so many other Presidents (both Republican and Democrat) who were essentially career politicians and not worth two squirrel turds in a walnut shell, Trump was something different, and he was what many of us needed. He was not a politician by any stretch - as a matter of fact, some have called him the "anti-politician" because he was a businessman rather than a bureaucrat, and he actually listened to the people. Was Donald Trump perfect? Not by a long shot - he tended at times to run his mouth when he should have been quiet, and perhaps his constant activity on Twitter was a deterrent. But, at least he possessed something many career politicians did not - honesty. What he said he was going to do he did, and for the most part the past four years were good ones for me personally. Of course, the "Establishment" was not happy - I mean, how dare a President actually do what he says he's going to do, and how dare he listen to these poor schlubs that pay taxes and have to be governed by the laws! That is what got the dander up for some characters like the drunken Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and her Senate concubine Chuck Schumer. It also equally got the proverbial goats of career Republicans like Mitt Romney and Susan Collins, who didn't like their comfort zones being upset by a maverick as President who actually made them accountable to the voters. In short, the Establishment hated Trump, and they did everything in their power to get rid of him - the Russia hoax, the whole impeachment sham, etc. But, Trump withstood all that vitriol from the Establishment career bugs, and he prevailed, and the people loved him. But, 2020 presented new opportunities for the Establishment Democrats and their Republican collaborators - a thing called Coronavirus significantly altered life worldwide, and the Democrats were sure that this would dethrone Trump; it almost did. But, Trump rose to the occasion and actually led the nation while the Democrats and their Republican patsies whined and pontificated, aided by people such as Dr. Fauci (who resembles Rick Moranis's character Dark Helmet in the movie Spaceballs - I guess that makes Pelosi President Scroob?), and other so-called "experts" who recently decided to try to force people to not celebrate Thanksgiving (a decree I will choose to ignore, because it is stupid frankly), not go to church, not work to pay their bills, not allow their children to be educated, etc. What is the deal with this COVID-19 thing anyway? Was it as bad as it was made to be, or is there an ulterior motive which is inflating its significance? Let me talk about that briefly.

It is of interest to me that this virus had its origin in China, and interesting enough, for all the so-called "Russia collusion" BS the Democrats have been trying to pin on Trump, I find it odd how many of them have a vested interest in the Chinese government. I believe that this may be the real collusion - leftist Democrats, many of them radicalized socialists, are I believe being bankrolled by the Chinese government, and perhaps this little pandemic was the gift of the Chinese to the Democrats to ensure they seize power. I of course cannot substantiate that at this time, but it is just fascinating and may explain the obsession many on the left have with President Trump and the "Russiagate" BS. In time, all will be revealed, and it is just a waiting game. However, I believe the odds are high - high enough I could wager a bet - that there is some connection somewhere between the Democrats and the Chinese government. Too many things just look odd. And, maybe not even China - the Democrats are bankrolled by a number of billionaire corporate interests (Silicon Valley demagogues like Zuckerberg and Dorsey, as well as people such as Bill Gates and no doubt the Antichrist himself, George Soros). My estimation though is that both the corporate billionaires (Silicon Valley satrapies for one) and China may have a stake in American politics, and the will of the common man on the street does not matter because the guy who drives the big rig hauling canned soup or the local farmer don't have the big bucks to buy politicians, and the main force behind American politics is not the democratic process - it is who can be sold to the highest bidder. Chinese dollars earned by Pelosi in her pursuits may explain why she can eat $15 pints of ice cream, not to mention the gallons of vodka she swills. One day too, this shall come to light as well.

The stakes in the election are indeed high ones, and if we are to maintain our way of life and keep our freedoms, it is imperative that someone like Donald Trump is elected rather than a Chinese puppet like Joe Biden. The radicals who have taken over the Democratic Party are hell-bent on what some have called a "Great Reset" - tearing down everything that is, and then building their own utopian vision which would benefit them and not anyone else. It is important that we try to preserve our traditions, our families, and our property from these forces of evil that would seek to subjugate us and remake an America in their image which would be a dystopian nightmare for the majority of us. The stakes are so high that many people are depressed over it, and some are obsessing about it in fear - I don't think this is productive honestly, and we have to try to keep cooler heads in all of this, regardless the outcome. That is why now I wanted to just offer some encouragement to those who are, like myself, people of faith who may be trying to make heads or tails of what is happening.

For the Christian, it is important to remember the words of Scripture, in particular Romans 8:28, which reminds us that all things - the order of current events and even our elections - work together for good to those who love God and are called according to his purpose. What does that mean exactly? Essentially, it is a simple message - God is in control of things, and we just have to trust him to take care of us. Luke 12 kind of expands this a little by reminding us that as God takes care of the birds and the grass, how much more will he take care of us who are created in his image? Looking at Luke 12:26, we see that a bit of wisdom about situations like this is imparted to us by the Lord Himself - he tells us that if we do not have power to do the least, why worry about the rest? In other words, we are simply not the ones in control of things - God is. Therefore, we are admonished to trust Him for what we need, as Philippians 4:19 reminds us that He will supply our needs for us, as His resources are without limit - after all, the entire universe (including us) is His, and He created it. So, when adversity hits - including pandemics like COVID and the possibility of a corrupt Democrat being elected for President - there are two things we need to do. First, we obviously pray, and we also come together to support one another, as many will be discouraged and scared. Second, we go on about our business and don't let these circumstances distract us from what's important. If we do that, then we will have a healthier outlook on things. The ultimate hope is the story of redemption itself - for those of us who believe, we know the Author of the book, and we know how the story ends; God wins. Therefore, we must not let ourselves get discouraged and sidetracked, because whatever the circumstance it is only temporary.

Like many who may read this, I don't know what is going to happen in all of this - we could keep Trump for another four years as our President (which many of us hope will happen), or Biden may actually win the Presidency and then we will have our work cut out for us. Our duty now is to be vigilant, stay focused, and honor those responsibilities of life we are entrusted with. If we keep busy, it also means that we won't have time to get depressed or scared, and we can be proactive in doing what we need to do without letting this stuff derail us. I hope these rambling insights will provide some comfort and encouragement to you who are reading them today, and just be encouraged and as Red Green says, "Keep your stick on the ice." Blessings to you until next visit.

Coyote Catholicism, and the Current Crisis

2020-06-05T07:59:00.001-07:00

It has been a while since writing, and I have a few reflections to note. Have any of you reading this ever seen a coyote? It is a dog, looks like a dog, and even acts like a dog in many cases. Yet, there is a huge difference between your pet Fido and a wild coyote. For one, the coyote would kill Fido in a minute - my mother-in-law lost a pet chihuahua she had to a coyote who cannibalized her. The coyote will wag its tail, and you can probably approach it, but it will tear your butt up if you touch it, believe me! That analogy today relates to a situation I want to address now.

In the Gospels, Jesus told a number of small stories in order to teach His disciples some truths, and we call those stories parables. The parables Jesus told were often lessons in how to live in the kingdom of God, both here and in the hereafter, and in many cases he does some contrasts between those who really are of the kingdom and those who are not, even noting that at times it is hard to tell the difference based on externals. One of those parables, found in Matthew 13:24-30, focuses on the metaphor of wheat and tares in regard to this principle. If you recall the story as Jesus told it, a farmer was sewing seed, and unbeknownst to him there were some weeds called tares mixed in among the wheat. First, what is a tare exactly? In common terms, it is called a cockle, but it is also known as a darnel, darnel ryegrass, or poison darnel, and its scientific Latin name is Lolium Temulentum. It is a pest/weed that often grows among wheat fields, and in its juvenile state looks identical to the wheat plants until it matures, and then it yields toxic seeds and also is susceptible to LSD-producing fungus. If too many of them are found in a harvest of wheat, they can taint and damage the wheat and render it unusable. It is these weeds that Jesus is referring to when He talks about them, and much like a coyote resembles a dog but is dangerous, so a tare is likewise.

As the Church has grown over the centuries, many tares have ended up in the harvest field, and some have been so deceptive that they have managed to get into leadership of the Church both on the universal and local level. One such notorious individual was Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who perhaps is responsible for some of the nonsense we see in the Catholic Church now. But there are others who serve in strategic positions on local parish councils, in leadership in the Knights of Columbus and other apostolates, and they may even be sitting on the church pew next to you.

Some of this will come as no surprise, as there seems to have been some subversive elements long before de Chardin and others which have been trying to destroy the Church from within, and in his book Infiltration, Dr. Taylor Marshall details the existence of a secret society called the Carbonari which met in secret groups called alta venditas, and one purpose of these groups was that they wanted to subvert both the Catholic Church and traditional monarchy. My guess is, however, as Benjamin Wiker notes in a number of his writings (notably the book Politicizing the Bible he co-authored with Scott Hahn) that the roots of this go back even further - Descartes, and even back to people such as Marsilius of Padua and William of Ockham. It was based in the mentality of the Enlightenment in other words, and as such has at its roots a deliberate divorce of faith from reason, and a relegation of religious faith to human reasoning. As Marshall notes though, the ultimate goal of such things was to create a new religion, a selfish, man-centered faith that denied the supernatural and was guided by a series of secret societies, notably the Freemasons (Marshall, Infiltration. Manchester, NH: Crisis Publications, 2019, pp. 9-11). This in turn led to the secularism that was touted by people beginning with Darwin, Freud, Marx, and later adding such "revolutionaries" as Simon de Beauvoir, John Maynard Keynes, Margaret Sanger, Alfred Kinsey, Saul Alinsky, and others who sought not just to merely add an "alternative" to the Judeo-Christian worldview, but to destroy and replace it. The way many proposed to do so was insidious - infiltrate the Church (and even Protestant denominations) with rationalist-based mentalities that radically altered theology and ethics, and thus in Catholic circles you get Teilhard de Chardin, Karl Rahner, and in recent years, James Martin. Among Protestants, it was a string of theologians actually starting with Karl Barth and culminating in radical revolutionaries such as James Cone. The tainting of Catholic teaching is evident in who many notable Catholic theologians and philosophers kept company with - Henri de Lubac's friendship with Teilhard de Chardin, Jacques Maritain's acquaintance with Saul Alinsky, etc. Vatican II was largely hijacked by such people, and the result has been about 50 years of major theological deficit in many sectors of the Church. It started in the seminaries and universities, and has especially infected the Jesuits within the past century. And, as academia and the religious tier of the Church was so infected, it trickled into the pews, and thus the reason why I am writing this now. I had an encounter with one such individual in recent days in our own parish, and I wanted to tell the story of that encounter now.

Greg is the name of a parishioner in our church, and as such he is not just a mere parishioner. For one thing, Greg has several positions of leadership on the parish council, as well as serving as a Eucharistic Minister, usher, and RCIA sponsor in the parish. He is also active in our local Knights of Columbus council, where he is a past Grand Knight. If you met Greg in person, you would think he is a wonderful guy - he is friendly, and honestly, despite what I am about to share I really don't think he is an evil man as he does display some commendable virtues that are sincere. But, in being "friends" with him on social media, a few disturbing things came to light in recent months that need to be addressed, because Greg represents an example of a tare/coyote in the field, and there are many more like him in parishes across the country. This is due in part to a lack of sound discipleship and catechesis on the part of the leadership of the Church - unfortunately many bishops are more like bureaucrats than they are spiritual leaders and shepherds, and they cannot tell the coyotes from the sheepdogs in their flock (nor are they very discerning a lot of times of the difference between a sheep and a goat). The recent sex scandals in the Church are a glaring reminder of that. It is a problem that numerous orthodox Catholic writers on both the Traditionalist and pro-Vatican II side of the spectrum have addressed, ranging from Michael Rose's 2000 book Goodbye Good Men to Dr. Taylor Marshall's 2019 book Infiltration aforementioned and referenced. With that all being said, let us now talk about the specifics of the conversation with Greg.

Due to the recent looting/rioting in response to the unfortunate and tragic murder of George Floyd in Minnesota by a corrupt cop (a whole other issue I will be addressing at another time), there are many people now flouting the "Black Lives Matter" (a terrorist organization which is more White than Black, as it is primarily made up of virtue-signalling White liberals) cause, and many of us who are conservatives are trying to remind the public that the greatest enemy of Black Americans is not Donald Trump, Republicans, or even all White people, but rather White leftists, in many cases the very ones who virtue-signal "racism" about everything. This is evident in the travesty that is abortion, which if you read Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood, and what she actually believed, you quickly see she thought of Blacks as "human weeds" and "inferior" and a big part of her eugenics plan was to abort as many Black babies as possible (she also targeted Catholic immigrants, poor Appalachian people, and others too). I posted the following meme several days ago on my social media page concerning that, and of course it garnered attention, primarily from Greg.

After posting that, one of the first people to jump on and comment was Greg, and what he said revealed a lot about himself. Greg is very politically liberal, to the point that he actually defends Marxists such as Saul Alinsky, and what followed in the discussion was an alarming revelation that he values his politics over his faith. When the sin of abortion, and the fact that the Church affirms life begins at conception and that abortion is the sin of murder were brought up to him, he said this:

"It is easy for the church - a clergy of men - to say that those unborn are the most vulnerable - how about the more than 75,000 families ripped apart by government action at the border with children being molested, traumatized and raped BY GOVERNMENT agents ? How about the denial of adequate food to children and critical medical care to them once born?"

The second part of this discourse he posted is an argument that is virtue-signaled by leftists all the time, and is easily refuted - many of those same leftists, if they were really honest, would support a neo-Malthusian agenda that is evident on the Georgia Guidestones in which the population would be reduced by them to what they feel is an ideal number. Do they care about adequate food for children and critical medical care? Some may, but most don't - for the majority, it is a talking-point only with little substance. He calls the Church "a clergy of men," and even said that he would rather be excommunicated than let a group of "old men in robes" (in reference to the Catholic episcopacy) force him to deny a "woman's right to choose." My question to Greg was a simple one, and he dodged the answer - why, then, ARE you Catholic?? I already know that answer without trying to even indulge the question - Greg is a "cradle" or "cultural" Catholic, meaning he was raised in the Church but never made a conscious choice to embrace and follow the Church's teaching. As a wealthy attorney, Greg is one of those people that used parish membership, his involvement in the Knights of Columbus, etc., as social-climbing skills to advance his own status. Like I said, it doesn't mean he is an evil man - as a matter of fact, in other areas he has displayed some admirable virtue - but it does mean that he is Catholic for the wrong reasons. When you come into the Church, by participating in its sacramental life you affirm that you believe what she teaches, even if you don't quite understand it. When a Catholic man joins the Knights of Columbus, he also confesses an oath and a promise that he will uphold and defend the Church and her teaching even under opposition; that is actually part of the First Degree ceremony as a matter of fact. For Greg to say what he said indicates that he is dishonest when it comes to his faith - he is part of the Church for the wrong reasons, and that can be a dangerous game for his soul to play. Sometimes, it takes either converts or those who are "cradle" Catholics that have a true experience with Christ to educate other Catholics as to what their faith really entails, as many do fall short. That is not judgmentalism either, but rather a fact of life and a reality of authentic faith. Greg has yet, unfortunately, to learn that.

This encounter with Greg from the parish led me to seek counsel from trusted sources I know, and there are many individuals that gave me some valuable guidance - Dr. Desmond Birch, Charles Coulombe, and even written sources such as Scott Hahn, Regis Martin, Taylor Marshall, and others. What they told me was the same thing essentially - Greg's flippant dismissal of the Magisterium, in particular the Episcopate of the Church, as merely a group of "old men in robes" and a "clergy of men," invokes a challenge he needs to face. The "old men in robes" he so flippantly dismisses in favor of his own sentiments also entails the great Fathers and Doctors of the Church, people such as St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and others, and many of them explicitly condemned abortion as murder and a mortal sin. Also, those "old men in robes" are the successors to the Apostles, and have been ordained with their authority by Jesus Himself, who established the Church and its leadership, so in questioning that Greg is calling Christ a liar and not taking seriously Christ's authority. That is some pretty serious stuff when you really look at it. Now, that being said, let me address some of the bishops we see today who act more like bureaucrats or activists than they do the successors to the Apostles - those bishops have valid office, and as such they should be respected as far as the office goes. But, when they say or do something that is contrary to the Magisterial teaching of the Church, they too need to be called out on it, as they are in defiance of the very Lord and Savior who ordained their office. And, that even includes the Pope where he is wrong. So, as a side note, it isn't about the "clergy of men," as Greg so flippantly said, but rather about something much greater - Apostolic authority, coming from Christ Himself, embodied in the Deposit of Faith. The problem with Greg and so many others is that they are ignorant when it comes to the Deposit of Faith. I have even seen it with my 6th-graders I teach as a catechist - one girl even asked the question "what is a Gospel?", which unfortunately she didn't know, and many kids that age now cannot even recite the Lord's Prayer or the Ave Maria from memory - these things are basic catechesis that they should have learned at least 3 years before they come into my 6th-grade class! So, it is not only a social crisis, as well as a faith crisis, but is at its root a catechetical crisis - ignorance is rampant, and where ignorance is rampant heresy and apostasy flourish. The first-grader who is not adequately catechized will become the Greg of tomorrow - leftist, obstinate, and more self-involved as well as ignorant. They become Catholics in name only, with their church membership being nothing more than a means unto their end and no serious commitment to follow Christ and His teachings. This is tragic, and is a scandal of high proportions. Until it is effectively addressed, the Catholic Church will suffer, but it also can be seen in Protestant denominations too now, even those who historically have been more conservative and Evangelical.

I wrote all of this today to address some serious problems. We all encounter them on social media almost on a daily basis, and it is daunting at times. If one dwells too much on it, the whole thing can be depressing as well. But, hope is there - it starts with you, with me, and every individual Catholic. We make the change in our own homes, we commit to spiritual growth and educating ourselves on what our faith means to us, and we even challenge ourselves as to why we are Catholic and Christian in the first place. Mostly though, we need to let the Holy Spirit impart supernatural grace to us to elevate, perfect, and heal us so that we may be the type of person God called us to be. And, the greater responsibility rests with the leadership of the Church as well - they need to set the example. Thank you, and God bless until next time.

Avoiding the Extremes

2020-02-06T07:52:00.000-08:00

If one wanders around in theological discussion groups on social media or elsewhere, it is inevitable that at some point there will be someone you disagree with, or you will say something that will fire up someone else to come after you. Dogfights on social media these days are an unnecessary but unavoidable reality at times, and even with our best efforts, nine chances out of ten even the most innocuous thing you say will tick off somebody. That is equally true in political discourse as well. With this being an election year, coupled with the recent Trump impeachment issues, the tension among people is thick enough to be cut with a knife honestly. So, as a person of faith, how would one handle this? That question has compelled me to expound upon this openly.

Recently, one of my cousins posted that she was getting kind of sick of politics and hearing about it, especially the hateful vitriol she (and I am sure others of us as well) has been exposed to. She is perfectly right to feel that way, as those issues will wear you out physically, mentally, and even spiritually if we allow them to get out of control and eat up a lot of our time and energy. It was her comments that led me to explore this, and she has some valid concerns I believe many of us share.

For someone of Christian convictions, religious and political issues are inevitably intertwined, as what we believe and where we exercise our faith determines much in the shaping of our worldviews. The Assemblies of God pastor that actually officiated my wife's and my wedding, Rev. John Broome, said once in one of his Sunday sermons that "every issue for the Christian is a theological issue." Of course, he was right, and to be honest, I have taken that to heart and still agree with that to this day. As a result, how we vote is determined by how we pray, in other words - that is, if we take our faith seriously. Can we get some things wrong though, and is there room for growth? Of course, as the fact is we are all fallible human beings, and even our best intentions can sometimes need some work. That is another reason I wanted to write this today, as at times we do need to step back and reassess a few things as we grow in our faith. Fundamental convictions that are universally true are not what changes, as God's laws are eternal, and the natural law that is subject to God's sovereignty is also immutable as well. However, how we view those convictions and act on them may require some "tweaking" if you will, and for the remainder of this discourse, I want to focus on something I read recently.

There is a friend of mine who I have known for years who operates a website in which she gives her perspective on issues, and this particular friend and I have a long history - her grandfather, who was a retired minister, was our landlord at one time, and her brother was for a short time the pastor at the church we attended years ago. Her father, likewise, served as the Dean of Students at my alma mater where I received my Bachelor's years ago. So, she has a deep heritage in her faith tradition. On many things she has written about I actually agree with her, but she does tend to be problematic in other areas - she is virulently anti-Catholic for instance, and she also tends to come across somewhat harsh and callous in her convictions at times, even outright condemning people. She serves as an example of how often there is a fine line between right belief and wrong action and conviction, and one issue stands out concerning some things this person has written that I want to address.

Over the past several months, my friend has been tackling the issue of premarital sex on her blog, and the issue of children being born out of wedlock was front-and-center of the discussion. First, let's address what I agree with in regard to what she said. One, premarital sex is a sin, and it is wrong - it is known as fornication, and Scripture does forbid it. Two, there is no doubt that the laxity in sexual morality in our society has led to an upturn in couples cohabitating without the virtue of a marriage covenant, and in many cases, children are produced from those disordered unions. On both of these, there is no dispute. Three, many people doing this are also professing to be "Christian," and that does create a contradiction between faith and action on their part, and thus a lack of proper discipleship and other issues are at the root of the problem. Again, I agree with that as well, as I have witnessed that sort of behavior in couples even within our own parish community, unfortunately. Now that those facts have been established, the problem with addressing it is that oftentimes people like my overly-zealous friend tend to go to a certain extreme, and in this case, it is pretty serious. Let me address that now.

In her own missives on this subject, my friend basically condemns children of unwed parents as being "bastards," and although she doesn't come right out and say it, she has essentially denied the fact that such children are also loved by God and that Christ died for them too. Let us look at John 3:16 again shall we?

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but shall be saved"

You do not have to be a learned theologian, Biblical scholar, or be versed in Greek or Hebrew to understand what that plainly says - whosoever implies anyone! Now, this is where my friend missed the boat big-time, and there are two areas she got it wrong on:

1. Fornication is the sin of the parents, not of the unborn child that may result from such a union.
2. A child is a person, a human being, and despite how the child was brought into the world, the gift of Christ of Himself is still as valid for the "bastard" as it is for anyone else. We claim oftentimes as Christians to be "pro-life," so let's validate that by not condemning innocent children.

My friend, although coming from a more Wesleyan-Arminian Pentecostal background, is nonetheless acting as a quasi-Calvinist when she is more or less arbitrarily condemning a child to eternal damnation for something that child was not responsible for, and that is where she errs seriously. If I were my friend, I would be careful of that, as it borders on heresy to spout such things. If you cannot love the unborn child of even an adulterous union, then the love of Christ is not in you as it should be. And, that leads to a couple of other observations.

As mentioned, the child is not accountable for the sins of the parents - they need to account for their own sins and do something about them. If a couple is living in a disordered relationship - in the vernacular, meaning "shacking up" - yet claims to be Christian, they are in need of some serious counseling from their pastor or priest to find a way to remedy that. Marriage is a sacrament of the Church, and as such it imparts a grace of its own to those who enter into it. That grace is vital and important, and cannot be underestimated or cheapened by some selfish, lazy requirement that "we are married in the eyes of God and don't need the Church." People are playing a dangerous game when they do that. It also bears mentioning that as marriage is a sacrament of the Church, it cannot be ignored, re-defined, or violated in good conscience by those who profess Christ either. Therefore, if a child is produced out of such a union, then the parents need to seek to legitimize that union as husband and wife and not produce any more offspring until they do so. But, if the sin of fornication does result in the production of a child, the child should nonetheless be seen as a blessing and miracle of life - irregular, but still a miracle. It is up to the parents to legitimize their relationship, and an innocent child should not bear the sins of their parents for which they had nothing to do with.

If the hyper-Fundies are going to one extreme, there are some Christians that go to the other, and they are equally wrong. God's laws don't change, and he established boundaries for our protection, and if we profess to follow him, we are obligated to honor those commands. Some in the Church though have advocated for laxity in regard to sexual morality, and they often use absurd reasoning to justify it. One person that comes to mind here is the so-called "Rainbow Jesuit," James Martin. Although Martin is an ordained Catholic priest, his celebration and legitimization of "same-sex unions" is not in conformity with the teaching of the Church. So, while we treat those involved in the LGBT lifestyle with the dignity afforded all humanity, we do not embrace their lifestyle choices as "good," and the Church never has despite what some liberal revisionists like Martin said. Martin and my aforementioned friend are both guilty of the same lack of grace, although they manifest it in different ways. In the end, neither has the true love of Christ in the way they handle things, nor do they have the necessary balance to uphold the truth with love as they should - one ignores love, the other ignores the truth, and you need both. That is why both of these extremes need to be avoided by all of us who seek to follow Christ, as neither is truly following Christ if they are allowed to manifest. Thank you for allowing me to share, and will be back again soon.

"Rad-Trads" and "Mad-Trads" - Are They Really Trads?

2020-01-23T08:48:00.001-08:00

The impetus for this discussion has to do with a heated discussion that happened on New Years's Eve a few weeks ago with a self-styled "Traditionalist Catholic." The young man - who is also African-American (that will play into this shortly) - essentially was promoting "Zionist conspiracies" and other nonsense encouraging the hatred of Jews as an entirety as practically a virtue. When I called him out on it when he started promoting Holocaust revisionism, he got very upset at me and accused me of "virtue-signaling" mainly because for me it is incomprehensible why an African-American would be engaging in Holocaust denialism. But, he is but a symptom of a greater problem, which is what I want to address.

First, I want to just state my own position. I am of course a convert to the Catholic Church from Protestantism (specifically, from the Pentecostal tradition) and as such I have a rather unique perspective on things. I would myself identify as a traditionalist as far as my own Catholic faith is concerned - I am favorable toward the Traditional Latin Mass, and am not overly enthused with some "innovations" I observe in Catholic parishes that result from the faulty application of things from Vatican II. But, as a traditionalist, I am not your run-of-the-mill advocate of the SSPX and such either, but rather take a more balanced approach to issues. For one thing, I don't reject Vatican II - I have read the documents, and there are many valuable insights to be found in them. And, that leads to two other observations on Vatican II. First, it must be understood that Vatican II was a pastoral Council, and not a doctrinal one - no doctrine was changed, and the majority of the documents of the Council do affirm the historic doctrinal positions of the Church. Second, the problem with Vatican II I would have is not so much Vatican II itself, but rather a faulty implementation of what it proposed - let's face it; there are some crazy things going on in some Catholic parishes! When it comes to things such as the acceptance of theistic evolution, the position Catholics should have in regards to other religions, and the modernization of some things in the Mass, more clarification is needed for the faithful to understand better, as it has led to a lot of funny ideas being espoused by individual lay Catholics in the pews. Taking the Mass first, the Ordinary Form that most Roman-Rite Catholic parishes use (also called by the Latin term Novus Ordo) is not evil or bad in itself - it has reintroduced many good things that the Church needs, and I don't necessarily unilaterally condemn everything about it. That being said, however, there are abuses, and the Ordinary Form could use some tweaking and refining of its practice for sure. But, it is a valid Mass, and there is no need to unilaterally condemn it as "modernist." Then, regarding the acceptance of "theistic evolution." Many Catholics are under the false assumption that this is the Church's official position on origins, but it is not - in fact, the CCC says that God is simply the Creator of all things, and that man is the pinnacle of His creation (CCC 337-344), and theistic evolution is not even addressed there. It is only alluded to in other Church documents, but when it is, essentially it is addressed as a theory by which Catholics should be knowledgable, but there is no binding decree for Catholics to accept theistic evolution as a dogmatic truth at all (and honestly, there is little evidence). Most of the Catholic espousal of such things in orders such as the Jesuits is due to the writings of Teilhard de Chardin and others, which at best are suspect as they are Novelle Teologie and not Magisterial. That as why as an orthodox Catholic, I accept the Biblical view of Creation as valid, and would scientifically subscribe to an Intelligent Design view personally. Regarding other religions, this has led to a lot of confusion largely based on misreadings of both Gaudium et Spes and Nostra Aetate. Both of these documents lay out the fact that there are indeed truths within other religions, but the problem with that is when the average Catholic reads it, they don't understand that it actually means this - while there are truths in other religions, those truths bear witness to a greater Truth that many of those same religions reject, and looking at it historically the little truth other religions have is actually corrupted truth, and thus is deficient. The same Council also affirmed two other truths of the Catholic Church - first, that salvation is only possible in the person of Jesus Christ, and secondly, that the fullness of that salvation is found only in the Church herself. Catholics need to keep this in mind when they read this stuff, and they need to read them in context with the whole Deposit of Faith and not on the stand-alone merit of the document itself. So, no - in reading the Vatican II documents myself over the course of my graduate work at Franciscan University of Steubenville, there is nothing significantly out of order with the majority of their content, and where there are variances, they can be rejected in good conscience because these are pastoral documents and not doctrinal ones, although doctrine forms the underlying basis for the pastoral positions. That should put many thinking Traditionalists at ease who may, by necessity, have to attend an Ordinary Form Mass due to lack of accessibility to a Traditional Latin Mass.

Another thing that bothers me about the "MadTrads" is their rejection of any other Christians who are not exactly like them. Coming from the place of a convert to the Catholic faith, I find that mentality disturbing in that it nullifies what I know to be true, that being that one can believe in Jesus Christ and also be Christian without being formally part of the Catholic Church. There are two reasons I hold this view. First, before I became Catholic, I did know I was Christian, and although I also was aware something was missing in my Christianity, I was nonetheless still Christian. One of the positives of Vatican II that I do actually think is good is the fact that other Christians (mainly Protestants) are considered "separated brethren," and to a limited degree, they do participate in the life and legacy of the Church, although they don't possess all the grace of the Church. That essentially means that a Protestant can be saved, but that the fullness of that salvation is only recognized through the Church - Lumen Gentium addresses this to a degree too. Protestants and Catholics are not separate religions in other words, as each is unmistakably Christian (as are the Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, and others). But, the revelation of truth the Protestant receives at their initial conversion should help them grow toward the Church, and thus to the fullness of their Christian faith. This is why the Church allows the reading of certain Protestant writers who are not in conflict with the Catholic Church, and also why it is perfectly fine to read even blatantly anti-Catholic fundamentalist literature like Chick comics because it also helps the Catholic to be more informed when engaging in dialogue with their Protestant brethren. It is advisable, however, for Catholics to be prayed up properly and receive the proper education and spiritual counsel before attempting to venture into that territory, as a level of protection is needed.

Those spell out some of my specific positions on things in contrast to others who identify as Catholic Traditionalists, and it does at times bring me into debate with them on these issues, as they often have some issues of their own. In an excellent article available at tumblarhouse.com, Fr. Chad Ripperger notes that the problems some "Trads" have can be identified and addressed, and he does so in an article entitled "10 Problems in the Traditionalist Movement." Fr. Ripperger is himself identified as a Traditionalist as well, but he is also insightful and well-grounded, and thus for many years I have used his material as a trusted resource for my own research. Fr. Ripperger identifies ten major problems he observes among "Trads," and briefly, these are what they are:

1. Becoming Gnostic and elitist - they think only they are privy to some "secret revelation" no one else has.

2. Impurity - the sin of pride, essentially, leads to other sins among self-professed Trads.

3. Generational Spirits - What Fr. Ripperger means by this is simple: although Trads profess to be faithful, they use their Trad label to sometimes ignore serious issues in their own families, and thus their children get involved in things they shouldn't. I see this as well among the more old-time Holiness/Pentecostals I was part of when I was growing up, and even recently a young man I know from among them made an abrupt move into a homosexual relationship that is still shocking. It is also about sometimes setting the bar so high that no one can get over it, and thus it leads to concupiscent behavior - Trads are not exclusive to this, as Protestant Fundamentalists of various traditions also have a similar problem.

4. Isolationist Attitude - This is a problem many Trads share with other Christian traditions, in particular, fundamentalist Independent Baptists. It relates to the inherent Gnostic tendency noted above in that the natural world is rejected in lieu of a self-created religious utopia. That has failed among Fundamentalists, and will likewise among Trads who embrace it too.

5. Depression and Despair - Fr. Ripperger notes this as a problem because Trads (and also Protestant Fundamentalists I would add) sit and mull over the negatives so much that it ultimately adversely affects their spiritual well-being. I will put it this way - they cannot fully participate in the Christian life because they deprive themselves of the joy of Christ and the renewing of the Holy Spirit, and thus they also hinder the work of supernatural grace.

6. Anger - related to depression, anger can be detrimental to spiritual growth too, and many Trads are falling into that. Fr. Ripperger notes that this anger also leads to a diminishing of the virtue of charity, just like depression leads to a diminishing of goodness and Gnostic flirtations lead to a diminishing of beauty.

7. Disrespect of Authority - This is one where some empathy can be shared with Trads, as at times honestly some of our clergies (and not a few laypeople) in our parishes can be real jackasses. Also, I share many concerns about the current Pope - he has done some things, honestly, that warrant concern, but at the same time he is still the validly-chosen Pontiff and Bishop of Rome, and a certain amount of respect and decorum is due him. As Fr. Ripperger would agree, the real course of action in something like this is to pray for Francis, as God does love him and Jesus died for him too just like He did for us. Where he is wrong, it is OK to disagree, but do so respectfully.

8. Loose, Reckless Argumentation - This is a serious one for Trads, as many of them run their mouths quite loosely about things before thinking about what they say. This will tie in as well to a later issue I am going to be addressing, as do several of these, and that is the rampant anti-Semitism among some Trads.

9. Bullying - like the argumentative spirit Fr. Ripperger notes above, bullying is a problem in some groups of Trads. As Fr. Ripperger affirms here, it is one thing to identify a problem and address it civilly, but quite another to be abusive to others over it.

10. Driving Others Away - This sort of ties the others together, as disrespect, combative discourse, and bullying tends to do that. Trads need to remember that they are being watched by a searching world looking for answers, and we have an evangelistic mandate to reach out to them in love. When we go beating them over the head and try to impose things on them that they are not bound to, it tends to drive people off. This is especially true with the recent controversy over transgenders - those who struggle with this may encounter Trads or other Christians to seek answers, and when we get nasty with them, it has the effect of not only driving them away, but it also will make them more militant and it will hurt the witness of Christ that they could have had.

Those are the ten problems Fr. Ripperger notes, and although he did get the component symptoms to another I am about to address, he didn't address it directly, so I will do so here. I don't understand why, but a certain segment of Trads have gotten themselves infected with anti-Semitism, and it's ugly. I have heard shocking things from self-identified Trads about Jewish people - for instance, citing the Apostle Paul out of context to justify hatred of Jews, embracing "Zionist" conspiracy theories, and sadly, even Holocaust denialism. I want to make one thing very clear here and now - Never in the history of the Church has any Pope, bishop, Church Father, saint, or theologian ever encouraged the hatred of Jews. At times, they have rebuked certain Jewish communities harshly over their rejection of Christ as their Messiah, and have even responded in kind to occasional Jewish opposition to certain things, but although harsh, their response has never encouraged a rejection or hatred of the Jewish people as a whole. And, it is definitely not a virtue of being a Traditionalist Catholic either, as even the SSPX has a strong statement condemning anti-Semitism among its members. The official statement of the SSPX, titled "Anti-Semitism is Not Catholic," states very clearly that the SSPX "completely rejects the false claim that it teaches or practices anti-Semitism, which is a racial hatred of the Jewish people because of their ethnicity, culture, or religious beliefs." Further, the same statement affirms historic Catholic teaching by stating further that "The Catholic Church teaches its members to pray that the Jewish people will recognize Jesus Christ as the Messiah and convert to the Catholic faith for their salvation...the Catholic Church desires the happiness of ALL people in this life and the next." That is actually a good statement on the part of the SSPX, and I commend it. As for the Holocaust denial among some Trads, that is more disturbing - as Fr. Ripperger notes above, many Trads hate Jews so much that they get reckless in the crap they spew out of their mouths, even trying to distort actual history. The news flash for them is this - the Holocaust was a major tragedy, it happened, and millions of innocent people (Jews and others) died in those camps, including a significant number of Catholic saints and other Christian martyrs (St. Maximilian Kolbe, St. Edith Stein, Bl. Emilian Kovch, as well as Protestants such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Orthodox saints such as Fr. Grigol Peradze). That being said, it is insulting that Trads are denying the Holocaust, and they should be ashamed of that - may St. Maximilian Kolbe and St. Edith Stein intercede for their souls honestly. The eyewitness testimony and countless survivors even alive today from those vile camps are enough evidence to debunk any stupid allegation of "hoaxes," and if that still doesn't convince people, then maybe some therapy in a padded room with a designer sleeveless jacket will because only an insane person would deny a major atrocity like the Holocaust happened. I still maintain that many Trads who are engaging in this anti-Semitic BS need to make a trip to their local confessional, as they need a lot of help.

Just because I was hard on the Trads here doesn't mean I am excusing the "Modernists" either - people like James Martin, the so-called "Rainbow Jesuit," should be defrocked and removed from public ministry in the Church, as they are heretical, plain and simple. If the Trads were deplorable for embracing anti-Semitism, there are some Modernists likewise culpable for going to the other extreme. Both of these extremes - the modern-day equivalent of Pharisees and Sadducees - are equally damaging to the witness of the Church, and therefore they must be rejected by faithful Catholics. There is a better way than going to these extremes, and that rests in knowing one's faith, and also asking oneself the question as to why I am Catholic. How that question is answered will be a huge determining factor in where one stands on these issues, and it is something perhaps we should all think about as we approach the Lenten season in a few weeks. Thank you for allowing me to share, and God bless.

Reflections on Frank Peretti

2020-01-06T09:21:00.001-08:00

Christian novelist Frank Peretti

The year was 1986 - I was still in middle school, and had not yet become a Christian myself, but a momentous event happened. That year, an Assemblies of God minister and author by the name of Frank Peretti authored a book and published it called This Present Darkness. A couple of years later, in 1989, he published its sequel, Piercing the Darkness, which was in some ways better, some worse, but definitely a distinct story. Although published while I was still in high school, it wasn't until my sophomore year of college that I first came across these books. However, they have become classics of Christian fiction, in the vein of Tolkien, and they managed to stay in that position until the late 1990's when Tim LaHaye's and Jerry Jenkins' series Left Behind succeeded the throne of classic Evangelical Christian fiction. I have been considering doing some sort of article about these books for some time now, being that I make it a point to re-read both of them every few years or so and I know the stories of both like the back of my hand now. So, today, we will do that as the first theological/philosophical/spiritual study of the new year.

Frank Peretti (born 1951) was born in Canada, but was raised in Seattle for most of his early life. His dad was an Assemblies of God preacher there, and after a stint with a bluegrass band playing banjo, he studied at UCLA and then served as an assistant minister to his father at a small church. However, pastoring doesn't pay the bills, and understandably the young man went into construction to make the necessary income to do that. I can identify with that to a degree too, as for years I have had to work in the corporate world although I have no real passion doing so, but the bills and those to whom those bills are owed could care less about your passion, as they just want money. It was in the mid-1980's that young Frank began to publish his own works, starting with a children's book in 1985 and then he published the landmark Christian fiction novel This Present Darkness the following year, which would be a life-changer for the young budding author. That set him on a course in which a series of novels followed for several years, and it established Peretti's place as an author. Just his story alone is inspiring, as it is not easy to pursue a passion such as writing, and he had to put a lot of hard work while just waiting for that open door to happen - we have all been there. But, his hard work paid off, and This Present Darkness ended up eventually being a best-seller, as did its sequel. So, what is the appeal of these books? I want to analyze that now.

Both This Present Darkness and Piercing the Darkness are riveting, well-written stories, and Peretti has a gift of grabbing the imagination with them for sure. I always enjoy reading them again every few years, and I practically know their stories by heart. There have been people that have taken a lot of exception with these books, and some critics have even accused Peretti of being an animist or a pantheist, but he is neither - for the most part, although his books are fiction any Christian doctrine they may manifest is fairly orthodox and consistent with Peretti's Assemblies of God faith tradition. And, as I am sure Peretti would readily affirm, his books are not meant to be theological tomes - they are Christian fiction, and therefore they are not to be held to the same accountability as a theological textbook, something many gung-ho Evangelicals often miss. And, honestly, they are just good stories - I love them! I want to now just give a summary plot of both books, and then we'll go from there.

The setting for This Present Darkness is in the fictional Midwestern US college town of Ashton, and
it is a composite setting for what typically such a town would probably look like. The main protagonists of the town are a career-hardened newspaper editor, Marshall Hogan, and a young but fervent pastor of a small (seeming Pentecostal of some sort, based on Peretti's own background) struggling church who both find themselves at the center of an attempted takeover of the town by a nasty cadre of New Age corporatists who are intent on implementing a "new world order" of sorts on the unsuspecting community. One of the antagonists, a stuck-up, aloof, and somewhat wacky college professor named Julene Langstrat, is attempting to do this by indoctrinating kids into some sort of New Age group that sounds eerily similar to the Theosophical movement of Helena Blavatsky. She has the rather rodentian town police chief, Alf Brummel, as well as the liberal pastor of the town's largest church - called Ashton United Christian, which probably mirrors the real-life United Church of Christ denomination, a theologically liberal Reformed denomination that could have been Peretti's inspiration for this - by the name of Rev. Oliver Young. Although these people appear to be the players on the proverbial chessboard, it turns out that under the surface is a more intense spiritual struggle for control of the town being played out by regiments of demons and angels. It is the angel/demon battle portrayed in the books that has drawn blowback from Peretti's critics, as it seems as if every demon is in control of specific negative emotions, while his angels have diverse racial qualities reflexive of their human charges. Of course, there is the whole demonic principality thing as well, which Peretti takes from Ephesians 6, and at the head of this demonic conspiracy is a global overlord called the Strongman (taken from Mark 3:22) who like a puppet master controls a corporate George Soros-like mogul called Alexander Kaseph. In their battle plans, the angels and demons use human charges to carry out their plans, and the "trump card" that the new demonic prince Rafar has is the manipulation of Hogan's daughter Sandy, who already has a rocky relationship with her dad, and this is used to its full advantage to bring down Hogan, who is proving to be resistant to the control of Langstrat and her demonic overlords. Let's talk about this Rafar guy for a moment. Peretti's story uses the old Semitic word "Ba'al" as the way subservient demons address their leaders, and Rafar is claimed to be the ancient "Prince of Babylon," which is referencing Revelation 13, as well as the historic fall of Belshazzar's empire to the Persians as recorded in the book of Daniel. Rafar was defeated by a long-time "Captain of the Host" named Tal, and they are the ones who prove to be the real opponents in the story. The story also indicates a link between New Age mysticism and outright occultism, and even shows that when desperate times demand, the followers of this New Age religion will resort to more sinister rituals and measures - often criminal, in reference to the emphasis many Evangelicals at the time these books were first published placed upon the reality of SRA (Satanic ritual abuse). We see this played out in the final chapters in the book, where a mysterious informant who apparently was led to Christ, Susan Jacobsen, is almost ritually sacrificed by Kaseph utilizing the services of a rogue Hindu priest, who by description could have been either a follower of the bloodthirsty Hindu goddess Kali, or possibly part of the aghori sadhu sect, which engages in some bizarre practices. The story in the sequel follows a similar plot, except that the community is smaller, and the protagonists are a Black Christian cop named Ben Cole and a local headmaster of a Christian school named Tom Harris, while the "wild card" character in that story is a hippie burnout who is trying to escape her past, but needs to confront it, but a demon-possessed little girl named Amber who manifests as a horse named Amethyst sort of "rats" her out. The New Age plot in Piercing the Darkness has a couple of distinct things from the first book, however - in it, the antagonists are part of a quasi-Masonic (which I note Peretti probably makes references to Rosicrucianism) group of powerful elites called the Sacred and Royal Order of the Nation, and they feel as if the Christian school as well as the burnout lady - Sally Roe - are a serious threat. Many of the members of the quasi-Masonic occult brotherhood are also big in so-called civil liberties activist groups, in particular, one Peretti patterns in his book after the ACLU, which seek to restrict Christian influence. However, when legal means don't work, they have no problem resorting to outright Satanist allies to carry out their dirty work, and what sparks the whole thing off is when one of that group attacks and tries to kill Sally at her home, but an angel intervenes and kills the female Satanist instead. The Satanist group, called Broken Birch in the group, is the real face of the conspiracy, as they have the same ultimate objectives as the more elitist occult brotherhood that hired them. Some of the same figures that were in the first book - most of the angel characters, as well as the elusive Strongman - reappear in the second book, as do Busche and Hogan, who are now beyond damage due to their victories in Ashton earlier. It is also a good chronicle of a journey of self-closure and redemption on the part of Sally Roe, who goes from burned-out hippie New Ager to born-again Christian, and that is seen as the key to prevailing over the forces of darkness. Sally Roe has a similar role to Susan Jacobsen in the first book, but Sally's character has more depth and intensity, as the real struggle is masterfully documented by Peretti. In short, the story will keep you on the edge of your seat.

When I read these books over again every so often, I think of how they would look as a motion picture, as they both would be darned good motion pictures. However recently when Peretti was approached about that possibility, he emphatically said that it was negligible that this would happen. While that is disappointing, I respect his conclusion, and he has his reasons. Often, when reading certain stories like this, you envision certain actors and actresses who would be perfect for the parts. For instance, I would see Marshall Hogan's role being perfectly filled by veteran actor (and fellow West Virginian) Paul Dooley. Susan Sarandon or Sigourney Weaver would make a good Sally Roe, and the guy who would make a great Alf Brummel is an actor I have seen in a number of roles over the years, but for the life of me his name escapes me - every time I read This Present Darkness though, I see that guy in the role (Note - since writing this, I found out the actor I was looking for is Sam Anderson - a perfect Alf Brummel!). Alexander Kaseph would be best played by an actor similar to either Glen Shaddix or Dom DeLuise, and the guy that comes to mind is Ricky Jay. Santinelli, from Piercing the Darkness, could be played masterfully by Frank Langella, and his cohort Steele would be best played by a Hollywood "bad guy" like Michael Ironside. Unfortunately, many of those actors are either dead or too old now for the roles, but these are just my ideas. Of course, Peretti may have other plans in mind if he were to change his mind and approve a movie based on these books, and his imagination is what created the characters, so he would know better who could play what. These are just my imagination playing around with the characters though.

In looking at the criticisms of Peretti's books, I want to analyze that a bit now. The first thing I will note from the Wikipedia article on This Present Darkness is that much of the criticism from Evangelical authorities comes from those who hold to a Calvinist theological position and are somewhat more cessationist when it comes to charismatic phenomena, etc. Peretti is not part of one of those positions, and much of what he portrays in his books comes from what the prevalent teachings were in Charismatic/Pentecostal circles at the time the books were written, and in that period (late 1980's and early 1990's) there was a significant interest in spiritual warfare and the supernatural, and also the New Age movement was seen as a real threat to Christian belief - Peretti's books were in sync with other popular non-fiction Christian literature at the time such as Johanna Michaelson's Beautiful Side of Evil, Constance Cumbey's Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow, as well as a more eccentric take on spiritual warfare at the time in the guise of a book entitled Pigs in the Parlor. While there are things in all of those books that can be both agreed with and also criticized, the prevailing sentiment among many Evangelicals at the time - in particular Charismatics and Pentecostals - was that a real spiritual struggle was taking place, and education about it was vital. Some did go to some ridiculous extremes, but looking ahead 30 years after the fact now, a lot of it is also very real as we are seeing it more so today after a period of relative dormancy. In recent years, we have witnessed a rise in both Satanism - including the erection of Satanic monuments in front of courthouses, etc. - and in other forms of occultism (such as vampirism) in our society, and there is a rather odd alliance between overt Satanists and the highly visible LGBT community now. However, the ones sounding off on these dangers are no longer necessarily Evangelicals and Pentecostals but are primarily more traditionally-minded Catholics. Many of those Evangelicals and Pentecostals who once warned of such things are now either passed away, or they have either toned down their emphasis or disavowed it totally. The recent "Pachamama" scandal in the Vatican has also served the purpose of galvanizing more orthodox Catholics against outright paganism in the guise of Christianity, and that is a positive. Often, it is the outright assaults of the enemy which serve as a wake-up call or "red pill" to the dormant faithful, and perhaps that is why God allows it. I see a similar message in Peretti's stories too.

Another thing one picks up on in Peretti's two particular books here is that this is more than just a mere "religious" issue. Despite the "guise" of certain "spiritual enlightenment" practices, the powers behind them know the real motivation, and it also manifests itself in some of their higher-level human pawns too. While the average run-of-the-mill seeker of spiritual enlightenment wants to be "one with the universe" or whatever, the demons promoting the deceptions driving these clueless people are looking for a bounty of souls, and their ultimate fate for their human pawns is eternal damnation and imprisonment. We see that in the closing chapters of This Present Darkness, where Marshall Hogan's daughter Sandy is told she would be "unlocking her higher consciousness" by being initiated into a "special group," but then right before it's too late, they are leading her to basically kill herself, and she quickly learns that things were not what they seem. There are overtones of Ecclesiastes here that I believe Peretti is drawing on, in that the vanity of worldly glory and even some self-serving "spiritual enlightenment" more than often leads to doom, because the wrong thing is being sought. This is where the evangelistic aspect of Peretti's story comes into play too - true happiness is found in the true God, not in running after things which sound good but are ultimately destructive. In that, I see no dualism or animism in his writing, as ultimately it is God who is glorified and who has the ultimate victory in spiritual battles as long as the people on the right side stay focused and not get distracted by things meant by the enemy to get them out of the way of his agenda. It's, in reality, a good lesson.

More could be said about these books, but I think I have hit upon the highlights. If you haven't done so yet and are into captivating Christian fiction, be sure to read these two books - as mentioned, they are hard to put down and will keep you on the edge of your seat, as Peretti is a gifted writer who knows how to create a powerful story. However, they are not meant to be theological, but can challenge us spiritually - if the reader is not a Christian, it also can serve as an evangelistic tool to reach them as well. Thank you, and will see you next time.

Catholic Faith and Evolution – Are They Compatible?

2019-11-02T10:59:00.000-07:00

A couple of weeks ago, I received a copy of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism, authored by John Zmirak. The Politically Incorrect Guides were a series of several books published on various subjects in the early 2000s by Regnery Press, a conservative publisher. These books, called by their fans “PIG’s” for short, are actually quite informative, and each features a different author who is an authority in a certain subject area. At this time, I have approximately six of these books in my own library, as they are concise, easy to read, and for the most part present a more accurate perspective on a controversial subject than you will find in most “mainstream” narratives. This PIG on Catholicism is likewise useful, although there are some issues I do take personal exception with in regard to the topic of evolution and science, and that will be my main focus here.

First, I feel a little background information on the author, John Zmirak is in order. He is, for starters, editor of a Catholic periodical called The Stream, which can be accessed online at www.thestream.org. This periodical is a fairly conservative journal, and it does have good content. Zmirak was at one time also the Press Secretary to former Louisiana Governor Mike Foster and he has also contributed extensively as a reporter and editor to a variety of other publications. In addition to this PIG on Catholicism, he has also written at least 11 other books. His educational credentials include some impressive content as well – he has Bachelor of Arts from Yale, an MFA and Ph.D. from Louisiana State University and he has taught courses as well at both LSU and Tulane. In reading the majority of the PIG he authored, Zmirak generally holds pretty orthodox Catholic religious views, and is also conservative politically. In all, I would conclude that Zmirak is a talented writer and also a sound voice of Catholic orthodoxy on a variety of issues. However – and this is where it gets more complicated, as not all orthodox conservative Catholics necessarily agree on all the minors – when it comes to science and evolution, Zmirak expresses many points that I would disagree with him on, and this is where my focus will mainly be concentrated.

The section of Zmirak’s book I want to focus on is Chapter 10, entitled “Is the Church Anti-Science?” The chapter itself encompasses approximately 34 pages, and in order to see where things differ one has to read the text carefully. The majority of it, on a positive note, is actually not bad reading at all, as it largely affirms the importance of both faith and reason as well as making the valid (and truthful) case that in many cases the Church was on the forefront of scientific discovery. So far, this is all good and actually true – no Catholic or any other Christian of any denominational tradition would deny any of this at all. However, when delving deeper into the “meat” of the chapter, there are a few small things we are going to address more at length momentarily, but let me just give where Zmirak is coming from in regard to science first.

While Zmirak is mostly sound and orthodox in the majority of his theses in this book, when you get to Chapter 10 you quickly find out that Zmirak would fall into the category of what is called a theistic evolutionist. Theistic evolution basically asserts that while one can affirm that God did ultimately create the universe and everything in it (to deny that, regardless of who you are, would be outright heresy from a Catholic perspective), he also instituted the evolutionary process and therefore evolution is the reason why creation happened – to put it this way, for the theistic evolution, God essentially created the process of evolution, and then it did the rest. Although a theistic evolutionist would affirm the uniqueness of humanity, there is a twist to this – God created the apes and then chose a specific ape to give a soul and spirit to, and thus Adam was essentially a genetically-enhanced gorilla or chimpanzee. Therefore, when God injected the soul into that special ape, evolution took over, and – voila! – Man comes into the picture! There are a number of problems with this position and we will address them, but I wanted to make a couple of important points. First, despite a very flawed perspective on creation, a theistic evolutionist is technically still a Christian, and despite that variance, someone can still otherwise be an orthodox and faithful Catholic. And, leading to the second observation, a theistic evolutionist doesn’t necessarily deny God as ultimate Creator, but rather the person has a faulty understanding as to how the creative process happened. This essentially means that I don’t have a problem accepting a person like Zmirak as a fellow faithful Catholic and a brother in Christ, and I will not dismiss all the good material he and others who would share his perspective have produced based on a different view of creation he has – I think he’s fundamentally wrong, and that his theistic evolutionism has some gaps, but at the end of the day I still can see he doesn’t deny the essentials of the faith. I hold a similar position with fellow Creationists like myself who happen to be in what is called the “Old Earth Creationist” camp; despite holding to the view that the earth is billions of years old, for the most part, Old Earth Creationists are still Creationists – one particular figure that comes to mind is Protestant Old-Earth Creationist Hugh Ross, who has produced some good material. I have more sympathy for “Old-Earthers” as well because I used to be one too, and I understand where they come from. The problem I would have with the “Old Earth” position, however, is that those who hold to it need to face some sticky theological issues, in particular concerning the origin and present reality of sin and death. However, that is a discussion for another time.

One more thing I wanted to add in this lengthy introduction is to note that not every Creationist ever agrees 100% on everything. Even among us “Young-Earthers,” there are differences in opinion about such things as the origin of the Genesis 6 Nephilim (some, like myself, hold to a Watchers view while others hold to a Sethite position), whether the sun revolves around the earth or if it is the other way around (the Geocentric view, espoused by Catholic writer Bob Sungenis among others, vs. the Heliocentric view, which is the one I would hold to), or other such topics that may arise. It is to actually be expected that differences of opinion on minor points happen, and at the end of the day, we can still be good friends although we may differ on the minors – what counts is the major belief which we all share, that being that God created the universe and everything in it. That being said, it is perfectly fine to engage in healthy debate and discussion over minors, as long as we don’t end up making those minors into majors. Having established this basic understanding, we can now dive into the “meat” of our subject.

The first thing I would like to address is found on page 220 of Zmirak’s book, and it is a clear affirmation that science and the Catholic Church are not in conflict with each other. That is actually very true, and looking at it Thomistically, here is why. First, theologians such as Aquinas, Bonaventure and others noted that God authored two “books,” those being Nature and Revelation. Revelation, for the sake of our argument here, is synonymous in this context with Holy Scripture as whole, while Nature is pretty much self-explanatory. If we introduce supernatural grace (which comes from God alone and nowhere else) into this, then here is what happens – Nature will always affirm Revelation, and in turn, Revelation will always work to elevate, heal, and perfect Nature. We see this in Scripture in such passages as Psalm 18:2, 44:6, and 96:6, as well as passages in the earliest chapters of Genesis where God declared at each point in his creation of all that is that “it is good,” and this is also affirmed in mathematical principles such as the “Golden Ratio” and the Fibonacci Sequence, particularly if one looks at the particular designs of things such as sunflowers, snail shells, and the structure of the Milky Way Galaxy itself. These things bear witness to the fact that natural law has a supernatural source, which is also a major tenet of another school called Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design (or ID from here on) is not the same as Biblical Creationism, and that is because of one important difference – ID is based on scientific evidences, while Biblical Creationism is theological in emphasis. Although Biblical Creationists and ID proponents are two different schools of thought with even some disagreements, it is also very reasonable to accept both Biblical Creation and ID as the framework together of a valid explanation of origins. Rather than being in conflict (which both some ID proponents and Biblical Creationists seem to miss), I personally feel that the combination of Biblical Creationism and ID are actually complimentary, and in my case, I would hold to both myself while at the same time also include what is called a Christian euhemerist perspective – to explain that, euhemerism essentially holds that much of the mythology and folklore of many cultures has at its root something which inspired it, and thus despite embellishment over time, once the fictional aspects of a subject are stripped away, a core truth is there which can be accepted. When it comes to both ID and Biblical Creationism, a euhemerist view of things happens on topics such as dinosaurs, and if you can be completely honest about it, the so-called “dragons” that dominate the folklore of many cultures would establish that these people encountered something, and what they encountered more than likely were the creatures we today call dinosaurs. Aside from the foray into euhemerism and ID, getting back to Zmirak’s premise, he is on-point here by acknowledging God is the supernatural source of all creation. However, it is when we get to page 22 that we encounter the first problem with his position, and I want to discuss that now.

Anyone who is familiar with any of the PIG books will note that in their basic structure they have these little gray boxes inserted at various points that highlight certain things, and one of those shows up on page 222 entitled “Fourteen Centuries Before Darwin.” Here, Zmirak attempts to use the writings of St. Augustine to refute a literal reading of Genesis, and he even presupposes that St. Augustine taught evolution. But, did he really? Zmirak makes a few key errors in his assertion at this point and these are errors that can be easily corrected. First, in my readings of St. Augustine or any of the other Church Fathers, which I have done extensively in my own research, I see no evidence whatsoever that any of them espoused anything remotely akin to evolution. They did differ regarding their interpretation of Genesis, which is true, as some like St. Augustine would be aptly classified as “Old-Earth Creationist” while others such as St. Lawrence of Brindisi, some centuries later would be more “Young-Earth Creationist.” The idea of a Darwinian-type macroevolutionary process of one species evolving into another was far from their minds, John N Wynne, in his book A Catholic Assessment of Evolution Theory (Restoring Truth Ministries, 2013) notes on page 254 that the actual position of St Augustin was that one should never depart from the literal and obvious sense of except where reason makes it unattainable or necessarily requires it. That goes back to the “Fourfold Hermeneutic” principle I have talked about before, in that something can be both literally true and allegorically valid at the same time.

In discussing how Genesis is to be understood and interpreted, there are concepts the Church gives us to do so. The most important of these is something we’ve touched on before elsewhere in my earlier Genesis study called the “Fourfold Hermeneutic of Scripture,” and we can remember it with the easy acronym LAMA:

Literal – what it says in plain language

Allegorical – what it admonishes us to believe

Moral – what it compels us to do

Anagogical – what hope it instills

Theologians and Biblical scholars have literally gotten into dogfights over the years regarding these, and often try to assert the prominence of one over the others. However, in reality, this conflict was never really necessary – on the contrary, a passage in Scripture can be one or more of these at one time and still be true, communicating the core truth it was meant to. It is of no surprise that the two pivotal books of the Bible – Genesis, and Revelation – have been at the forefront of this. This is a major reason why a discussion such as this is important, and it also calls into play a harmonious fusion between faith and reason. The whole remainder of this discussion will emphasize that very thing. In doing so, I will also be contrasting some of Zmirak’s positions – particularly those where he asserts that Catholic doctrine and evolutionary theory have no conflict – with what the Church really says, and I want to preface that first.

When Zmirak makes the assertion that Catholic doctrine and evolution are not naturally exclusive, he does take care to note that theistic and Darwinian evolution are two different things and that Darwinian evolution does conflict with the Church. Of course, he is correct, but it also poses some problems – for instance, what if a theistic evolutionist embraces Darwinism, as many indeed have? Darwinian evolution, as Zmirak correctly points out, is very secular and even dangerous, as it has been the driving force behind many of the more nasty policies of some tyrannical regimes in the last century. It is also the main impetus behind the eugenics movement, from which the abortion industry has its roots. What Zmirak fails to note, however, is that the man who advanced and taught theistic evolution among Catholics, the late renegade Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), was an avid proponent of many of those things as well. Chardin’s influence is oddly absent from Zmirak’s discussion of science and faith, and that to me was puzzling. Given that the widespread acceptance among many Catholics of theistic evolution is due in part to Tielhardism, I find it odd that Zmirak omits any mention of him in the discussion. Of course, Zmirak is not by any means a Darwinian evolutionist either, whereas Chardin was, and maybe as a benefit of the doubt that is why Zmirak doesn’t really include anything about him in the discussion. But, here is the fundamental problem: Although Zmirak rightly rejects Darwinian evolution, he is also appearing to fail to understand that even the milder theistic evolutionary views held by otherwise orthodox Catholics are at odds fundamentally with traditional Catholic teaching and this will now be addressed.

In the year 1959, Cardinal Ernesto Ruffini published a landmark text evaluating evolutionary theory from a classic Catholic perspective entitled The Theory of Evolution Judged by Faith and Reason (historical reprint republished by - Boonville, NY: Preserving Christian Publications, 2008). In it, Ruffini provides a lengthy, thorough evaluation of the idea of evolution in light of historical Magisterial teaching, and his work is revolutionary in regard to refuting many of Teilhard de Chardin’s errors. On page 85, Cardinal Ruffini gives a very succinct affirmation of Biblical creation when he affirms that the fact of the creation of all things is certainly an object of special divine revelation – by that, he means that human understanding cannot fathom the miracle of creation in entirety, as it preceded humanity’s creation later. But, as the act of creation sets time in motion, it gives certainty to the fact that everything started from a certain time. On the following page (86), Ruffini goes on to note that the distribution of creation (as he terms it) was a product of divine revelation as well. In short, Ruffini is affirming that the account in Genesis is historically accurate. Reading further, Ruffini makes an important point which leads into the next part of the discussion – the purpose of Creation and its order is arranged by the Creator for dogmatic/moral reasons and not as a scientific fact. However, that being said, Ruffini also notes that scientific evidence - often cited by evolutionists in terms of “epochs” – would affirm the Genesis record. If that is the case (and I believe it to be so), it provides clarification then for another argument. Zmirak attempts to make a point on this based on St. Augustine’s writings, but he both misses the point as well as affirming Biblical creation without realizing it. It is a well-worn argument used by many over the years which sort of relegates the Bible to the realm of faith and divorcing it from reason, which is a fruit of Enlightenment influence we see reflected in such statements as “the Bible is not a science or history book,” and it is an argument that has its roots in the secularized mentality of people like Baruch Spinoza, the philosopher who claimed the Bible is only a religious book and therefore has no relevance in other areas. The modern manifestation of that fallacy, which even Zmirak holds, is that the Bible is not to be relied on for matters of history or science, but rather is a “book of faith” only. It is time to address and debunk that now, as it’s a very prevalent argument used by even some Catholics as well as Evangelical Protestant scholars to diminish the authenticity of Scripture. We will now examine that argument.

Zmirak, on page 222 of his book in the gray box entitled “Fourteen Centuries Before Darwin,” uses St. Augustine to buttress the assertion that the Bible was only written to teach us faith, not science. People who utilize this argument often state that the Bible is not a science text or a history book, which we will examine more shortly. As for now though, let us deal with Zmirak calling upon the authority of St. Augustine. To counter this, we turn back to what Ruffini says on page 171 of his book when he notes that St. Augustine studied Genesis for over 30 years before formulating his insights on it, and in the time he wrote his many works, St. Augustine demonstrated levels of maturity of thought. Ruffini contrasts, for instance, Augustine’s thoughts in AD 389 in De Generi Contra Manacheos, as well as his last work on the subject in AD 415 entitled De Genesi ad Litteram – in the latter, Ruffini states further on page 176 to note that there is a distinction between the concepts of creation and administration – God created all in an instant, in Augustinian theology, but never ceased being sovereign over Creation. What we see here in that context is that God made living things with the ability to grow and adapt, which a theistic evolutionist will see as their “aha!” moment. But, this does not prove progressive evolution, and if anything it affirms scientific fact that variations within species do exist but that no species can evolve into a completely different species. So, getting back to Zmirak’s text, we will take his assertions and respond now.

1. Zmirak notes that St. Augustine originally didn’t hold to the idea that the “days” in Genesis were literal 24-hour days. There is some merit to that, but that does not make St. Augustine a theistic evolutionist either. If Zmirak would read this in context, he would see that Augustine did believe in divine creation, and his view is somewhat unique in that it leaves leeway for either a “Young-Earth” or “Old-Earth” Creationist interpretation – Augustine held that the act of creation was simultaneous, but was ordered in minute detail. Rather than making this support for Augustine embracing an early form of theistic evolution, at best it would more likely make him closer to what the ID or “Old-Earth” Creationist proponents hold. This is why we really need to exercise caution using either Scripture or Tradition selectively, as that serves no one well. The overall consensus of the Church for over 2000 years is that a special creation happened – God created everything that exists – and although there were debate and differences in opinion among the Church Fathers themselves over minor details, the conclusion reached by all of them is still the same. So, whether one reads St. Augustine’s works, or those of St. Lawrence of Brindisi (who was a literal six-day Creationist), the end result affirms a cardinal belief – God the Father Almighty is the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things visible and invisible, as the Creed we say at Mass every Sunday clearly states. Again, let me reiterate that no Church Father I have read has ever endorsed theistic evolution, and its prominence is a rather recent phenomenon.

2. In attempting to make the case from St. Augustine that Scripture only teaches truths of the faith and not scientific facts, Zmirak makes some errors. First, while it is true that Scripture was not intended to be a science manual or a history book, we also need to remember the principle of non-contradiction, which in metaphysics is based on a Thomistic perspective that we note in Fr. Norris Clarke’s book The One and the Many – Aquinas and Bonaventure, among others, held that God authored two books, Revelation and Nature. Nature affirms Revelation, and Revelation perfects Nature. For the sake of this discussion, this is what it all means – while it is true that the Bible is not a scientific text or a history book per se, true history and true science do bear out the truths of Scripture nonetheless. And Scripture was not designed to be comprehensive history or a science manual, granted – its actual purpose is the revelation of God’s plan for the redemption and salvation of mankind. That is a major reason why in certain parts of Genesis certain historical details are omitted – they are not relevant to the story, and there are other sources to “fill in the gaps” if one is interested in doing so. By reading these other sources (Enoch, Jasher, Jubilees, etc.) it gives a “bigger picture” of what one sees in Scripture and does provide a point of context. Even today, other historical texts are written the same way – for instance, if you were studying World War II and you came across two different histories (for sake of context, one is written by an American soldier, while the other by a Luftwaffe officer who served in Germany), both would be accurate, but both would have omissions of certain details because they would not be relevant to the particular account. But, in putting both together, you get a fuller picture of the event. That is what Scripture is – the focus in it is on salvation history, but the history it records is still accurate and can be corroborated with other sources to get a fuller picture of a particular time.

On these two points, Zmirak’s assertions for theistic evolution fall apart even more, for in saying that Augustine promoted it he neglects to read further in Augustine’s works, as Ruffini illustrated. The reality is that Augustine’s views on variations contradict evolution as he states clearly that a man cannot “evolve” from a bean, etc. But, a bean can adopt a different character, and in some areas grow bigger or taller – that is commonly called microevolution, and microevolution is definitely a reality that is scientifically proven. So, no, apes are not “relatives” to us as Zmirak asserts, but they do have a common Designer, which we, of course, believe to be God. This also begs another question that a former Anglican priest friend of ours raised, and I find it valid – if apes “evolve” into people, then why do apes still exist? I mean, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans are still around, and no one has even tried to examine if they “evolved” or what they “evolved” from – it is amazing that only humans seem to be a product of evolution but time seems to have miraculously stood still for Cheetah while Tarzan “evolved” into himself – hmmmm!!! A chimp fossil from antiquity is still a chimp, regardless of if one thinks it is thousands or millions of years old. That merits a discussion of its own at some future date.

This now leads to a discussion on first principles. Zmirak and other theistic evolutionists try to have this both ways in that they acknowledge God is creator and source of all that is but then they take almost a Deistic approach of demoting God to a mere clock winder – he created it all, set it in motion, and then sat back to let it “evolve” on its own. Fr. Chad Ripperger, in his book The Metaphysics of Evolution (Norsterstad, Germany: BOD), uses Wovlner’s definition of First Principles on page 7. It is a three-part definition, and essentially is set up like this:

1. That from which something in some way follows
2. Any cause
3. Anything that is in any way first even if it has no relationship with later members

On page 8, Fr. Ripperger further talks about “real principle,” defining such as the principle from which being proceeds. Then there is “logical principle,” meaning a truth from which other truth proceeds – the last, Ripperger notes, is one that governs how we come to know a thing, and it is built into the very structure of our intellect. As God is the ultimate truth, it is logical to conclude that he is the source of all other truth. That important distinction, as noted on page 15 of Ripperger’s text, is in regard to evolution, and her is why evolution is not a compatible view with Catholic teaching – evolution dictates that the existence of a being comes from something lower than itself, but Divine Revelation suggests a greater intelligence than ourselves is the true source of our origins (that would be God, if you just tuned in). The violation of the evolutionary position is in regard to what is called priority of act of potency, which means an act had to precede the creation essentially. Despite Zmirak’s assertion on page 219 that Catholic beliefs about creation do not contradict evolution, in reality, that non-contradiction is superficial and involves a common observable natural law – this means procreation of species, etc. In this area, as we will discuss next, the Darwinian variety of evolution contradicts itself while many theistic evolutionists have a false assurance that causes self-delusion on that issue.

While Catholic teaching is certainly not harmonious with evolutionary theory on a very fundamental level, there are some things where intersectionality does happen though. One of the most obvious is the process of procreation. A true evolutionist who accepts the idea of “natural selection” therefore would technically by their own ideological system be incapable of supporting things like the LGBT agenda, abortion on demand, or even the most radical forms of feminism. If survival and continuity of a species is important (and no question it is), the evolutionist would naturally have to oppose “same-sex marriage” and abortion on the grounds that neither of those things does anything to perpetuate the survival of the species. In fact, both of those things violate a fundamental principle of evolution, either of the Darwinian or theistic variety – if you don’t have proper sexuality and you keep killing your young, you essentially cancel your own existence. What is so odd about that, however, is that many who believe in what is called “more” evolution (whatever that is!) are often involved in things that defy the own basic premises they supposedly embrace. Of course, this is where things such as eugenics and transhumanism, not to mention the various “third sex” theories hawked by early homosexual activists such as Karl Heinrich Ulrichs (1825-1895), a German lawyer who was openly homosexual himself and adopted Darwinian principles to justify his own sexual preferences. One way he did this was by formulating a “third sex theory,” which essentially stated that male homosexuals and lesbians were the way they were because they were “evolving” into a “third gender.” Much of that is still being advocated by the rise in transgenderism we see in recent years too. Eugenicists such as Margaret Sanger also used Darwinian evolution to justify abortion – abortion was seen by her and others like her as a means of removing the “human weeds” from the human gene pool and thus ensuring the “survival of the fittest” with a little help to accelerate the process – we see how that ended with the demonic policies of Hitler’s Nazis. Although a typical theistic evolutionist such as Zmirak would find all of this repulsive (and rightly so), in reality, if any evolutionist were honest, they all should see the actions of Ulrichs, Sanger, and the Nazis as contrary to basic evolutionary principle – the natural law that supposedly dictates evolutionary theory could not afford to allow the possibility of a forced “culling of the herd,” as technically even the weakest member of a species can supposedly adopt. On pages 220-221 as a matter of fact, Zmirak actually devotes a very fluent section to repudiating eugenics-based racism on the same premise. He is right, of course, but his understanding is still incomplete of the whole argument.

Any commonalities that evolution and Catholic teaching share are in reality just verifiable facts that empirically belong to neither. Both do accept the basic facts but come to different conclusions regarding them. Any belief system (including evolution) has at its core some truth that, over time, is elaborated upon but the thought processes of its proponents into something totally different, although the kernel remains. Many things mentioned earlier we can note in early cultures – legends of dragons, etc. – can be easily substantiated but established facts. For instance, the dragons of folklore are possible references to various species of what we know as dinosaurs, and the universal flood in Genesis also has corroborations in other cultures too as a historical reality – in other words, something happened. So, in the same way, we must also be fair to the evolutionary theory in the same way – we accept what can be verifiable truth and reject the rest.

What evolution accepts as empirical fact (and it is) on some issues – the necessity of procreation for a species to survive, for instance – has at its core a universal principle, and Catholic teaching does not deny that at all. However, we have a fuller understanding of it from a Catholic perspective due to the metaphysical principles of proportionate causality that Fr. Ripperger discusses in his book. It also ties into another principle – resemblance – that Fr. Ripperger discusses in that logically life begets life, and this is where evolution differs dramatically with the Judeo-Christian perspective of Catholic teaching. In essence, evolution gets the following two things wrong in this regard:

1. Evolution violates this principle in that, for the evolutionist, lower life that is different evolves into a more diverse higher life.

2. Evolution also gets the process backward in saying that lower – and even non-living substance – evolves into higher living organisms.

a. This would violate the principle of resemblance, as nature dictates only a thing can produce something in its own form (or largely similar at the most)
b. It also violates proportionate causality, in that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. In other words, the cause must be nobler than the effect.

Hence, the reason why I must fundamentally disagree with Zmirak concerning his assertion that Catholic teaching is compatible with evolutionary processes because it clearly is not. While it is true that science is not in conflict with the Catholic faith, it is also fundamentally an error to call evolution “science” in the strictest sense, as in reality, it is a set of theories based on a non-theistic worldview. While I understand this can be murky territory (thanks in part to heretical views that have gained tacit acceptance, in particular, those of the late Teilhard de Chardin), it really should not be at all – God created the natural order of things, and it is only logical that he also is the origin of the laws by which Nature operates. For instance, two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom together produce water, and if you heat water at a certain temperature, it turns from liquid to gas. On the other extreme, if you freeze water at a certain temperature, it solidifies to ice. These are observable, empirical facts that no one could dispute. Likewise, if you drop a ball off a roof, it goes downward instead of up – simple gravity, another empirical scientific reality. On a more complex level, design too has mathematical and physical laws that determine different things – a snail shell, a sunflower blossom, and the structure of the Milky Way Galaxy, for instance, can all be calculated using what is called the Fibonacci Sequence, and the proportions of the human face can be measured using what is called the “Golden Ratio” (equaling 1.618). Many of these fundamental principles of chemistry, geometry, etc., were discovered by men of faith, and today they are universally accepted and readily observable. So no, Judeo-Christian faith is not anti-science; it is just through supernatural grace we have a fuller understanding of how it works, that is all.

Now, seeing it from that perspective, the Church tells us that we can discuss evolution and other systems of thought without accepting or agreeing with them. It is important to know what these things are (a “know thy enemy” principle if you will) so that we may more intelligently address them. But, the Church has never espoused or presented a dogmatic official position on evolution, although many wrongly assume that Catholics accept theistic evolution. On the contrary, people need to understand more clearly what the Church actually says, and essentially it can be reduced down to two things (CCC 159, 2293, 2294):

1. We cannot ignore that these views exist, but we must also inform ourselves as to what they truly entail.

2. While accepting evolution is not fully possible, it is acceptable to find common areas with it and use these as both a tool of education and evangelization

(also true with other beliefs and traditions).

3. The basis of the Church’s belief is enshrined in the historic Creeds, and they all affirm God as Creator of all, visible and invisible.

If we understand the above properly, then encountering a person who believes the evolutionary view should not be threatening, but rather an opportunity for debate, discussion, and even evangelization. Many people who hold to false views on anything do so because they have a skewed understanding of God, Christianity, or the Bible. Our witness to them, as Catholic Christians, is to show them the truth, and it opens doors when we do so. But, a great responsibility is entailed – we must present accurate truth, and not one tainted with bad theology. This is why, as II Timothy 2:15 admonishes, we are to “study to show ourselves approved.”

In conclusion, I now want to offer a few closing thoughts. First, I concur with Zmirak that faith and science are not mutually exclusive and are not in conflict. However, I also would assert that the theory of evolution, in particular, is not compatible with Catholic faith, as evolution is a theory only and not viably scientific. Third, although I think that Catholics who believe in theistic evolution do so in error, if they are orthodox in other aspects of faith then they are still validly Catholic. Zmirak’s book is a good example of this – aside from the theistic evolution discussed in some sections, his book is indeed a valuable resource. Fourth, although some writers (including Zmirak) attempt to justify their views on theistic evolution by appealing to St. Augustine and other Church Fathers, in reality, many of the Church Fathers would actually reject theistic evolution – there were legitimate areas of debate and difference among the Church Fathers regarding how the term “day” in Genesis was interpreted, but no Church Father in their writings ever endorses any form of evolutionary theory. On the contrary, the overwhelming majority of the Fathers were very much creationist in their thinking, as they all would quickly affirm that they believe God created the universe. Many may have possessed what we would call today an Intelligent Design approach to creation, but there were certainly none of them who would have said men came from monkeys. And, further, all would maintain that humanity is a special and unique creation in God’s image. Fifth, metaphysics suggests that evolution is not possible, as it is not logical for something to “evolve” from a lower life form into a higher one that is completely different. A higher intelligence, a “Designer” if you will, is evident in all creation, from the tiniest atoms to the most massive star in the universe. That all being said, it is, therefore, conclusion to note that it is illogical to even entertain the notion that one species “evolves” into another, and macroevolution is not scientific in that it is not observable. That being said, variations within species (microevolution) is an observable fact and is also scientifically verifiable, but despite how one member of a species may be bigger or a different color, it is still the same creature. Finally, where commonality does exist with the Judeo-Christian worldview regarding some aspects of evolutionary theory, it is perfectly fine to acknowledge it, and it is also acceptable to examine and have a good knowledge of evolutionary claims. However, despite apparent commonalities, those should always be viewed as being from a supernatural source for the natural law that made such commonalities a reality and does not validate evolutionary theory in totality. These points will therefore both summarize a response to some of Zmirak’s content, as well as providing further detail on the difference between these matters by appealing to both faith and reason, Revelation and Nature, and in the end one confirms what the other perfects. Thanks again for allowing me to share it with you.

(Originally written 9/20/2019)

True Capitalism vs. Corporatism

2019-10-20T15:37:00.001-07:00

As I write this, it is about 7 AM in the morning and I am sitting in the lounge of a large corporation I am doing some long-term contract work for. I have been in the corporate world as an administrative professional for over 20 years at this point, and a part of the reason I am writing this now is due to a bit of exasperation I have been feeling about the behemoth called "Corporate America," and today is a day in which it would be opportune to talk about it.

My own experience with "Corporate America" started back when I was a couple of years out of college in 1998, and over the years I've worked for several large corporations in a number of industries, as primarily I have done what is called "temp work" during the majority of that tenure. Being a "temp," which is a word I honestly hate to use as I am in reality a contractor, has been a revelatory experience - I have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly in many companies, and with that being the case I have reached a number of conclusions. One of the most prominent conclusions I have come to is that the higher up the corporate ladder one goes, the less practical common sense people possess. Higher echelons of management in corporations have a sort of "tunnel vision." and it is a tunnel wallpapered with dollar signs. Their rabid pursuit within the tunnel often denies the fundamental human dignity of their designated underlings, and the more tragic reality is that those higher-ups are often forced into the tunnel by their superiors who have an even more restricted view of human dignity and less foresight and common sense than even those below them in a management capacity. Observations like that are the primary reason why something like this needs to be addressed.

I want to first define what the term "corporatism" is, as that is the driving impetus behind much of this. According to a Wikipedia definition, corporatism is defined as "a political ideology that advocates the organization of society by corporate groups," and furthermore, it can be classified as a form of fascism due to the fact that sectors of the economy are controlled by a private organizations (corporations) in conjunction with government bureaucracy. Another term for this in its extreme form is syndicalism. The idea of corporatism is often confused with free-market capitalism, although they are definitely not the same. For corporations striving toward this syndicalist view of economy, the term "monopoly" is often used, in that a sort of carnivorous and even cannibalistic insight exists which puts a corporation in a position to take over and eliminate is "competition," which often is a smaller and more "mom-and-pop" type business of some sort. It also seeks to eliminate self-sufficiency of individuals by creating a new class of serfs, these serfs being individuals confined to cubicles in large offices where unreasonable demands and threats of disposability keep them in check, placated as well by "benefit packages." The common "serf" is viewed by the corporate higher echelons as an expendable commodity, and thus the employee "serf" is seen merely a means to the corporate entity's end, and thus dignity of personhood is both diminished and despised. That summarizes the "Corporate America" of today.

In the 1998 cult classic Office Space, we see how this is played out. One reason why this movie is a cult classic is because it presents a very accurate portrayal of the general attitudes of large corporate monopolies and their management. And, people do relate to it. Besides paying the employee an "acceptable" wage however, what it the true benefit of monopolistic corporatism? Very little actually, and we will now discuss why.

The driving force of much of monopolistic corporatism is greed, which is seen as a cardinal vice in traditional Catholic teaching but is worn as a badge of honor in the corporate world. It is what John Horvat calls in his book Return to Order (York, PA: York Press, 2013) on page 2 by the term "frenetic intemperance." The way Horvat defines "frenetic intemperance" is this - an exaggerated trust in our technological society, a terrifying isolation of our individualism, and a self-imposed heavy burden of materialism. The result, as Horvat further notes, is a modern economy that is out of balance, cold, impersonal, mechanical, and inflexible, and it can in time lead to socialism or fascism. Horvat, on page 14 of the same text, gives monopolistic corporatism another name - gigantism - and notes that this mentality undermines the free market as well as attacking rights to private property, and this is all driven by an oligarchy of powerful corporate executives who couldn't give a damn about the workers they manage. Frenetic intemperance, Horvat posits, is the driving force behind corporate gigantism (or monopolistic corporatism).

Hillaire Belloc, in his seminal text The Servile State (London: T.N. Foulis, 1912), mistakenly I believe labels this same mentality as "capitalist," and he notes that the type of frenetic intemperance Horvat refers to creates a moral strain - a contradiction exists between the accumulation of wealth and the moral base of laws and traditions (Belloc, p. 53). This means that in time the capitalist economy gives way to one of two evils, socialism or slaverly, (p. 60), of which in reality both are one and the same. In his book The End of Democracy (Arcadia, CA: Tumblar House, 2017), Christophe Buffin de Chosal notes that true capitalism is a good thing in that it encourages the investment of saved assets to generate new profit. But, as he notes on page 123, there is also a negative capitalism, and this one is enabled by big government that often is funded by corporate entities, and thence the problem. It is a problem which creates a caste system in which, as de Chosal points out on page 69 of his book, discriminates against some in favor of others - the large corporation, for instance, is favored over the small business, and the corporate exec over the data entry clerk. It also discriminates against the consumer as well, in that the pursuit of wealth on the part of large corporations prioritizes quantity over quality, and cheap junk is marketed to consumers at more-than-invested prices. That is, inevitably, where problems and inbalances arise, and the average worker in these corporations is forced onto a ferris wheel of mere survival and is often suppressed. Good, quality work is no longer rewarded, but rather numbers and unrealistic production quotas, which inevitably lead to mistakes and ultimately a tank in quality of work. This is a sad commentary for sure upon Corporate America, although the powers-that-be could care less. So, what of the average worker then who has much to offer but is suppressed? That is where we now go in the next part of the discussion.

The great Catholic philosopher Josef Pieper wrote a classic book in 1952 entitled Leisure: The Basis of Culture, and in it he has some interesting insights. He notes, beginning on page 43, that the "worker" is characterized by these three personal traits:

1. Extreme tension of powers of action
2. A readiness to suffer in vacuo, unrelated to anything.
3. Complete absorption into the social organism - itself planned to utilitarian ends
(Josef Pieper, Leisure: The Basis of Culture. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1963)

So, what does Pieper mean? First, the idea of leisure is seen by this mindset as strange and frivolous: "work for work's sake" is the order of the day. This describes Corporate America to the proverbial tee - numbers, numbers, and more numbers! A production-based environment is stressful, and cold managers expect numbers without taking into account variables, and that creates unnecessary and undue stress on the worker. Pitch-perfect accuracy matters little, as does any other dimension of quality - rather, numbers are the priority. But, mass-production of any sort ultimately leaders to inperfection, and it does one thing - it forces the consumer to invest in more of the product. Inferior quality is almost the prime objective of the corporate hack who is bereft of common sense, and if workers don't produce the anticipated numbers, they are deemed useless and disposable, like used tampons in a woman's restroom. This "corporate exec" mentality is a hazardous bi-product of both Enlightenment thinking and social Darwinism, and it ultimately does diminish God-given personhood. You don't find this mentality in a lot of small independent businesses, but it is rampant in large mega-corporations. Until we address this malady in our society, we face an imminent financial collapse as in time the inferior quality and excess quantity of crap product will implode many large corporations, and maybe that is the goal, as Big Business and Big Government also seem to collaborate in a lot of this. Although it seems like a wild conspiracy, let us now demonstrate it next.

So, the question arises as to if a conspiracy exists between large corporations and centralized governments? On the surface it doesn't look possible until one looks from the perspective of corporatism, especially its fascist dimension. As the Wikipedia article on corporatism notes, the Italian model of Fascism mandated in the 1920's by Mussolini has as its integral component a corporatist system "in which the economy was collectively managed by employers, workers, and state officials at the national level." In order for that to happen, influential corporate executives would have to hold some sway, and in a system like that, they indeed would. Ben Shapiro notes in his book The Right Side of History (New York: Broadside Books, 2019) that even Karl Marx incorporated this into his scheme, and despite Marx's rhetoric of "seizing capital from the bourgeosie" in order to centralize it all into the hands of the state, his scheme needed willing benefactors to make it work, and many of his successors have indeed sought the "unholy alliance" of the corporate tycoon with the statist ideologue, which involved putting at the disposal of the big corporations such apparati as the "eminent domain" privelege, etc. Also, getting Big Business on-board with a leftist agenda is paramount - the small business which holds to traditional values is then seen as an obstacle, and in order for the corporation to further advance its frontiers, the small business must be closed by legal means, and greasing the palms of the right politicians with cash is a sure way of making that happen. It is one reason today, as a matter of fact, why big corporations are often unaffected by stringent regulations while small businesses are often forced to comply or close. As Shapiro notes further in his book on page 140, the catalyst to make all this happen was in the personage of Auguste Comte (1798-1857), although it could be added that Georges Sorel (1847-1922), a Marxist philosopher, equally contributed to this as both of them introduced social Darwinism into economics - this meant a "survival of the fittest" mentality applied to economics in which the stronger multi-national corporation could prevail over and devour smaller business entities, and for the state's economic stability a corporation could use (abuse) state legislation to accomplish doing just that. It is from this that abominations such as "eminent domain" and over-regulation of industries emerged, and a corporate oligarchy benefitted from codified (albeit unjust) laws. Therefore statism and corporatism join forces at this point, and to insure corporate interests were advanced and protected, major financial players even from the time of Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Morgan sought to place leadership in power to advance their own interests, and it worked. It is also another reason why the moguls of huge corporations are often the chief financial backers of very leftist causes - the abortion industry, the LGBT agenda, the teaching of evolution in schools, etc. Like the spokes of a wheel, all of these things go back to one source, and that source is malevolent to the core. Plineo Correa de Oliviera, in his text Revolution and Counter-Revolution, points out specifically why this conflicts with the Judeo-Christian worldview - on page 80, he notes that the Judeo-Christian worldview and its social manifestations (which he called the Counter-Revolution) does not ally itself with what he called "today's hyper-trophied technicalism," which is characterized by its adoration of novelty, speed, and mechanics, and it also opposes the tendency of such a system to organize human society mechanistically (al a Huxley's Brave New World scenario). Spiritual values, Oliviera notes, must take precedence over material considerations. If they don't, then what happens is essentially (and precisely) what de Chosal notes on page 53 of his book - in time, world governments will no longer be the actions of major decisions affecting nations, but rather an oligarchy of major money powers. The opinions of voters then effectively carry no weight because the voters don't have the money - but, the big corporate entities do. As he notes on the same page, "democracy" is a political system that enables organized minorities to hold ultimate power, more so if they have limitless financial assets to do so. The needs of the "little guy" are jettisoned in favor of the oligarchy of corporate execs, and hence the problems. As we will see, it trickles down to how workers are treated as well.

The above is also the reason why I am a Monarchist rather than a Democrat - democracy starts out with mob rule and anarchy, and then a strong force takes it over and turns it into a tyranny. In the case of monarchy, the king is seen rightly as both servant and father to his people, and he is therefore subject to a higher law with a corporate oligarch fails to recognize. Monarchy is tied to tradition, a moral code, and a sense of common decency that the corporate exec or political autocrat in a democracy lacks, and the good of others is the main concern of the monarch, and to note this good - also known as the common good - the monarch appeals to something higher than himself. That something is a combination of divine Revelation and natural law, both of which make a monarch more accountable than either a career politician or corporate executive can be. Once that order is restored and realized, then a fair advantage is given for the small business to thrive as it should. Corporations can exist, and in and of themselves are not evil, provided their motivation is honorable. But, forcing small business competition out of the way by dishonest means, treating employees like automaton droids, and being so greedy that one can't see the higher good doesn't constitute ethical business etiquette, something many of the "Fortune 500" entities have forgotten. It is high time to recover that sense of decency and honor, and to check the unbridled power of billionaire corporate moguls - they are not above divine law, natural law, nor even state law.

Here is the bottom line to all of this. First, it is not necessarily wrong to accumulate wealth, as no one should be hindered. Secondly, in principle large corporations are not wrong either - there are some fine multi-billion dollar corporations out there which provide good services. Third, however, is that the wealth of individuals and corporations should not be based on practices which are unethical, illegal, or dehumanizing to employees or other businesses. Fourth, while responsible government is necessary, no government official should be bought, paid-for, and in the back pockets of any corporate entity. Fifth, all people of creative mind and proper talent should be encouraged to pursue their dreams, free from corporate greed or political interference. If those five things are recognized and practiced, it could effectively end corporatism and instead lead to a rise in both social betterment and economic growth. This, I feel, can also only be achieved by one form of governance, and that is Christian monarchy.

Christian monarchy is based on a balance of power - the worker works, the soldier defends, and the noble leads. This is not to be done in a superior manner that either diminishes personhood, but rather in a way that values contribution. Such a system, under Biblical precepts would also provide the virtue of charity to those who lack certain abilities through no fault of their own, and in doing so, it shows everyone has value as a creation in God's image. The corporatist model lacks this in so many ways, in that it stresses the production-based operation, and the result is that only in true Social Darwinian fashion only the most productive carry value while anyone is expendable. The corporatist model is greed-based and lacks authentic charity, and thus it falls short. It is the reason why movies such as 1998's Office Space and the film Outsourced from a few years later are popular. It is also why country singer Johnny Paycheck sang a hit song in the 1970's called "Take This Job and Shove It." The corporation does not address dignity of personhood (other than a skewered politically-correct version of it, or a lawsuit compels them to) but rather asks "how is this good for the company?" Also, the stranglehold Corporate America has gained over the American economy has choked the life out of having passion for what one does - people are reflexively programmed to get up at the same time and then sit in little cubicles from the majority of their days, with only one purpose - paying the month's living expenses. Corporations have stripped quality of life from so many, and it has created a less-inspiring environment in many offices and other workplaces. Pieper notes the word for such apathy is acedia - basically, this translates as a stick-in-the-mud apathy (Pieper, p. 44). This acedia is a discontented feeling many of us have, and St. Thomas Aquinas called it a sin against the Third Commandment - taking God's name in vain. That bears a whole discussion of its own, but what Pieper is saying is that the pursuit of work eventually robs us of reflecting on who and what we are in God, and faith in God is taken for granted or even in vain. Good point, and the potential source point of a future article! Essentially, in reading further in Pieper's book, it is adequate to say that leisure and idleness are not the same - you can essentially be busy and idle at the same time, and indeed we get so caught up in working and paying bills this day and age that it makes us complacent and idle in other areas. We forget things, housework suffers, and Christian service is seen as fruitless and not profitable. I can definitely see the wisdom in what Pieper says.

In short, Corporate America forces us to sin against the Third Commandment by holding a pink slip over our heads - if we dare pursue higher things, we can lose our livelihood and means of survival. It is, essentially, tantamount to a form of paid serfdom, but in some aspects feudal serfs were much better off than today's average employees in corporations.

The idea of how Corporate America is exploiting both the personhood of workers as well as national economy is not lost on many writers. One in particular, political commentator Pat Buchanan, gives a discussion on that in his book The Death of the West (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2002). On pages 32-38, Buchanan makes the following observations about this:

1. The post-industrial economy has wreaked havoc on the family due to a necessity of two-income households.

2. Women, being forced into the workplace by economics, are causing an inbalance as many qualified men are losing out due to a combination of radical leftism and greed-driven corporatism.

3. Birth rates are down in Western society due to the inbalance caused by more women in the workplace.

4. Because young men are stripped of their fatherhood and family duties, many are left in bad situations, and they are often under-employed or even unemployable.

This inbalance is in line with Pieper's acedia, where large mega-corporations are forcing people into "ruts" and the primary outcome of this is detrimental on a lot of dimensions. What I have called corporatism earlier is given another name by Buchanan - economism. Buchanan defines economism as a mirror-Marxist ideology that many is a mere economic animal, and that free-market capitalism is abused to benefit some at the expense of others - the beneficiaries then begin to embrace Horvat's definition of "frenetic intemperance," and an inbalance results. All of this is orchestrated by the hands of mega-corporations, and their "billionaire boys' club" of leaders have used their influence to manipulate national economies for at least the past 150 years or so. A lot of it can also be attributed to the theories of the flaming homosexual economist John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946), whose economic theories blended corporate interests with big government, and in a lot of ways Keynes is the progenitor of Corporate America and its excesses.

This witches-brew of Keynes, Comte, a bunch of corporate billionaires, and their big-government beneficiaries constitutes the main culprit for the nasty inbalance we see in our modern economics, especially when it comes to the personal lives of the average worker. It is a system that is fundamentally flawed, has the wrong focus, and it violates so many things in regard to the Biblical and Magisterial concepts of dignity of personhood as well as transcendental properties of being such as truth, beauty, and goodness. Obsession with production and dollars diminishes an appreciation for the greater good and what constitutes it, and in doing so, it diminishes the quality of life God intended for us to have. On that, we close with a short Scripture lesson.

In Luke 10, Jesus is visiting the home of His good friends Mary and Martha and their brother Lazarus, whom He'd raised from the dead. The apparent scenario here was that Jesus was invited by His friends to a dinner at their home, and while Jesus is visiting and imparting some eternal wisdom in informal pre-dinner conversation to others there, Martha is busying herself in the kitchen and is also getting flustered with her sister Mary for not giving her a hand. Martha finally basically tells Jesus to tell Mary to get the lead out and help her, and Jesus responds in this way (to paraphrase) - "Martha, stop a minute and smell the roses, girl! Your sister is getting some good stuff here, and you could use it too. You are so busy you are missing out." Martha demonstrates a perfect example of Pieper's definition of acedia in his book, as he defines that on page 45 as a deep-seated lack of calm that makes leisure impossible, which eventually manifests outwardly as visible frustration and despair. Leisure, in the true sense on the other hand, is not equivalent to "being busy," and instead is roughly related to "going with the flow." It is further defined as a serenity that allows for productive action, but not at the expense of the more important things in life. Mary in the story exemplifies that leisure - she was not being lazy or shirking her responsibilities, but rather saw a bigger picture and decided to explore it. This gives an important lesson then for us.

We as a culture are caught up in a malaise of consumer-driven busy-ness, which only serves to enrich the oligarchial "Billionaire Boys' Club" of corporate moguls. It is rife with distractions, deadlines, and other clutter, and it has gotten us severely out of focus. As Catholic Christians, it is time to reclaim the focus, and a paradigm shift back towards the family-centered business - true capitalism, in other words - needs to happen. If it did, I believe people would be more fulfilled. It is obviously not practical to totally eliminate big corporations, but rather, they need to be kept in check so that they don't violate the opportunities of others. Until we are able to get it in check, society suffers, and only a radical shift will restore what once was. Thanks for allowing me to share this lengthy discourse, and hopefully some of this will be a beacon of encouragement to those caught in the corporate "rat race."

(originally written 9/11/2019)

When Dislike and Complaining Are Good Things

2019-07-23T09:28:00.000-07:00

This past Sunday, the parish priest in his homily expounded upon the Gospel reading of the day, which was based on the passage in Luke 10:38-42. The priest, Fr. Larry Donohoo, brought out a couple of profound points about this passage that most have never considered, and there is a certain amount of liberation in hearing these insights. I wanted to do my own lesson on this today based on the information I gleaned from Fr. Larry's homily this past Sunday, and it will hopefully give some perspective to others as well.

Let us first look at the Gospel passage itself. In it, Jesus is invited to the house of his friends, Mary and Martha and their brother Lazarus (the same Lazarus Jesus would raise from the dead). At this visit, apparently Jesus was invited by his hosts to share dinner with them, and while Martha is rushing about getting everything ready, her sister decides to "sit at the feet" of Jesus and sort of drink in His wisdom. Martha, like any hardworking woman who is trying to prepare a nice dinner, is by this point getting exasperated and she then lets her feelings be known by complaining to Jesus about Mary's apparent laziness and asking Him if He even cares (a little rude for a host to ask a guest, in my observation) that this is going on. Jesus, in effect, tells Martha to sort of "chill out," and that there is something greater going on here than merely a dinner or Mary shirking her responsibilities to help her sister - as verse 42 of the passage records, He essentially says "You are worried and upset about all these minor details, but your sister is seeing the bigger picture here - you should maybe stop, take a breath, and maybe soak up a little of this great wisdom yourself." That is not exactly what the text says, but it is the message Jesus is getting across. Martha's problem, in this case, was fussing over the minor details while missing the bigger picture, which is one application we get from the passage. It also communicates that Martha was not exactly happy with her sister either, and although we cannot concretely draw a conclusion, perhaps some sibling rivalry and other things were involved, which now leads to what the core dimension I am taking from this entails.

If you will note the passage, although Jesus tells Martha to essentially "chill out," He is not condemning her for complaining. He also doesn't focus on the aggravation that was between the sisters either - we read nothing of that in the passage either. However, what we do get from the passage in retrospect is this - there is a sense of familiarity to us about the situation, as many of us have been there at some point. As a matter of fact, if we read this passage within the overarching context of all Scripture, it makes a couple of enlightening insights to us that Fr. Larry pointed out in his homily and that I intend to expand on shortly. But, the big takeaway from all this is simply that it is not wrong to be human, and to have human feelings about things. It means that God is big enough to handle our limitations because he created us. And, on occasion, he can even use those limitations for his ultimate purpose. We can now expand on this at this point.

Fr. Larry made two important points about this passage that many of us who have read it over and over throughout the years often miss, and let's take a look at them:

1. You can dislike someone and still love them - you don't have to like everyone to demonstrate Christian charity.

2. It is also OK to complain to God about what is bugging you - our prayers don't have to be flowery, poetic, and nice all the time - the prayer of the heart can at times express frustration and even anger, and God is big enough to take it.

Growing up as I did in a fairly traditional Holiness/Pentecostal environment and later converting to the Catholic Church, I too have displayed a flawed sense of what it means to relate to people and to God. We at times are almost altruistic in the way we deal with others if we are Christians, as we feel an obligation to "be sweet" to everyone and "play nice" even when it drives us out of our minds to do so. Likewise, in our prayers as well often we think that we always have to sound "religious" in our prayers and that we should emulate some sort of saintly piety, even when we feel otherwise. When we do that however, we are not being honest with God, and that can create bigger problems. As Fr. Larry pointed out in his homily, many of the Psalms themselves, as well as even the prayers of some in Scripture, were of a complaining nature - the people praying them were limited human beings with a finite human nature, and often were far from perfect. And, to be honest, they were not expected to be. Our dislikes of certain individuals therefore and the frustration we need to vent are also intimately connected, which now leads to some individual insights on both issues.

Let's take the fact that not everyone is likeable, and realistically we should not be expected to like every human being in the world. To be honest, some people are just, well, a pain you-know-where, and to be honest you want to fish-slap them when you even look at some of these people. That is natural, and perfectly understandable, because we all have been there if we're honest with ourselves. It is a universal fact that you are not going to like everyone you encounter, and likewise not everyone is going to like you either - just being you at times will rub people the wrong way, even if you don't intend it to be so. It is not even that you are necessarily doing anything wrong, but someone just decides you are a person they dislike, and you will be viewed that way by them regardless of how nice you try to be or how friendly you are with them. And, there are people like that who do that to you as well - you don't know why you cannot stand them, but you just cannot. In a situation like that however, you ask yourself this question - if that person was to be in a situation where they were in immediate danger, would you try to help them? If you could honestly answer "yes" to that, then you are actually better off than you thought, because what that means is that as much as you cannot stand them or even intensely dislike that person, you still value them as a human being, and would not deny charity to them if they were in that situation. Respecting dignity of personhood and valuing any human life transcends a dislike of a person's individual quirks, and if you can see that, you then would actually love that person while not liking them. Let's now take it to a more personal level.

I am going to talk about my experience with this, as it may help someone else. As many who know my story have heard, my parents divorced when I was quite young, and for the majority of my childhood I was raised by my divorced mother. Although my parents are my parents, they were not pleasant people - my father tends to be manipulative and controlling, and even is slightly racist, while my mother is a person who doesn't really care about anyone but herself and does everything she can to make herself as obnoxious and unpleasant to people as she can. God knows why they are like this, but I have a personal confession to make about them - I dislike both my parents as individuals because neither of them were exactly supportive of me as a kid and to this day I don't feel really all that comfortable being around either one of them. But, do I love them? Of course - they are my parents after all, and they are also fellow human beings created in God's image, and in that regard they also share genetic and biological roots with me. While it can be hoped that they will one day straighten themselves out, at this point both are in their 70's and the likelihood of that happening is negligible at best. And, that is how I deal with my own struggles in this area. I also have some very disagreeable in-laws as well that have caused some problems over the years, and the same thing applies to them as well - I cannot stand them personally, but if they were in a bad way I would offer a hand to them. The crux of Christian charity is rising above the personal feelings without denying them and doing the right thing, even when it involves a person who you cannot stand. We often hear the phrase that "Jesus loved everybody, and so should we," and indeed that is true - but, Jesus was also fully human as well as being fully God, and there were some people even He could not stand. Do you think He really liked the Pharisees and scribes who were constantly bugging Him like bothersome gnats? When you read in Scripture about those accounts, He was not overly thrilled about them honestly, as they disgusted Him with their behaviour, but that didn't mean He didn't love them and indeed, a couple of them (Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea) actually become His disciples later, while another, a guy named Saul, undergoes a dramatic conversion in the Book of Acts and becomes St. Paul, the great Apostle of the the early Church. Love entails honesty as well as charity, and we have to get the stones as Christians to love people honestly and not just merely "put on the happy face" because of a misconception of the common excuse "that's what Jesus would do." In other words, Jesus disliked some too, and it is something we inevitably will do ourselves, so let us at least do so with honesty and in time who knows what witness that will be? A harsh word in honesty will often go further than a dishonest smiley-faced front.

Nadia Bolz-Webber, the eccentric and somewhat theologically liberal Lutheran pastor who has generated a lot of her own controversy over the years, also has said some things on this subject I personally agree with, although she did so in a somewhat unorthodox and volatile way. In particular, she did a sermon once called (and forgive me, but I am quoting her title - disclaimer alert!) "God Forgives Assholes." The gist of that message was simply this - we can forgive but that doesn't mean we have to be the person's best friend. Dislike can entail forgiveness in other words, and disliking someone is not the sin - it is what we do because of the dislike which determines a lot. Bolz-Weber herself for instance is someone I actually dislike - her theology is off, she's outlandish in her presentation, and she can come across abrasive and nasty. Yet, I also have enough Christian charity to acknowledge where she is right (even with strong language in this case) and see a kernel of truth. Also, Bolz-Webber is not a person I dislike so much I couldn't talk to her - it would be good to maybe sit and have a conversation with her sometime over coffee and a scone and it is possible to even be friendly with those one disagrees with, which is a whole other issue I want to now move to.

The whole like/dislike thing also has another dimension to it as well - there are some people we may be 100% in agreement with as far as politics, theology, worldview, etc., are concerned, but for some reason we may not be able to stand to be around them. On the other hand, there are people who may be polar opposites of the spectrum from us, yet for some reason they can become some of our dearest friends. Especially among those of us who are more conservative theologically and socially (as I am), this has generated a lot of debate and controversy over the years, and I am going to cite a couple of historic examples. I have gained a lot in recent years from reading the works of Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain (1882-1973), and his seminal text The Twilight of Civilization (1939) is one of the most profound things I have read (in the future, I have a few insights I want to share from it too here). He is fairly orthodox as a Catholic scholar, and much of his material has great relevance for our time. But, when talking with fellow conservatives and traditionalists, an issue regarding Maritain comes up - one of his best friends was Saul Alinsky (1909-1972), who was a cultural Marxist and also exerted a lot of influence over many people - Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and others - who have been responsible for the detriment in our society in recent decades. Does Maritain's friendship with Alinsky nullify the relevance of his works for orthodox Catholic writers? I would say personally for me it wouldn't. While his friendship is not one of the best highlights of his legacy, Maritain was still a great philosopher and he wrote many good works that a Catholic in good faith can glean wisdom from. Likewise, there is the great Jesuit theologian Henri de Lubac (1896-1991), who has two very good (and solidly orthodox) texts I use frequently entitled Catholicism (1938) and The Splendor of the Church (1956), which was quite insightful in my understanding of the Creeds. However, de Lubac also had a controversial association with another Jesuit cleric by the name of Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), a quasi-heretical theologian who unfortunately pushed transhumanism, modernism, and theistic evolution onto Catholic thought, and has done some serious damage. By all indications, I don't note any Teilhardism in de Lubac's writings that I have read, but they were noted as being good friends regardless. So, does that mean that I cannot use de Lubac's works for insights? Not at all - as a matter of fact, the rule of thumb I have with anything is that where it is consistent with historic faith, it is to be preserved, while anything in opposition to historic faith is to be chucked out. Other controversial friendships over the years have included famed Southern Catholic writer Flannery O'Connor's association with mystic and questionable theologian Thomas Merton, and also Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar's friendship with Protestant theologian Karl Barth. Even in the political spectrum too, many unlikely allies can be found on occasion - two of note are the openly gay Milo Yiannapolis and transgender Blaire White, who surprisingly are also aligned with the conservative political position on many things. Yet, on the other end of that argument, I often see some of the nastiest people who otherwise share my views on many things too, but I cannot stand to be around them - one that comes to mind here is evangelist Jimmy Swaggart. I could also add others from "televangelist land" to that list, such as Pat Robertson or John Hagee, not to mention a number of what we call "rad-Trad" Catholics who are openly anti-semitic and uncharitable despite their being orthodox and correct in many other areas. The complexities of human relationships make the subject of like/dislike somewhat more complicated that surface impressions - it is highly possible to like those who have radically different worldviews as friends while disliking others who may share your convictions but may be total jackasses as human beings. But, while it is natural and not wrong to like or dislike different individuals, it is imperative that we love them as fellow human beings regardless who they are as individuals, and an extreme situation such as a natural disaster or an accident on the highway will determine that quickly.

The second point that Fr. Larry brought up in this whole discussion is the idea of complaining. When it comes to prayer, many of us have a preconceived notion of what constitutes an authentic prayer, and we think that if we stray from those conventions somehow we dishonor God. However, in looking at both the accounts in Scripture as well as just practical everyday life, we as human beings are not always holy and sanctimonious, and we deprive ourselves of many things when we try to put up fronts and avoid honesty about ourselves. God wants us to be open with him, and to be honest we have nothing to lose with doing so because he already knows us better than we do ourselves. What that means then is that we go to him with our needs, and we do so as honestly and openly as possible, and sometimes that may not be pretty! Over the years, I have had more shouting matches and fights with God than many will ever know, and I have cussed him out on occasion, given him ultimatums, and threw some nasty tantrums at him - I wouldn't dare divulge that to everyone in detail obviously, and let me just say that if someone were ever to hear one of those moments, I would probably have my own Christianity questioned. Thankfully, God doesn't see it that way, and often things are not as they appear - often, the most intense, seemingly hostile fits we throw in our prayers at times are the very things that remind us of how much we do rely on God, and the fact we would not be even talking to him at all if we didn't believe in him. Faith is a mysterious thing that can take a lot of manifestations, and that may even be anger and frustration at times - remember, for instance, the story of Jacob wrestling with the angel in Genesis 32:22-32? Jacob said he wasn't going to let go of the mysterious stranger (seen by the Church as an early typology of Jesus) until he was blessed, and he walked with a limp after that "prayer meeting!" Also, just like with our spouses and other loved ones, conflict happens, and the arguments at some point are inevitable as you are not always going to agree on everything with even the person you love the most - why should God be any different in that regard? Difference is though, usually God ends up being right anyway, and just like that spat with our spouse that happens, once everyone cools down apologies happen and life goes on - I have had to apologize to God a lot on occasion, and thankfully he is always forgiving of me, perhaps more than I am of myself. So, the next time you don't feel the "joy, joy, joy down in your heart" when you pray and you instead feel like giving God a tongue-lashing, it doesn't mean you are any less spiritual or reverent toward God - you still love him, he still loves you, and perhaps he allows you to vent in order for you to ultimately feel better. Or, in the case of Job when Job was complaining, God gently will remind us once we cool down that perhaps we didn't see the full picture, and that maybe we acted out of haste before we thought things out - I do that, you do that, and practically every human being alive has done it if we are all honest with ourselves. So, yes, you can complain as a form of prayer too, and there would be something seriously wrong with you honestly if you didn't at least once in your lifetime. Your love for God, just like your love for your spouse, should go deeper than any emotional outburst, and at the end of the day you know the love is there despite how ticked off you might get. And, without sounding silly and somewhat formulaic, I will nonetheless say that God is also a big boy, and he can take it - he transcends us on so many levels anyway, and he sees past the frustration we may feel and will deal often with the root issue that the frustration stems from in the first place.

I am hoping that this series of rambling observations will be encouraging for you, as I know that some reading this may have struggled in these areas. It's OK, in other words, and perhaps this is the very bit of wisdom you need at this moment, or perhaps you have a past situation that now in retrospect you can see you were probably better off than you thought you were at the time - no, God is not going to deep-fry you in the grease pit of hell just for getting a little emotional or not being able to stand to be around someone else. Those feelings are completely normal, and as long as you have the wisdom to know the difference for instance between dislike and hate, you will be fine. Thanks again for allowing me to share, and will see you soon.

Pleading the Blood - The Truth

2019-07-18T06:09:00.000-07:00

As a convert to the Catholic Church from the Pentecostal tradition, there is something I have been pondering for some time that needs a solid teaching, and that is this whole idea that many Pentecostals and Charismatics have about "pleading the Blood of Jesus" over everything and anything. The question here is - is "pleading the Blood" even Biblical? That is what we want to explore.

Among Pentecostal and Charismatic circles, the practice of "pleading the Blood" is a common one, and almost a tradition among them. For years, I even prayed that sort of stuff myself even. But, even as I participated in it, something in the back of my mind - a still, small voice if you will - kept gnawing at me and asking, is this right to do? The more that voice asserted itself, the more I was coming to realize that perhaps the Holy Spirit was trying to say something to me about it, so I thought I had better explore the question a little more. And, so I did. Here is what I came up with.

When the Blood of Christ is mentioned in Scripture, it essentially is in reference to two things:

1. The forgiveness of sins through the Atonement.
2. Healing of the physical body as another promise of the Atonement.

The application of the Blood of Jesus then is tied to what we as Catholics would understand as sacramental grace - due to the fact it entails both the forgiveness of our sins and the healing of our bodies, for the Catholic the Blood is tied into at least three of the seven Sacraments of the Church - the Eucharist, Confession, and Unction. If that is the case then, why do so many of our Pentecostal brethren attempt to "plead the Blood" over their cars, finances, and other things then? That is where we need to consult the pages of Scripture to see where this idea comes from.

Many Pentecostals who engage in this practice point to one thing in particular that they can gain some justification for their idea from, and that is Exodus 12:7 - prior to the event of the Exodus itself, the Israelites in Egypt were instructed at the first Passover to slaughter an unblemished lamb and sprinkle its blood on the doorposts of every home to protect it from the judgment God was about to mete out on the Egyptians, in this case the death of the first-born son of every house. The Exodus was indeed a foreshadowing of the coming of Christ, but it doesn't mean that every event deserves repetition - what God told Israel to do literally at that time has no bearing on the promises of the Atonement, as rather we see it as a typology of the Atonement in that it symbolized God's salvation of His people from destruction, that is all. For the ancient Israelites, it was a literal deliverance and salvation from the bondage of Egyptian slavery, but for us as Christians it is the liberation from the effects of death and sin. It must be understood that everything that happened in the Old Testament were real events, but at the same time God used real events to point people to Christ - that is the bottom line of why Scripture is important to us in retrospect. Christ is at the center of all Scripture, and thus everything points to His personhood and His divinity. It doesn't mean though that we as modern Christians have to repeat every single action we read about in Scripture though, which is a major weakness with many faithful Pentecostal people.

Pentecostals often try to bring into the present a past event like the Exodus by pointing to some New Testament references for their justification, such as I Corinthians 5:7, where Jesus is rightly called our "New Passover Lamb." They also take passages such as Hebrews 12:24 and I Peter 9:26-28, both of which refer to the sacrifice of Himself Christ did for us to redeem us and forgive us our sins, as a model for their practice. Other passages, such as Romans 3:25, are used as well in speaking metaphorically of Jesus as a lamb, and these things are taken as a mandate by some Pentecostals to do exactly what the passage says - applying the Blood - to every aspect of life in order to gain some sort of special merit. They however fall short here, as the references in Scripture would more aptly point to the Passion of Christ, and thus would be more in line with the Catholic position of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which is for our salvation. And, it therefore reduces the Precious Blood to a talisman or a mere pious superstition, which is what I want to talk about now.

It is important to understand that trivializing holy things and reducing them to some sort of magic act is tantamount to blasphemy, and many well-meaning Pentecostals who "plead the blood" over everything from their doorposts to their diamond rings don't realize what they are truly doing when they do that. It in essence reduces the Blood to a mere pious "tradition of men" and a quasi-occultic talisman and it makes those who do such things minimize the true benefits of Christ's sacrificial act for us. I have talked in the past of various manifestations of what is known as "charismatic witchcraft," and the more I understand how erroneous this whole "plead the blood" practice is, the more I am becoming convinced that it is a form of witchcraft. If anyone reading this is doing it, stop immediately - by denigrating the ultimate gift of God to save us in such a way, you commit blasphemy without knowing it. This leads to one final observation before I conclude.

Many people who are engaged in this practice of "pleading the blood" are often also some of the most virulently anti-Catholic individuals - they mock the Eucharist, and make allegations against Catholics by saying we supposedly "crucify Jesus all over again." In reality, that is not what the doctrine of the Eucharist is about, and as I explained in my studies on Scott Hahn's The Lamb's Supper, it doesn't have anything to do with that. But, to humor those who would say such a thing and make dumb accusations, let's say that it did - they criticize Catholics for the Eucharist, yet they throw the blood of Christ around like beads at a Mardi Gras parade, so who is being more disrespectful? As we have noted several times before, the Eucharist is Biblically-based, and it also has substantiation for its observance over two thousand years of Church history. The whole "pleading the blood" practice though does not - it is less than a century old, and many of those who teach it are also dubious in other areas as well, as they are mostly televangelists on religious television who do a number of other outlandish things and try to blame the Holy Spirit for it. Some Pentecostals and Charismatics like painting themselves as "spiritually elite," yet in this and so many other areas, they often show a woeful lack of spiritual maturity, and as a result many of them fall away fast when the pressures of life challenge them. A good recent example is a former classmate of mine from my undergraduate days who recently has taken a shocking turn in his life. When we were in school together over 20 years ago, this guy was noted for being a super-charismatic - he was on staff at one of the biggest megachurches around then, and he was so Charismatic in his practice that people got the impression that he was some sort of spiritual powerhouse. This guy was also a good friend back in the day too - we talked a lot about many things, and when he later became a priest in an Old Catholic group of some sort, he often would call me to "pick my brain" on things regarding the Eastern Church and such. However, only a few short years ago, it was almost as if he fell off the face of the earth, as I lost touch with him. When I found him on social media some years later, he had drastically changed - he ended up divorcing his wife, moving to Asia, and by all appearances he has embraced the "gay lifestyle" and spends a lot of time photographing semi-nude male models in weird poses. This was one of those people who engaged in the practice of "pleading the blood" at one point, and at this time he is engaging now in a sort of revisionism of the lives of the saints and of Christian doctrine itself by making it more "gay-friendly" - one of his recent things he wrote about was part of the whole "gay Christian" appropriation, for instance, of certain saints of the Church (in this case, Saints Sergius and Bacchus) by recasting them as "gay lovers" based on the mis-translation of some Greek word. One of what used to be the most on-fire Pentecostals I knew, in other words, is now an activist for the LGBT community and is resorting to blasphemy and historical revisionism to justify himself. It is a slippery slope to base faith and religious belief on emotions, as it can have some catastrophic consequences, and the whole "pleading the blood" idea sounds good, but in reality it can cause a lot of damage, as can any blasphemous or heretical practice.

I may have gotten a bit harsh toward the end of the last paragraph, but I do so with good reason - the miracle of salvation and of the fact that God Himself became man to save us is a precious thing, and I would even go as far as to say that the decision one makes to follow Christ is the most important life choice one could ever make, as it is for eternity (or, more correctly, has eternal consequence). Especially in a society that grows more irreligious and secular (the culmination of almost 400 years of Enlightenment influence), it is vital that we approach Christ with a spirit of humility and of reverence, two things sorely lacking among many who profess Christianity of any sort today. One reason I am no longer Pentecostal myself is due to that very thing - while there are many fine people who are devout Christians in Pentecostal groups to which this doesn't apply, there are also many more who display an arrogance and just a nasty attitude that in no way reflects the Lord they claim to serve, and also lacks the fruit of the Holy Spirit they claim to revere. They turn out to be obnoxious jackasses to be honest, and anyone who is around such people quickly picks up on that too - it nullifies any potential Christian witness that such people could have had. Often it is these sort of people who flippantly throw around the whole "plead the blood" schtick as part of their own little pious masquerade, and they don't understand the implications of their behavior. They will one day have blood, in other words - the blood of many people they could have reached but did not crying from their own hands. That blood will have a different sort of plea - the plea of those who died in their sins for justice against those who could have showed them the way but didn't. That is frankly not a plea one should desire to hear, as it is a hallmark of shame. On that note, I want to now conclude with a few challenges for some different groups of people.

If you are one of those Pentecostals, Charismatics, or even Evangelicals or Catholics who has gotten caught up in the whole "pleading the blood" practice, I challenge you as Saint Paul did young Timothy to "study to show yourselves approved" by educating yourself on what the true purpose of Christ's Blood is about. As you do so, renounce what you have been doing, and ask God to forgive you for it, as you need to get this right. If you are a person who has been hurt by this sort of thinking and either have come to your senses or maybe were at the receiving end of some Pentecostal nut throwing the Blood around flippantly, I first offer an apology to you on behalf of Christians as a whole, and also would ask that you not let this color your perception of Christians nor hinder you from examining the claims of Scripture and of Christ for yourself. "Traditions of men" such as "pleading the blood" over one's favorite shoes and other such nonsense have done more harm to the evangelistic mission of the Church than many realize, and it is important to discard those things and focus on true belief and faith instead. NO ONE should be hindered from receiving a chance to accept Jesus Christ and believe in Him, and no fruity, overly-pious, goofy Charismatic fad should hinder anyone in doing so either. The time has come for Christians to stop playing games with their faith and with the fates of others, as we live in a world that is increasingly hostile to the truth of God's Revelation, and we cannot afford any messing around, as that could create innocent martyrs. This was a tough message to write today, but hopefully it will impact others who read it. God bless until next time.

The Three Promises

2019-07-12T09:25:00.000-07:00

When someone accepts the claims of Christ and trusts in Him for the ultimate promise of salvation, a covenantal relationship happens. Christ promises several things based on that relationship to those who follow Him, and there are three promises, in particular, I wanted to deal with today. First, however, I wanted to clarify some things prior to getting into the actual discussion.

To begin, it must be understood that the promises I will be talking about are not contingent upon salvation, but are rather fruits of salvation. There are actually a couple of promises though that are contingent upon salvation, and they are made possible through sacramental grace - the first is forgiveness of sins (which is represented through both the sacraments of baptism and reconciliation) and healing of the whole person (primarily represented by the sacrament of unction). The two of those are always tied together, as they both represent a type of restoration that Christ fulfilled in His Atonement. As we go through our pilgrimage of faith though, it doesn't take a degree in rocket science to understand that we are still in this natural world, and thus are still subject to certain necessities that are warranted by the process of life and survival itself. Those promises are given by God throughout Scripture in many places we will be discussing, and they are the result of the covenantal relationship of faith we have in Christ. There are three of those promises that are specific to our discussion, and each will be discussed at length momentarily - provision for our needs, protection from damage of adversity, and direction for important decisions and choices we make. Upon those three promises are what rest our trust in God beyond the grace of salvation, and are not conditional to salvation but are residual benefits we receive.

Over the years, teachings on similar things have been taken out of focus, and we will deal with specific cases of that later as we discuss each of these three promises individually. However, the purpose of those three promises is to provide the stability to do that which God has called each of us to. Especially if you are in full-time service to the Church, these promises are crucial, as often a sacred vocation is not something that will land one in the "Fortune 500" or on a high-society registry. With that being established, let us now take each promise and initiate our discussion on them individually.

A. Provision of Needs

If you are like me, you often find yourself placing a priority on financial concerns and other needs in your daily prayers, and in this day and age finances seem to dominate our prayers for some reason. Does God grant material needs? Looking at Philippians 4:19, we see our first and pivotal verse about this - it says "God shall supply all your needs according to His riches in glory." Let us unpack this a little, as at times this is a big one which has generated its own plethora of misunderstandings and misapplications. The first thing that comes to mind for many is the stereotypical image of the televangelist on religious television programs making statements such as "if you sow a seed, you'll meet a need." The term for this type of "teaching" is either Positive Confession or "Word of Faith," and its detractors call it "Name it and claim it" or "blab it and grab it." This faulty application, as we discussed earlier, has its genesis in what is known as the New Thought movement, which itself was a derivative of Christian Science. In the early 1900s, a Baptist minister by the name of Esseck William (E.W.) Kenyon (1867-1948), who began teaching some ideas that were similar to the New Thought understanding of words creating reality (R.M. Riss, "Kenyon, Esseck William," in Burgess, Alexander, McGee, Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988. p. 517). This later entered the Salvation/Healing Movement among American Pentecostals via first Oral Roberts, who first taught the idea of "sowing seed," and later was more associated with Kenneth Hagin (1917-2003), who was a tent-revival Assemblies of God evangelist who later was considered the "founding father" of the Word of Faith movement. Hagin, and the dozens of his proteges such as Kenneth Copeland, Frederick Price, and others, emphasized a teaching that centered on an uncompromising faith via "positive confession" (meaning speaking things essentially into existence that are not there as a work of exercising that faith) in God's desire to bless in every area of life provided no doubt entered the picture. This has at its core a Biblical truth (based on Philippians 4:19 and other such passages) that was taken, twisted, and made to be something it was never originally intended. It is important to understand that the key word in the Philippians verse is needs. Over the years, Hagin and his myriad of successors and imitators (most prominent today being Joel Osteen) have twisted this idea in such a way that essentially they thought it was possible for God to even grant wants (or more aptly and rhythmically, greeds) and they taught people to treat this promise as if it were a quasi-occultic talisman or something, and that is where we have some serious problems. I want to spend a little time on this now, as it is pivotal to the discussion.

If what Hagin and others like him taught were true, a little common sense would dictate that results would be obvious - the mega-church parking lots where many of these people spout this stuff should be overflowing with Mercedes Benzes, Lamborghinis, and Lincolns, and instead of asking for more money, those preaching that message would supposedly have so much that they'd be giving it away and living by "sowing their own seeds," would they not? Sadly, this is not the reality - oftentimes, those who are sucked in by the heretical "Word of Faith" teachings are often among the poorest, and those who teach it are the only ones benefitting from it, as they fly around in multi-million dollar private planes and live in palatial estates that were financed by people who often cannot even afford a bicycle, much less an Oldsmobile. And, it also begs the question too - I am in no position to judge the hearts or intentions of such "teachers," but it seems to me that if they truly believed what they tell others, they would be handing out cash to everyone because they would have more of it than they know what to do with. Yet, I don't see that - people who "sow a seed" to these people are often on the verge of losing their homes, or cannot afford to feed their families or pay their bills, yet they are not seeing Kenneth Copeland knocking on their door to help them, do they? Hence, in the well-worn but appropriate axiom, the emperor has no clothes. However, there is a more balanced way to look at this, and that is where the crux of my teaching here rests.

In Philippians 4:19, we are told that God will supply all of our needs, and this generates some questions. First, what is a need? To answer that, a need is something that is vital to a person's stability and survival, while a want is a luxury that someone could actually live without. Needs like this include food, shelter, utilities, reliable transportation, and financial resources to cover those things. They may not be anything pretty - for instance, you may have a need for transportation, but God provides either a 1980 Chevy with a bad paint job or enough cash to provide a bus ticket - but it is a need that is met. When we look in Scripture, we see a lot of examples of that type of provision being made, notably in I Kings 17:2-16, where Elijah is fed by ravens in a cave, or in 2 Kings 4 where his disciple Elisha stays with a poor widow and she manages on meager rations to have enough to feed her son and Elisha while the latter stays with her. We also see it even with Jesus Himself, in the feeding of the five thousand - a couple of loaves and a few stinky fish feed a huge number of people and provide a need for satisfying a pang of hunger. These are examples of God supplying needs. One could also point out in Exodus the manna and quails God provided for the Israelites to eat in the wilderness - although they were not satisfied with it, those manna bits and quails supplied a need. These Scriptural examples are something that should show us the perspective God comes from on this - he does care for us, and because he created the natural order he knows very well those things we need to survive, and if we put our trust in Him, He will take care of us. And, that is the proper context of the idea.

Also in the context of supplying needs, there is a sort of meritocracy involved. This meritocracy has nothing to do however with our salvation, as that cannot be earned, but rather it has to do with being awarded the fruits of our labor. If you have a certain level of skill, education, or experience, then you deserve to have an occupation that provides dividends. To divert any confusion on this, it in no way is the same sort of nonsense that Kenneth Hagin and his successors proclaim - you don't just get something for nothing, as that is not how the natural order of things works. However, if you work toward something, then doors can open, and you deserve to harvest the fruits of your labor - this is reminiscent of a truth embodied in James 2:20 which is wrongly applied by some sects as being soteriological but rather is meritocratic - "faith without works is dead." It also doesn't mean the incorrect saying "God helps those who help themselves" either, as that comes from Enlightenment-era Deism and Freemasonry and is not Biblical, although there is a valid principle at its core. What it means simply is this - if you do your part, God will provide the increase to it, rewarding faithful labor. Personal success then doesn't get handed to someone on a silver platter - you work toward it, and thus it is cultivated fruit and not a "faith promise."

Noting all of these things, the provision of our needs then summarily consists of two dimensions:

1. Our basic necessities will be covered if we trust in God to do so, but they may not be luxurious provisions yet will meet the need we have.

2. Personal success cannot be "confessed," but rather is the result of merit in the area we are striving to achieve something, be it the promotion at work we have invested a lot of hard work into earning, or that graduate degree we have studied hard to achieve. This is not a "positive confession," but rather a cultivated fruit that will not be given to someone who doesn't invest the effort into it on a silver platter.

3. Provision of our needs is not a clause of our salvation, but rather is a fruit of walking in our salvation.

B. Protection From the Damages of Adversity

This is another interesting promise God has made, and again, what it entails is not freedom from adversity, but rather the strength to overcome it and come out better. Adversity is a fact of life we all face - as a consequence of the Fall, adversity is a sure bet at some point in all of our lives, and it is inescapable. The question is not if we face adversity, but rather when, and how we face it. The primary passage in Scripture that addresses this is the famous "Armor of God" passage in Ephesians 6:10-18, and accompanying that is another verse from Isaiah 54:17 - "No weapon formed against me will prosper." In my personal prayer time every morning, I always "put on" the armor of God based on the promise in Isaiah that weapons pointed at me will not take me down, and it's actually a good prayer to have. Let us unpack this some more, shall we?

What is the purpose of wearing armor after all? It is to protect the soldier in battle, not to help the soldier avoid battle. If the battle could be avoided, the armor would not be needed - that is just plain common sense, right? Within the passage of Ephesians 6 that deals with this, the reason for the armor is given from the outset, that we might stand in the "evil day." So, what is an "evil day" then? It is not a collective event, as every one of us faces an "evil day" at some point. If you are on social media, for instance, and you are standing up for your faith and traditional values, inevitably someone will get "triggered" and go on the attack - the moment that happens is an "evil day." Or, it could be while you are shopping and a thug attempts to mug you at an ATM - that also is an "evil day" when it happens. The "evil day" when is that moment when we face adversity of some sort, and it may scare and intimidate us. But, if we trust in God, eventually it works out, because as Romans 8:28, all things work together for good for those who love God and are called according to His purpose. Even a bad situation can be clay in the Master Potter's hand, and He can use that to mold and shape our character. I want to now go to two prime examples of this in Scripture, and then I want to share how in retrospect this has worked in my life.

Let's first look at the story of Joseph, one of the progenitors of the Twelve Tribes of Israel and a son of Jacob (his favorite actually) which we begin to read about in Genesis 37 and continues until the end of the book, as the story of Joseph is even longer in some aspects than that of Abraham, his great-grandfather. Joseph is essentially spoiled rotten and protected by his father Jacob, so much so that he is given special treatment and even given a very expensive piece of clothing. This arouses the jealousy of his brothers, who actually entrap him and sell him to some Arab slave-traders who in turn sell him to Potiphar, a high official in the Pharaoh's government. God uses this experience to bring Joseph to where he wants him to be, as Joseph had a lot of bizarre dreams and they led him to this point. However, adversity strikes again when that hussey of a wife of Potiphar's tries to molest Joseph, and he flees but is falsely accused of trying to molest her - this lands him in prison, where he has a series of dreams that get the attention of the Pharaoh eventually (I am abbreviating details of the story of the butler and baker), and he ends up in effect becoming the Pharaoh's prime minister - not bad for a nomad's son from Palestine, is it? Adversity struck Joseph hard, in other words, but God preserved him. We also see a similar situation in the story of Job too, in which Job is attacked mercilessly by Satan to try to prove God wrong, but Job prevails and is abundantly blessed later for it. Again, that whole Romans 8:28 thing comes in.

It is true also in my own life too - when I was around 9 years old, my mother and I ended up in a chaotic situation that left us dirt-poor and destitute for a number of years. Yet, during that time, I worked at my studies, and eventually, I was able to complete both my Bachelor's and Master's degrees. God made the way possible, and often in lieu of less-extreme circumstances I admittedly forget that and get impatient with Him, but He reminds me of where I came from. One other aspect of adversity is that it is in a sense the fertilizer in which character grows. The sweet-smelling roses or succulent tomatoes we often enjoy from our gardens and flower boxes are often nourished by the foulest and nastiest fertilizer - ground-up cow dung, decaying animal carcasses, etc. Yet, out of that mess grows the beautiful rose or the succulent vegetable. That is how the adversity we face in life often works to our benefit. It is also why we pray for God to protect us - we don't pray necessarily for him to protect us from the adversity, but rather from being destroyed by the adversity. What often is meant for our destruction can actually be exactly what we need to grow us, and that is one reason God allows the adversity to happen, but he also will help us navigate through it.

In summary, there are two things to glean from God's promise of protection:

1. We are often not spared from going through the adversity itself but are equipped to go through it without lasting damage.

2. Adversity is not necessarily evil, although it may have initially been intended to be so - rather, it is a chance to cultivate and grow our character.

C. Direction for Important Decisions and Choices

Have you ever been in a position where a life-changing decision has faced you, and you are not sure what to do? If you go one direction, it may have one consequence, yet if you go another, it could have other consequences. The permanence of the consequences for whatever decisions we make can make or break us, and thus they are things that cannot be entered into lightly. As Christians, God has clearly promised to guide and direct us in all we do, and it is our responsibility to trust him to keep that promise. Again, Romans 8:28 comes into play, as all things do work together for our good. In this context, the rightness or wrongness of our decision is not the factor, as even when we screw up God can use that to bring us to the place he wants us. Rather, it is about relying on God to make the appropriate decision for the current situation, and in doing so it requires a lot of trust.

There are two main passages besides Romans 8:28 that relate to this promise. The first is in Psalm 119:105 - "Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path." The second is Psalm 37:23 - "the steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord." A third and very important verse is also related to this, in that we should expect and accept nothing less than clear spiritual direction, and that verse is in I Corinthians 14:33 - God is not the author of confusion. I am going to discuss various aspects of this now, as they are very important to the study.

We as human beings are limited, and as a result, bad decision-making at some point is inevitable. A bad choice or decision on an important issue can lead to a lot of negative impact for our lives and those of our family, so obviously these things are not to be taken lightly. When we rely on God for direction, we should pray for and expect nothing less than a clear answer. This has nothing whatsoever to do with His faithfulness, but rather with our own propensity to go on feelings and other misleading criteria. To see an example of how this works, we look at the story of Gideon in Judges 6:36-40. In that account, Gideon was the de facto leader (judge) of all of Israel, and as his people moved toward their Promised Land, they faced a lot of obstacles - hostile tribes such as the Midianites in this case. Gideon knew that based on his own wisdom he could not strategize successfully to battle the Midianites threatening his people's camp, so he did something interesting. In order to get God's direction, Gideon took a wool fleece, and based on whether it was wet or dry, he would take it as God's direction to render his decision. He wanted to be absolutely sure he was doing the right thing, so he did this test three times, and God did what he asked all three times. The result was a successful battle and a momentous win for the people of Israel, and it got them closer to their destination.

In my Pentecostal days, it was often a common practice to "put a fleece before the Lord" in order to discern the proper way to go about making a decision, something I still do today I might add. Many times it works, and I have been able to do some remarkable things because I sought God's direction in that way. I don't recommend that this be done in every circumstance, as it can degenerate into superstition, but it can and does prove to be an effective way to get a solution to a problem. Another practice related to this that some do is the discipline of fasting. Fasting is typically to be observed as an act of self-denial in order to draw close to God, and over the years I have learned it is never proper to fast for direction, as this amounts to essentially just a "hunger strike" to get what one wants from God, and it doesn't work that way. Fasting is first and foremost an act of worship - you are denying self to give God more of a central place in your life. If you fast for simple direction, it will not avail much as God is not the object of the discipline, but rather your need is. That is why I would never suggest that anyone fast for direction - you fast as an act of adoration, not to get something. Many Pentecostals have misunderstood that over the years, and it was only after understanding Lenten devotion better that I learned how to observe fasting and abstinence properly. It is my hope that more of these people who have a misunderstanding about the discipline of fasting would see the light as well.

In summary, there are two things we understand about God's promise to give us direction:

1. If we seek divine guidance, we need to ask that it be given to us in a clear way, to avoid the confusion with our own feelings.

2. It is OK to do a tangible expression of seeking direction - such as a "fleece" - but never use the spiritual discipline of fasting and abstinence in that regard.

Now that I have explored these promises in detail, it is time to add some concluding thoughts.

Conclusion

There are many more things that could be said on this topic, and one area I wanted to touch on but forgot to do so is the practice of "pleading the blood of Jesus" as an act of asking for protection. I have decided to do a separate study on that later, as honestly, it would take more detail to talk about that, but it is needed teaching for sure as many (including until recently myself) have misunderstood that. However, as a precursor to that, let me just say this - the precious and sacred should never be reduced to mere talismans, for then they become the focal points of our faith rather than God Himself, and that is a form of witchcraft. Again, I will deal more in-depth with that at another time though.

I hope this study, like other insights I have shared, will be a help to someone, as it is my prayer that what I write here will be used of God to touch others and make an impact. If it does, you are always welcome to share it. Until next time, thank you for allowing me to share my own insights with you, and hopefully will be back soon.